SARH to go
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sweeping statements are being made regarding capability and experience. Of course the civil SAR crews have more experience in terms of time spent in the air - by and large they're older! (There's a good sweeping statement for you!
)
What's increasingly evident reading these pages though is that the anti-RAF brigade really don't fully appreciate the extent to which RAF SAR crews train - not just the amount of time spent in the air but the number of different exercises that pilots and rearcrew have to cover a) to get on the front line and b) to stay current.
Additionally, self-directed training on the squadrons where exercises are developed to test the individual's ability to deal with the unexpected are par for the course. It's not uncommon for a whole hour to be spent doing drums for example. Not just moving in and picking it up once or twice but building in hoist failures, intercom failures, doing them on AHT, doing them doppler-out AHT, doing them with the Aux Hyds failed, doing them with an extended cable, doing them with an extended cable on AHT with a hoist failure! You get the idea. This is just one example of how the training can be developed when you have four hours a day to play with. The same of course also applies to wets, sits and decks. Dinghies, multi-seat dinghies, drowning & panicking 'survivors', unconscious 'casualties' in the water, trapped decks, stuck-rudder decks, 'survivors' under overhangs, 'survivors' on pinnacles, cliff hangers, roped-on cliff hangers, cliff hangers with injuries, multiple 'survivors' in the water, 'casualties' below decks, AHT decks. And of course, all the above by day or night.
You name it, it'll be tried in training. Scenarios are developed to the 'n'th degree so that all four crewmembers avoid becoming stale and are as well prepared as possible for what the big bad world may throw at them. Making use of a 'survivor', getting the winchman to deal with an injury or an awkward situation, re-creating what might be encountered on a job. Rarely is the training bog standard and as such the crews are as well prepared as possible to deal with the complexities that are thrown up by SAROPs. Is this the case in civil SAR or do time, financial or other pressures prevent training being developed to this extent?
(And I didn't even mention NVGs once!)
)What's increasingly evident reading these pages though is that the anti-RAF brigade really don't fully appreciate the extent to which RAF SAR crews train - not just the amount of time spent in the air but the number of different exercises that pilots and rearcrew have to cover a) to get on the front line and b) to stay current.
Additionally, self-directed training on the squadrons where exercises are developed to test the individual's ability to deal with the unexpected are par for the course. It's not uncommon for a whole hour to be spent doing drums for example. Not just moving in and picking it up once or twice but building in hoist failures, intercom failures, doing them on AHT, doing them doppler-out AHT, doing them with the Aux Hyds failed, doing them with an extended cable, doing them with an extended cable on AHT with a hoist failure! You get the idea. This is just one example of how the training can be developed when you have four hours a day to play with. The same of course also applies to wets, sits and decks. Dinghies, multi-seat dinghies, drowning & panicking 'survivors', unconscious 'casualties' in the water, trapped decks, stuck-rudder decks, 'survivors' under overhangs, 'survivors' on pinnacles, cliff hangers, roped-on cliff hangers, cliff hangers with injuries, multiple 'survivors' in the water, 'casualties' below decks, AHT decks. And of course, all the above by day or night.
You name it, it'll be tried in training. Scenarios are developed to the 'n'th degree so that all four crewmembers avoid becoming stale and are as well prepared as possible for what the big bad world may throw at them. Making use of a 'survivor', getting the winchman to deal with an injury or an awkward situation, re-creating what might be encountered on a job. Rarely is the training bog standard and as such the crews are as well prepared as possible to deal with the complexities that are thrown up by SAROPs. Is this the case in civil SAR or do time, financial or other pressures prevent training being developed to this extent?
(And I didn't even mention NVGs once!)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or option 'B', maybe to achieve the same outcome, the civilian world isn't as narrow, to consider two hours day, two hours night, decks, sits, drums is needed to effect a successful rescue?
I cannot believe we are still going round the same buoys
You cannot rely on experience alone, you must have constant practice and training.
The arrogance of those who suggest that you can maintain the comprehensive skill set needed to be effective SAR crews (that is competent not just current) without lots of training is staggering and will eventually bite someone on the a*se.
There is nothing on the S-92 that can replace NVG capability for night overland SAR work, especially mountains - I'm guessing the writer is ex-RN and thinks FLIR is a viable substitute because he has never used it.
