SARH to go
Oh Dear...it seems to me that the real culprits here..CHC and MCA are hiding under the duvet covers.The fact is that between them they cocked up the spec for equipping the AW139 or at least were gambling on certification of the AFCS with SAR modes being completed earlier than it has.
Common sense would have made sure external equipment selected would be A) up to the job and B) fitted high enough to be clear of soft ground...after all who hasn't seen an S-61 bog down in muddy field conditions.More critically they must have known Certifiaction of the Primus SAR modes was behind schedule as the nights were drawing in but did nothing until the crews protested.
Let's put the fault where it truly lies ,not with the aircraft which performs well in SAR elsewhere, if the right equipoment is selected by the operator ,and not with the crews who know their job and limitations (thank God......read the US EMS reports for crews who didn't ).
Common sense would have made sure external equipment selected would be A) up to the job and B) fitted high enough to be clear of soft ground...after all who hasn't seen an S-61 bog down in muddy field conditions.More critically they must have known Certifiaction of the Primus SAR modes was behind schedule as the nights were drawing in but did nothing until the crews protested.
Let's put the fault where it truly lies ,not with the aircraft which performs well in SAR elsewhere, if the right equipoment is selected by the operator ,and not with the crews who know their job and limitations (thank God......read the US EMS reports for crews who didn't ).
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crabette Slapping
Crabette,
When you launch upon a diatribe against Pilots, Crewmen and Ops Staff about whom you know very little please ensure your arguments are authoritative and accurate. A sound knowledge of the AW139 and its equipment fit would be a good place to start. Until then, please keep your uneducated comments to yourself.
From your nom de plume, I understand you to be ex/serving RAF? This wouldn't be a surprise as you spout the same b*ll*cks as Crab@.
When you launch upon a diatribe against Pilots, Crewmen and Ops Staff about whom you know very little please ensure your arguments are authoritative and accurate. A sound knowledge of the AW139 and its equipment fit would be a good place to start. Until then, please keep your uneducated comments to yourself.
From your nom de plume, I understand you to be ex/serving RAF? This wouldn't be a surprise as you spout the same b*ll*cks as Crab@.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crabette slapping
Having read prune for many years this is the first time I have felt so incensed that I have needed to post.
As someone who knows a number of the AW139 SAR crews I feel it is necessary to defend them; despite the fact that I may be rising to the bait.
Crabette's comments are extremely offensive. All the crews are, already, highly embarrassed by this state of affairs. It would appear that the post serves no purpose but to fulfil an incomprehensible desire to release a vitriolic attack on the aircrew involved. Why? (See below).
Perhaps it would assist all those reading this to assess the validity of the aforementioned post, if I were to point out just one example (of the many) as to why these crews are so keen to return to night service.
Almost all of them have been resident within the vicinity of their bases for a period of many years. As a result they are a part of the local community. Their friends and families use the local beaches, cliffs and sea, for recreation and work. By their actions they have directly removed a vital level of safety cover from their nearest & dearest. I doubt very much this would have been done unless there was a valid, carefully considered, reason?
Most of the crews have both military and civvy experience and have been in the business of SAR for tens, if not scores, of years. Many hold some form of 'recognition' in the form of awards; and all are used to providing the SAR service in conditions where normal a/c are grounded.
All are making every effort to work with the employer and get back to providing some sort of night service. The question is not; 'why don't the crews go back to work?'; it is:-
How was this state of affairs allowed to come to being in the first place? What is being done to prevent a re-occurrence for SARH?
Any answers?
I can only surmise that the rumour that Crabette was closely involved with the selection of this airframe in the first place, and is currently involved with the CHC SARH bid, is accurate.
As someone who knows a number of the AW139 SAR crews I feel it is necessary to defend them; despite the fact that I may be rising to the bait.
Crabette's comments are extremely offensive. All the crews are, already, highly embarrassed by this state of affairs. It would appear that the post serves no purpose but to fulfil an incomprehensible desire to release a vitriolic attack on the aircrew involved. Why? (See below).
