SARH to go
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Age: 66
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sven;
"Well, **** happens and I would not try to defend the record of the military winch - specially as we don't seem to have enough to fit them in all required machines in Afg."
I wish you hadn't said that. We were trying to move this thread back to hard fact and not the "Vicky Pollard" style of debate. (This is not an attack on you but a comment that in your innocence you have have re-opened a wound with your remark; a remark that I think is considered and unprovocative. However I fear someone might "bite".)
Someone is now going to say;
"The military winch is perfect because it was designed by a pilot with 120 years experience of military SAR flying."
"The military winch is flawed because the SAR pilot had no knowledge of SAR winching because he had been flying up front and had not operated a winch for 120 years."
"The military winch was chosen for the helicopter by a civilian engineer who had only 120 years experience of civilian winching and had no grasp of winching military casualties."
"The casualties had only been winched regularly for 120 years by civilian crews and had no understanding of the requirements of military winching."
"Advice given by military winchers should not be applied to winching in a civilian context unless they have been offered lucrative employment with the civilian winch manufacturer."
"Advice given by military winchers should be or not be applied to winching in any context despite them having been offered lucrative employment with the civilian winch manufacturer."
"Although the military advisers were not actually winchers their advice should have been taken except where it should not."
"While civilian winchers were alleged to be advised by military winchers the military winchers gave their advice on the understanding that it did not specicifically apply except where it was specified in retrospect to apply."
"The civilian winch adviser should not be listened to in case he is right and other parties are proved wrong."
I hope he doesn't pick his line from the above, but I fear he will.
Now back to the point of this little interlude in the thread.
There was a winch glitch. Normally no one would notice or care but it comes on top of a number of other minor problems which accumulate to destroy a reputation. That is the point.
"Well, **** happens and I would not try to defend the record of the military winch - specially as we don't seem to have enough to fit them in all required machines in Afg."
I wish you hadn't said that. We were trying to move this thread back to hard fact and not the "Vicky Pollard" style of debate. (This is not an attack on you but a comment that in your innocence you have have re-opened a wound with your remark; a remark that I think is considered and unprovocative. However I fear someone might "bite".)
Someone is now going to say;
"The military winch is perfect because it was designed by a pilot with 120 years experience of military SAR flying."
"The military winch is flawed because the SAR pilot had no knowledge of SAR winching because he had been flying up front and had not operated a winch for 120 years."
"The military winch was chosen for the helicopter by a civilian engineer who had only 120 years experience of civilian winching and had no grasp of winching military casualties."
"The casualties had only been winched regularly for 120 years by civilian crews and had no understanding of the requirements of military winching."
"Advice given by military winchers should not be applied to winching in a civilian context unless they have been offered lucrative employment with the civilian winch manufacturer."
"Advice given by military winchers should be or not be applied to winching in any context despite them having been offered lucrative employment with the civilian winch manufacturer."
"Although the military advisers were not actually winchers their advice should have been taken except where it should not."
"While civilian winchers were alleged to be advised by military winchers the military winchers gave their advice on the understanding that it did not specicifically apply except where it was specified in retrospect to apply."
"The civilian winch adviser should not be listened to in case he is right and other parties are proved wrong."
I hope he doesn't pick his line from the above, but I fear he will.
Now back to the point of this little interlude in the thread.
There was a winch glitch. Normally no one would notice or care but it comes on top of a number of other minor problems which accumulate to destroy a reputation. That is the point.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the seasoned observer, the most entertaining thing about Rotorheads is that Crab usually is right! And oh, how the others don't like it. He doesn't get much back-up from his RAF buddies because he doesn't need it. 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Coast
Age: 79
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether to Use Reserve Winch or Otherwise
The Captain used his very proffesional and expert judgement and deceided against using the reserve winch as indicated below.
On arrival at vessel CPR being carried out by crew on boat. Lowered winchman to RIB and he elected for immediate Double Lift of casualty. As winchman and casualty were winched clear of vessel we haad a hoist failure on the aft hoist. (hoist will winch out but not in) Recycled hoist switch and winched in a further 5ft and hoist failed again. Due to winchman and unconcious casualty being 10ft below the aircraft and winchman having difficulty keeping casualty in the two strops, we elected to transit 1/2mile to an outcrop of land on Portland Island where we winched out the casualty and winchman to the deck. We landed on 10ft to the right of casualty and winchman. Winch op got out the a/c and winchman and winch op recovered casualty into the back of the a/c. We were then able to recover the winch cable as per normal as there was no weight on the wire. Flown direct to Dorchester A&E Hospital LS
The above operation took 3 minutes far less than trying to employ the reserve winch,. a decision the Captain & crew need commending for.