So we should talk to our civilian counterparts but not the ex-mil ones because they are biased - that is truly comic! Instead I should only ask civilians who have no knowledge of RAFSAR and cannot therefore compare the 2 by your logic
BTW Navytorque - who was it who taught the RN to use goggles at Prestwick? Oh yes, that was the RAF SARF dragging you into the 21st century. Who was it that led on paramedic training in response to civilian clinical governance requirements - oh yes that was us as well and, not surprisingly, the College of SAR Medicine, where CHC send their winchmen for training, is at an RAF base as part of the RAF SARF HQ.
We take a lot of stick in RAFSAR, mainly from those who haven't been in it and, as Vie has said, haven't got a clue how we do business.
One last thing NavyTorque - try flying that single engine profile and the CAA approved one and see which one ensures you can always make the runway if the other engine fails.
I don't suppose the CAA expert has the probability figures for an Airbus losing both engines after takeoff due to birdstrike and I don't suppose ditching in the Hudson is amongst the approved CAA flight profiles but it saved 155 lives when a pilot thought outside the box following an emergency that shouldn't have happened.
You cannot rely on experience alone, you must have constant practice and training.
The arrogance of those who suggest that you can maintain the comprehensive skill set needed to be effective SAR crews (that is competent not just current) without lots of training is staggering and will eventually bite someone on the a*se.
There is nothing on the S-92 that can replace NVG capability for night overland SAR work, especially mountains - I'm guessing the writer is ex-RN and thinks FLIR is a viable substitute because he has never used it.
So we should talk to our civilian counterparts but not the ex-mil ones because they are biased - that is truly comic! Instead I should only ask civilians who have no knowledge of RAFSAR and cannot therefore compare the 2 by your logic
BTW Navytorque - who was it who taught the RN to use goggles at Prestwick? Oh yes, that was the RAF SARF dragging you into the 21st century. Who was it that led on paramedic training in response to civilian clinical governance requirements - oh yes that was us as well and, not surprisingly, the College of SAR Medicine, where CHC send their winchmen for training, is at an RAF base as part of the RAF SARF HQ.
We take a lot of stick in RAFSAR, mainly from those who haven't been in it and, as Vie has said, haven't got a clue how we do business.
One last thing NavyTorque - try flying that single engine profile and the CAA approved one and see which one ensures you can always make the runway if the other engine fails.
I don't suppose the CAA expert has the probability figures for an Airbus losing both engines after takeoff due to birdstrike and I don't suppose ditching in the Hudson is amongst the approved CAA flight profiles but it saved 155 lives when a pilot thought outside the box following an emergency that shouldn't have happened.
I believe the S-92 cockpit is NVG compatible, but not sure about the AW139. I cannot see CHC having any requirement for NVG requirement under interim contract.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the northern riviera
Age: 57
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I interrupted this slagging match yesterday to ask a question about MIRGs. Granted it's not related to SAR-H, but as MIRGs have been mentioned on this thread I thought somebody might take time out from 'having a go' to answer my question. Alas not.
So, once again, is there anyone on here who has experience flying MIRG's to an incident. If so, are there any rules/ regulations concerning their kit. Specifically, are their BA Sets classed as D.A.C.?
ES
So, once again, is there anyone on here who has experience flying MIRG's to an incident. If so, are there any rules/ regulations concerning their kit. Specifically, are their BA Sets classed as D.A.C.?
ES
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Second star on the left
Posts: 124
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanners,
A complete risk assessment was carried out when the MIRG was started. I have flown with the BA bottles stowed in the approved MIRG bags, they were lashed to the floor along with the other kit. I think you will find that under the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, they come under section 3.2.2.2 Division 2.2 Non-flammable, Non-toxic Gas. I believe they also come under 3.2.2.4 Exemptions as stored under 200kPa at 20 degrees C. Unless you know better!!
Heads down, look out for the flack
A complete risk assessment was carried out when the MIRG was started. I have flown with the BA bottles stowed in the approved MIRG bags, they were lashed to the floor along with the other kit. I think you will find that under the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, they come under section 3.2.2.2 Division 2.2 Non-flammable, Non-toxic Gas. I believe they also come under 3.2.2.4 Exemptions as stored under 200kPa at 20 degrees C. Unless you know better!!
Heads down, look out for the flack
Edward - the initials stand for Dangerous Air Cargo and the BA packs are not a problem. The only consideration when flying a MIRG team is that their Board of Trade approved lifejackets have auto-initiators which would inflate immediately on ditching (very bad in an enclosed space as you can't get out). The MIRG team hand the auto initiators to the crewman before flight and get them back when we drop them on the boat.