Perhaps it would assist all those reading this to assess the validity of the aforementioned post, if I were to point out just one example (of the many) as to why these crews are so keen to return to night service.
Almost all of them have been resident within the vicinity of their bases for a period of many years. As a result they are a part of the local community. Their friends and families use the local beaches, cliffs and sea, for recreation and work. By their actions they have directly removed a vital level of safety cover from their nearest & dearest. I doubt very much this would have been done unless there was a valid, carefully considered, reason?
Most of the crews have both military and civvy experience and have been in the business of SAR for tens, if not scores, of years. Many hold some form of 'recognition' in the form of awards; and all are used to providing the SAR service in conditions where normal a/c are grounded.
All are making every effort to work with the employer and get back to providing some sort of night service. The question is not; 'why don't the crews go back to work?'; it is:-
How was this state of affairs allowed to come to being in the first place? What is being done to prevent a re-occurrence for SARH?
Any answers?
I can only surmise that the rumour that Crabette was closely involved with the selection of this airframe in the first place, and is currently involved with the CHC SARH bid, is accurate.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: holland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIMSAR cover down South
Crabette,
You talk about how great the Irish were, providing LIMSAR with their S61 to cover for the AW-139. That's all fine and very brave, but remember that Lee went 'Live" as of April. As a reminder, in the summer it gets dark too! This means they have been providing LIMSAR for 6 months and I agree with them that enough is enough!
Especially bearing in mind that they are THE units to be called out first and expected to do the job safe and effective, in all weather. LIMSAR doesn't fit in this equision
You talk about how great the Irish were, providing LIMSAR with their S61 to cover for the AW-139. That's all fine and very brave, but remember that Lee went 'Live" as of April. As a reminder, in the summer it gets dark too! This means they have been providing LIMSAR for 6 months and I agree with them that enough is enough!
Especially bearing in mind that they are THE units to be called out first and expected to do the job safe and effective, in all weather. LIMSAR doesn't fit in this equision
Crab, oops sorry, Crabette.
I hope you feel better for that. Unfortunately all you have done is show just how little you know or understand about the current situation. Or are you hiding behind someones coat??? CHC emblazoned perhaps!!
We are all deeply embarrassed by the way this has panned out. We are more than six months down the road since the 139 was introduced to service, at Lee, and we are only now getting towards making this machine safe for night ops in the U.K. Agreed a lot of work has been done in the last 2 weeks, and is still being done but the question is.. why has it taken so long and why did it take direct action to get things moving??
In a previous post, I said that the previous contractor was complacent in the bid for this interim contract!! CHC are now equally complacent in just assuming that the crews will " just get on with it!" Recognise those words?? You should do, you used them in a previous post when I had the temerity to suggest that the 139 was not up to the job. Who's right now?? And by the way, I have no say in whether this aircraft is fit to fly at night or not!
We are here to provide a service to the public as you so rightly point out, but we need the correct equipment to do that safely! Give us that equipment and we will "get on with it!" And I don't mean a Bristow S61!!!
There is no point in a shiny new 139 whizzing out at warp speed into the middle of the Channel and then not being able to do the job through lack of safety margins/equipment that should have been fitted from new build!! "Crab" would be the first one on the bandwagon saying they could/should have done the job in the first place.
The whole idea of this interim contract was to go forward, well let's do just that!!
3D
P.S.
I missed your post before it was got at by the mods. Hope you enjoyed it.
I hope you feel better for that. Unfortunately all you have done is show just how little you know or understand about the current situation. Or are you hiding behind someones coat??? CHC emblazoned perhaps!!
We are all deeply embarrassed by the way this has panned out. We are more than six months down the road since the 139 was introduced to service, at Lee, and we are only now getting towards making this machine safe for night ops in the U.K. Agreed a lot of work has been done in the last 2 weeks, and is still being done but the question is.. why has it taken so long and why did it take direct action to get things moving??