The Captain used his very proffesional and expert judgement and deceided against using the reserve winch as indicated below.
On arrival at vessel CPR being carried out by crew on boat. Lowered winchman to RIB and he elected for immediate Double Lift of casualty. As winchman and casualty were winched clear of vessel we haad a hoist failure on the aft hoist. (hoist will winch out but not in) Recycled hoist switch and winched in a further 5ft and hoist failed again. Due to winchman and unconcious casualty being 10ft below the aircraft and winchman having difficulty keeping casualty in the two strops, we elected to transit 1/2mile to an outcrop of land on Portland Island where we winched out the casualty and winchman to the deck. We landed on 10ft to the right of casualty and winchman. Winch op got out the a/c and winchman and winch op recovered casualty into the back of the a/c. We were then able to recover the winch cable as per normal as there was no weight on the wire. Flown direct to Dorchester A&E Hospital LS
The above operation took 3 minutes far less than trying to employ the reserve winch,. a decision the Captain & crew need commending for.
Agreed Sapper - exactly the right thing to do.
Sounds like a nightmare with an unconscious casualty in a double strop lift with a winch failure - even our SAR standards wouldn't pull that on someone!!
Seriously - a good job by all the crew
Sounds like a nightmare with an unconscious casualty in a double strop lift with a winch failure - even our SAR standards wouldn't pull that on someone!!
Seriously - a good job by all the crew
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good gutsy call. Just 'cause its there doesn't mean it over rules common sense, and this was practical common sense, crew co-operation and Captaincy in spades. Well done.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aft of Frame 290
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has gone quiet, is Crab on holiday?
A working holiday down south. I hear that the present RAF SAR commander is leaving to join SARH. Time for us all to bale out?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Coast
Age: 79
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Brief extract from this evenings Dorset Echo
Safety fears on new rescue helicopter
8:50amFriday 24th October 2008
South Dorset MP Jim Knight said: “I have been encouraging Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick to ensure the MCA and its contractors are urgently dealing with this so the new aircraft are working to their full potential.”
A spokesman for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency said night cover was being provided by other aircraft supplied by the contractor ‘until such time issues with the new aircraft are resolved’.
He added the contract with the company providing the helicopter service ends in 2012 and there were no plans to end it, but he stressed: “There is a scheme in place which allows deductions to be made for non-performance which will be used in this respect. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures which allows a last resort of termination of the contract.”
Gulp!! Where may we get aircraft, crews, engineers should such a thing happen?
Safety fears on new rescue helicopter
8:50amFriday 24th October 2008
South Dorset MP Jim Knight said: “I have been encouraging Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick to ensure the MCA and its contractors are urgently dealing with this so the new aircraft are working to their full potential.”
A spokesman for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency said night cover was being provided by other aircraft supplied by the contractor ‘until such time issues with the new aircraft are resolved’.
He added the contract with the company providing the helicopter service ends in 2012 and there were no plans to end it, but he stressed: “There is a scheme in place which allows deductions to be made for non-performance which will be used in this respect. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures which allows a last resort of termination of the contract.”
Gulp!! Where may we get aircraft, crews, engineers should such a thing happen?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have asked before and got no response to the suggestion/question. The 92 has issues, the 139 has issues. Where is the EC225 in all this and even maybe still not build but a future prospect the EC175????
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victor Papa
I have asked before and got no response to the suggestion/question. The 92 has issues, the 139 has issues. Where is the EC225 in all this and even maybe still not build but a future prospect the EC175????
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I might buy the crashworthiness bit with the "old" design to a point. Let us look at it from a different point of view. The 225 has done a extroadinary number of hours since it's introduction-how many problems/rejected missions/emergency landings? The range and especially payload is extremely impressive. In offshore they battle to use the full payload so fitting a ferry in the rear or 2 should be no problem on payload for SAR. Yes, the cabin is lower, but where I operate and the average hoist operator is 6 ft the 92 has no specific advantage. I could not stand in the S61 doing hoisting so may just as well do it in a modern ability exceeds payload aircraft. Cabin is big other than height. Why is the 225 not considered? If I look at the problems with the 92 and 139, the 225 will be a compromise in cabn height and crashworthiness under extreme conditions only, but I will take my chances in this ultra reliable and comfortable product. Just my 2 cents I do not have