I asked the question about NVG compatible cockpits on 139 and S92 many moons ago and was told that you can have them if you pay for them but since the present contract doesn't call for them they aren't fitted. BTW NVG friendly and NVG compatible are not the same thing.
SP I think it's Hamster not Hampster
About time someone took the "p" out of this thread
Splot
I asked the question about NVG compatible cockpits on 139 and S92 many moons ago and was told that you can have them if you pay for them but since the present contract doesn't call for them they aren't fitted. BTW NVG friendly and NVG compatible are not the same thing.
SP I think it's Hamster not Hampster
About time someone took the "p" out of this thread
Splot
When we first started flying the firemen out, in the '90's, from Manston then Wattisham the only thing that needed sorting were the autoinflate jackets, (for safe evac on ditching). The rest of the kit we just secured down. Dangerous Air Cargo? Who cared...it was a mil operation!
We were also flying the bomb disposal guys out to trawlers with fished up WW2 mines....They had loads of explosive DAC goodies with them on the helo.
We also had another interesting task at that time........
....mid '90's there were a lot of flights staging through Uk from somewhere to somewhere else ........landing quite close to Wattisham. In event of a crash landing and release of a "dust cloud" down wind, the duty crew were to fly the good old SAR Seaking through said downwind area with a small funny box we would be given at the crash site. The op order then gave us a remote landing area where we were to "leave" the Seaking and wait to be collected.
It didn't say what would happen to the crew (or the Seaking)!
Dont suppose such ops would be factored into SAR-H!
We were also flying the bomb disposal guys out to trawlers with fished up WW2 mines....They had loads of explosive DAC goodies with them on the helo.
We also had another interesting task at that time........
....mid '90's there were a lot of flights staging through Uk from somewhere to somewhere else ........landing quite close to Wattisham. In event of a crash landing and release of a "dust cloud" down wind, the duty crew were to fly the good old SAR Seaking through said downwind area with a small funny box we would be given at the crash site. The op order then gave us a remote landing area where we were to "leave" the Seaking and wait to be collected.
It didn't say what would happen to the crew (or the Seaking)!
Dont suppose such ops would be factored into SAR-H!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: devon
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flame me and/or just dismiss the question if you wish but here's a question.
The 747 is forty this year, the JetRanger (to my untrained eyes) hasn't changed external appearance for decades and, according to another thread there are plans to start remaking the OV-10 Bronco. IF it were decided that the new kids on the block (139, s92, 101) weren't fit for purpose (just IF, don't start!) could AW or someone re-start a Sea King production line and produce new build SKs with uprated goodies where required?
What's stopping them, cost or wish to push their new toys?
The 747 is forty this year, the JetRanger (to my untrained eyes) hasn't changed external appearance for decades and, according to another thread there are plans to start remaking the OV-10 Bronco. IF it were decided that the new kids on the block (139, s92, 101) weren't fit for purpose (just IF, don't start!) could AW or someone re-start a Sea King production line and produce new build SKs with uprated goodies where required?
What's stopping them, cost or wish to push their new toys?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting myself :
The silence from the usual suspects is deafening.
You name it, it'll be tried in training. Scenarios are developed to the 'n'th degree so that all four crewmembers avoid becoming stale and are as well prepared as possible for what the big bad world may throw at them. Making use of a 'survivor', getting the winchman to deal with an injury or an awkward situation, re-creating what might be encountered on a job. Rarely is the training bog standard and as such the crews are as well prepared as possible to deal with the complexities that are thrown up by SAROPs. Is this the case in civil SAR or do time, financial or other pressures prevent training being developed to this extent?
Arrandcee - unfortunately the costs of retooling to produce a few Sea Kings would be uneconomic and the airframe itself would have to be greatly altered to comply with modern airworthiness standards. In order to cater for the largest market possible, modern helicopters tend to be 'jack of all trades' rather than role specific and, other than the US military, no one customer has the clout or budget to create a competition to produce a SAR specific helo - even if they did it would not be suitable for all SAR roles.
Vie - not really a surprise since their arguments were just based on slagging us off and telling us how good they used to be
Hurray!!! got to page 40
Vie - not really a surprise since their arguments were just based on slagging us off and telling us how good they used to be
Hurray!!! got to page 40
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously no need for NVGs? Personally I wouldn't want to fly unaided to anything other than a runway that way. If you're flying a helo to un-improved LZs, you should want and demand NVGs. There is a reason this is a big point of contention in US HEMS operations. If UK S-92 crews are flying SAR ops unaided, I feel for them, that really, really sucks.