In a previous post, I said that the previous contractor was complacent in the bid for this interim contract!! CHC are now equally complacent in just assuming that the crews will " just get on with it!" Recognise those words?? You should do, you used them in a previous post when I had the temerity to suggest that the 139 was not up to the job. Who's right now?? And by the way, I have no say in whether this aircraft is fit to fly at night or not!
We are here to provide a service to the public as you so rightly point out, but we need the correct equipment to do that safely! Give us that equipment and we will "get on with it!" And I don't mean a Bristow S61!!!
There is no point in a shiny new 139 whizzing out at warp speed into the middle of the Channel and then not being able to do the job through lack of safety margins/equipment that should have been fitted from new build!! "Crab" would be the first one on the bandwagon saying they could/should have done the job in the first place.
The whole idea of this interim contract was to go forward, well let's do just that!!
3D
P.S.
I missed your post before it was got at by the mods. Hope you enjoyed it.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3D Cam
It's obviously been a difficult time for the crews, and it seems to me from reading this thread that the aircraft as put into service was not appropriately equipped for the task. Three questions occur to me:
Did the aircraft as delivered meet the MCA requirement spec?
Who did the acceptance testing, and who did they report to?
Are you in a position to give details of what the shortcomings actually are?
There are other agencies looking at this aircraft for various tasks, and knowing where the deficiencies are, and what it might take to rectify them, would be useful to many people. But I can see that posting such might be frowned on by CHC or MCA or both.
Sven
It's obviously been a difficult time for the crews, and it seems to me from reading this thread that the aircraft as put into service was not appropriately equipped for the task. Three questions occur to me:
Did the aircraft as delivered meet the MCA requirement spec?
Who did the acceptance testing, and who did they report to?
Are you in a position to give details of what the shortcomings actually are?
There are other agencies looking at this aircraft for various tasks, and knowing where the deficiencies are, and what it might take to rectify them, would be useful to many people. But I can see that posting such might be frowned on by CHC or MCA or both.
Sven
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crabette slapping
Having 'broken my duck', so to speak, I can't resist adding that my better half commented, on reading crabette's post; 'Is there going to be a similarly irrational post this time next month'!! 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crabette Bitch slapping????????????????
"Bitch slapping" could be right, but from your username I conclude you have it the wrong way round. Its not the bitch that is BEING slapped, more the ....................... well I dont want to get edited by the mods.
NUFF SAID, all the south coast crews have my 100% support even if I don't fly with them anymore. And I know the SUMSAR crews will do a sterling job whilst on detatchement. Just don't have TOO much fun wazzing the beaches boys, I know what you're like when you have an adoring public to wave at
Si
NUFF SAID, all the south coast crews have my 100% support even if I don't fly with them anymore. And I know the SUMSAR crews will do a sterling job whilst on detatchement. Just don't have TOO much fun wazzing the beaches boys, I know what you're like when you have an adoring public to wave at
Si
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
please help a lowly fixie wing get a proper job
sorry I cant contribute on a level with your discussions but I need help.
I am very keen to get into SAR. Currently a fixed wing guy with quite alot of experience and a background of air ambulance I have found myself in a very unrewarding job in a Scottish airline. My dream is to convert my licence to atplh but at present I only have a ppl h .
With a young family on the make and a tight budget I am keen to exploit any assistance I can toward my cplH in return for a long term commitment.
Who should I approach?
Thanks and keep up the good work.
I am very keen to get into SAR. Currently a fixed wing guy with quite alot of experience and a background of air ambulance I have found myself in a very unrewarding job in a Scottish airline. My dream is to convert my licence to atplh but at present I only have a ppl h .
With a young family on the make and a tight budget I am keen to exploit any assistance I can toward my cplH in return for a long term commitment.
Who should I approach?
Thanks and keep up the good work.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scotch Land
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red, red whine......
Maybe the red flag to a bull was waved….?
Sorry to 3D for getting ‘personally’ close to home.
On the ‘professional’ home front however;
With this Interim contract, new equipment was introduced. So, it turns out that not all your bells & whistles were going to be provided on time or indeed necessarily the ones that you would want. So a LIMSAR cab was introduced, I’m sure no party, neither MCA, nor CHC were overly happy, but it was the beginning of an ‘Interim phase’ and a LIMSAR period with the move towards AWSAR the goal. Not going to happen overnight. Perhaps it was felt the HK and Meridian could speed up the process? Only undoes the years of hard work and excellent service by the crews who have always made good of the limited equipment at their disposal-IMHO
Could not agree more that safety is the number one aim in aviation, albeit you SAR crews are required to risk assess yourselves into dangerous territory to do the job. As a LIMSAR cab with proposed improvements to AWSAR level, was the aircraft given a fair chance in the LIMSAR role? Only you and the crews can answer that. You all spent time online in the past with backup LIMSAR S61 cabs and managed a service. If you had spent the last 10 – 20 years on you ‘current AW139’ and then been given a ‘backup LIMSAR’ S61 as you new cab for example, what would you think to that? No a lot I’m sure….well size does matter, couldn’t agree more!
With new technology, in a short time frame and with limited financial resources, it won’t work to your every wish list! Suffice to say that will always be the case no matter who is running the show, or specifying the fit. Can’t please everyone obviously, I should know as you have to be bloody hard to please me!
New aircraft and ‘old’ crew came on line after a quick honeymoon together. (It was an arranged marriage and you guys don’t want your bride), sorry but Miss S92 was already engaged, a ‘high maintenance’ model and not without her snags either! You know it’s a women thing.
The manufacturer and CHC, obviously both under very tight schedules have commenced the LIMSAR service with outstanding deficiencies to be addressed. You knew this, yet it appears to all outside that you have ‘forced’ a show down in public without allowing time for the belated modifications and upgrades needed for the AWSAR ability. This is the reason for the slapping!
Not a professional move airing dirty laundry in public. But since you have brought it outside for all to see, I’m not surprised that all the crews want to get back to some sort of normality. SAR is a demanding role, in a demanding environment. Yes you don’t want a demanding aircraft. Is the current 139 too demanding for highly trained crews to provide a safe LIMSAR service?? What are the other SAR 139 operators working with? What are they capable of? What is on their wish lists? Since we don’t hear them complaining in public maybe they are getting on with the job, doing the best they can with the tools they have and quietly adding the improvements and procedures needed to provide a SAR service. They probably want your current cabs on their wish list!
ASER: can you help out please???
MOST IMPORTANTLY
To all crews concerned; fly safe and lots of love, you do a fantastic job.
Lastly; the rumour that I'm expecting Crab@'s baby is ~#*^
Sorry to 3D for getting ‘personally’ close to home.
On the ‘professional’ home front however;
With this Interim contract, new equipment was introduced. So, it turns out that not all your bells & whistles were going to be provided on time or indeed necessarily the ones that you would want. So a LIMSAR cab was introduced, I’m sure no party, neither MCA, nor CHC were overly happy, but it was the beginning of an ‘Interim phase’ and a LIMSAR period with the move towards AWSAR the goal. Not going to happen overnight. Perhaps it was felt the HK and Meridian could speed up the process? Only undoes the years of hard work and excellent service by the crews who have always made good of the limited equipment at their disposal-IMHO
Could not agree more that safety is the number one aim in aviation, albeit you SAR crews are required to risk assess yourselves into dangerous territory to do the job. As a LIMSAR cab with proposed improvements to AWSAR level, was the aircraft given a fair chance in the LIMSAR role? Only you and the crews can answer that. You all spent time online in the past with backup LIMSAR S61 cabs and managed a service. If you had spent the last 10 – 20 years on you ‘current AW139’ and then been given a ‘backup LIMSAR’ S61 as you new cab for example, what would you think to that? No a lot I’m sure….well size does matter, couldn’t agree more!
With new technology, in a short time frame and with limited financial resources, it won’t work to your every wish list! Suffice to say that will always be the case no matter who is running the show, or specifying the fit. Can’t please everyone obviously, I should know as you have to be bloody hard to please me!
New aircraft and ‘old’ crew came on line after a quick honeymoon together. (It was an arranged marriage and you guys don’t want your bride), sorry but Miss S92 was already engaged, a ‘high maintenance’ model and not without her snags either! You know it’s a women thing.
The manufacturer and CHC, obviously both under very tight schedules have commenced the LIMSAR service with outstanding deficiencies to be addressed. You knew this, yet it appears to all outside that you have ‘forced’ a show down in public without allowing time for the belated modifications and upgrades needed for the AWSAR ability. This is the reason for the slapping!
Not a professional move airing dirty laundry in public. But since you have brought it outside for all to see, I’m not surprised that all the crews want to get back to some sort of normality. SAR is a demanding role, in a demanding environment. Yes you don’t want a demanding aircraft. Is the current 139 too demanding for highly trained crews to provide a safe LIMSAR service?? What are the other SAR 139 operators working with? What are they capable of? What is on their wish lists? Since we don’t hear them complaining in public maybe they are getting on with the job, doing the best they can with the tools they have and quietly adding the improvements and procedures needed to provide a SAR service. They probably want your current cabs on their wish list!
ASER: can you help out please???
MOST IMPORTANTLY
To all crews concerned; fly safe and lots of love, you do a fantastic job.
Lastly; the rumour that I'm expecting Crab@'s baby is ~#*^
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a quick reminder, here is what was said in only March this year:
Two AW139s will be based at Lee on the Solent and one at Portland.
Peter Cardy, Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency said:
"The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new AgustaWestland aircraft as part of our strategy of utilising differing aircraft specifically for the varying coastline we enjoy in the United Kingdom.
"These new aircraft will be able to fly more quickly, and will be able to fly farther to people in distress at sea than those currently in use.
"They have been specifically kitted with various items of advanced technical equipment, including an on board automatic identification system (AIS), specifically designed for the challenges of search and rescue in the 21st Century ".
The AW139s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability.
The aircraft are also slated to be used in a search and rescue role in Spain, with UAE, Australia, Italian and Japanese authorities also intending to use these aircraft for SAR purposes.
Mr. Cardy continued
"We look forward to working with CHC who are fulfilling this key role and taking search and rescue work into a new era, and can bring their wealth of experience of search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway to the UK.
CHC's UK SAR contract manager Ian McLuskie said
"The introduction of the AW139s represents the latest key phase in our work with the MCA to introduce new technology to civilian helicopter search and rescue work in the UK and provide an effective, efficient service that reflects modern-day needs."
All of the above must be true because it is two highly experienced "SAR to the core" people that have been quoted.
Isn't it just a load of meaningless management b*ll**** ?
Regards,
CD
PS. Haven't heard much from the two clowns quoted above since the debacle became public.
Two AW139s will be based at Lee on the Solent and one at Portland.
Peter Cardy, Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency said:
"The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new AgustaWestland aircraft as part of our strategy of utilising differing aircraft specifically for the varying coastline we enjoy in the United Kingdom.
"These new aircraft will be able to fly more quickly, and will be able to fly farther to people in distress at sea than those currently in use.
"They have been specifically kitted with various items of advanced technical equipment, including an on board automatic identification system (AIS), specifically designed for the challenges of search and rescue in the 21st Century ".
The AW139s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability.
The aircraft are also slated to be used in a search and rescue role in Spain, with UAE, Australia, Italian and Japanese authorities also intending to use these aircraft for SAR purposes.
Mr. Cardy continued
"We look forward to working with CHC who are fulfilling this key role and taking search and rescue work into a new era, and can bring their wealth of experience of search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway to the UK.
CHC's UK SAR contract manager Ian McLuskie said
"The introduction of the AW139s represents the latest key phase in our work with the MCA to introduce new technology to civilian helicopter search and rescue work in the UK and provide an effective, efficient service that reflects modern-day needs."
All of the above must be true because it is two highly experienced "SAR to the core" people that have been quoted.
Isn't it just a load of meaningless management b*ll**** ?
Regards,
CD
PS. Haven't heard much from the two clowns quoted above since the debacle became public.
ASER: can you help out please???
I've been reading with interest this thread , but I'll never comment about the U.K. actions, it isn't my war.
Is the current 139 too demanding for highly trained crews to provide a safe LIMSAR service?? What are the other SAR 139 operators working with? What are they capable of? What is on their wish lists? Since we don’t hear them complaining in public maybe they are getting on with the job, doing the best they can with the tools they have and quietly adding the improvements and procedures needed to provide a SAR service. They probably want your current cabs on their wish list!
I know we share the wish list
.As I always write on internet with my real name... I hope you all understand.
Regards
Aser
Aser..understand you don't want to enter politics but can you comment on the Primus Epic...and its EASA certification status as this semms to be play a part in the UK situation.
I believe the mods for the SAR mode have yet to be cleared ??
I believe the mods for the SAR mode have yet to be cleared ??
Join Date: May 2005
Location: holland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Limsar
Crabette,
The point I want to get across is that there are two units on the South Coast, which are responsible for UK Primairy SAR, with a LIMSAR aircraft. For more than 6 months already.......
There is no doubt in my mind that the crews are able to perform their missions safe in the LIMSAR 139, however they will be faced with restrictions operating a Limited SAR aircraft.
The previous operator had a LIMSAR as a back-up aircraft and crews were online with this cab every now and then. But it is a BIG difference knowing that you have an AWSAR aircraft at your disposal soon (when it is repaired) or that management keeps saying that your AWSAR aircraft is expected anytime (for 6 months!!).
Especially with the horrendous autumn/winter weather approaching I could not agree more with the crews for what they did.
Try saving people in distress, floating in the Channel at Night, no horizon, howling winds and rain, without autohover!! Good Luck
The point I want to get across is that there are two units on the South Coast, which are responsible for UK Primairy SAR, with a LIMSAR aircraft. For more than 6 months already.......
There is no doubt in my mind that the crews are able to perform their missions safe in the LIMSAR 139, however they will be faced with restrictions operating a Limited SAR aircraft.
The previous operator had a LIMSAR as a back-up aircraft and crews were online with this cab every now and then. But it is a BIG difference knowing that you have an AWSAR aircraft at your disposal soon (when it is repaired) or that management keeps saying that your AWSAR aircraft is expected anytime (for 6 months!!).
Especially with the horrendous autumn/winter weather approaching I could not agree more with the crews for what they did.
Try saving people in distress, floating in the Channel at Night, no horizon, howling winds and rain, without autohover!! Good Luck
Sven.
I have no idea what the original MCA spec. was. I worked for the "enemy", Bristow, when that was brought into being. Perhaps "Crabette" could enlighten us?
We have done the range and survivor claims and actuality thing to death so I will not revisit those!
Acceptance testing is what is going on now and has been for the last eight months.
Shortcomings??
Sorry I am not party to those, and even if I were, would not post them on here. Previous posters have pretty much hit the nail on the head however.
I may not be happy with the way things are going, understatement of the year, but Mrs 3D still needs to be kept in the manner to which she has become accustomed.
3D
I have no idea what the original MCA spec. was. I worked for the "enemy", Bristow, when that was brought into being. Perhaps "Crabette" could enlighten us?
We have done the range and survivor claims and actuality thing to death so I will not revisit those!
Acceptance testing is what is going on now and has been for the last eight months.
Shortcomings??
Sorry I am not party to those,
and even if I were, would not post them on here. Previous posters have pretty much hit the nail on the head however.I may not be happy with the way things are going, understatement of the year, but Mrs 3D still needs to be kept in the manner to which she has become accustomed.
3D
Another interesting question: Why did they use the Sumburgh spare aircraft to help out down south?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that there is another (albeit privately owned) SAR aircraft on the airfield which could be called upon in case of need (for free)?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that there is another (albeit privately owned) SAR aircraft on the airfield which could be called upon in case of need (for free)?
Last edited by Woolf; 17th Nov 2008 at 09:38. Reason: Spelling
