SARH to go
And I believe the S-92 has a sat-tracking system fitted which is not compatible with any of the ARCCKs systems
We are supposed to be getting a sat-tracking/messaging system some time in the future but by the time it turns up it will be time to scrap the aircraft
No one would be sad to see the back of the HF!
L2 - yes, Operational control
We are supposed to be getting a sat-tracking/messaging system some time in the future but by the time it turns up it will be time to scrap the aircraft
No one would be sad to see the back of the HF!L2 - yes, Operational control
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Far far away
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not familiar with any tracking system in the UK SAR S-92. However, all offshore (civilian) helicopters in the Norwegian North Sea sector are required by the CAAN regulations to have the M-ADS working. (M-ADS = Modified Automatic Dependent Surveillance System)
It is a very nice system from a pilot's point of view. You turn it on after startup and then more or less forget it. It automatically transmits Flight Management System data like position, altitude, speed, rate of descent or climb, weather data etc. etc using SATCOM.
It is also connected to the transponder, and should you select 7700 or the other emergency codes, ATC wil notice immediately. The rate of transmissions are selected by ATC, normally every 30 seconds, but will be increased during certain conditions like high rate of descent etc.
These data are received by ATC and super-imposed on their radar screen. If you are in or out of radar contact - no difference. They will see you like any other aircraft - anywhere as long as you have SATCOM contact. I will not get into the finer points of ATC regulations on separation etc, but the main point is they see you all the time, even when parked on a helideck offshore. Theoretically, the ATC in Stavanger can see a M-ADS equipped helicopter anywhere in the world. I believe that the Rescue Coordination Centers in Stavanger and Bodoe now have access to the same data in realtime.
As for pilots, it is great. You get direct routings most of the time, saving time and gas, and you don't need to send position reports every 15 minutes or so. In the Norwegian sector, it meant that the radio chatter was decreased, time to read the newspaper, eat the onboard lunch etc.
ATC takes care of separation from other traffic (as long as they can see it, mind you)
Sadly, the boxes are not produced anymore due to low demand, the UK of course did want to touch it as it was not invented there. My guess is that it will be replaced with ADS-B (B=broadcast) in the future. BTW M-ADS is a ADS-C system where the C stands for contract. You establish a connection (contract) between your aircraft and the receiver, in Norway the ATC.
Why wasn' a similar system put on the Air France 330?? They have ACARS, but no nav data.
It is a very nice system from a pilot's point of view. You turn it on after startup and then more or less forget it. It automatically transmits Flight Management System data like position, altitude, speed, rate of descent or climb, weather data etc. etc using SATCOM.
It is also connected to the transponder, and should you select 7700 or the other emergency codes, ATC wil notice immediately. The rate of transmissions are selected by ATC, normally every 30 seconds, but will be increased during certain conditions like high rate of descent etc.
These data are received by ATC and super-imposed on their radar screen. If you are in or out of radar contact - no difference. They will see you like any other aircraft - anywhere as long as you have SATCOM contact. I will not get into the finer points of ATC regulations on separation etc, but the main point is they see you all the time, even when parked on a helideck offshore. Theoretically, the ATC in Stavanger can see a M-ADS equipped helicopter anywhere in the world. I believe that the Rescue Coordination Centers in Stavanger and Bodoe now have access to the same data in realtime.
As for pilots, it is great. You get direct routings most of the time, saving time and gas, and you don't need to send position reports every 15 minutes or so. In the Norwegian sector, it meant that the radio chatter was decreased, time to read the newspaper, eat the onboard lunch etc.
ATC takes care of separation from other traffic (as long as they can see it, mind you) Sadly, the boxes are not produced anymore due to low demand, the UK of course did want to touch it as it was not invented there. My guess is that it will be replaced with ADS-B (B=broadcast) in the future. BTW M-ADS is a ADS-C system where the C stands for contract. You establish a connection (contract) between your aircraft and the receiver, in Norway the ATC.
Why wasn' a similar system put on the Air France 330?? They have ACARS, but no nav data.
Last edited by L2driver; 27th Jun 2009 at 07:27. Reason: terrible English
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 73
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tasking control - and a very light one at that - does not equate to OpCon. If the SARF Commander has OpCon, why does the final word regarding whether a MCA helicopter is released for an inter-hospital transfer reside with the Coastguard MRCC ? Equally, if the MCA wish to use one of their contract helicopters on a non-SAR task, they do not have to seek permission of the ARCC or the SARF - they are paying the bills after all. If the SARF has OpCon, how could this be ?
Crab - there were some licensing and RCS interface issues with the MCA helicopters Sat Tracking, which I understand are being overcome. However, from the start of the MCA Interim Contract in 2007, the system was available to the ARCC on a standalone Internet display and yes, there were a few glitches but there tends to be that with most new systems.
Crab - there were some licensing and RCS interface issues with the MCA helicopters Sat Tracking, which I understand are being overcome. However, from the start of the MCA Interim Contract in 2007, the system was available to the ARCC on a standalone Internet display and yes, there were a few glitches but there tends to be that with most new systems.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North East
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not defending HF - but am I right in thinking that sat comms have one limitation in that the controller and multiple assets cannot comunicate all together at the same time?
Bluenose - Branahuie's quote -
- means that since the SARF Cdr controls the ARCCK, he also has opcon of all the SAR assets, including the MCA ones. MRCCs are allowed to independently task their assets for tasks within 50nm.
Under an agreement between the MCA and the MoD, tasking of these assets is normally undertaken through ARCC, RAF Kinloss. Exceptionally, when helicopter assistance is necessary for immediate lifesaving, the MCA can task the helicopters direct and then notify the ARCC as soon as possible afterwards.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 73
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB - Yes. Satcom & HF would have been better imho. Contract called for a long range system. Successful bidder chose satcom
CR - Yes. Some folks were not listening though.
CR - Yes. Some folks were not listening though.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 73
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - My memory is fading as the years go by, but I don't seem to recall you being present at any of the meetings in which the current arrangement was discussed and the protocols were being put in place. Neither it has to be said was the previous SARF Commander who also appeared to have a hearing issue over this.
Operational Control was never ceded - the whole process was intended to put in place a system whereby a single authority would have a National overview of the availability and disposition of all UK SAR helicopters and would therefore be better placed to nominate the most appropriate aircraft for any given incident. The ARCC already had knowledge of the 6 RAF and 2 RN helicopters and it made good sound sense to put the 4 MCA ones into the same pot. It is disappointing that the principles behind this generous offer (concession) have largely been lost amid all the politics and posturing in the lead up to SARH.
Tasking or scrambling the helicopter could be done either through ARCC or MRCC depending on circumstances. The tasking direct within 30/50 miles was to keep the MCA helicopters inline with the pre-existing arrangement for MRCCs tasking MOD SAR helicopters.
Operational Control was never ceded - the whole process was intended to put in place a system whereby a single authority would have a National overview of the availability and disposition of all UK SAR helicopters and would therefore be better placed to nominate the most appropriate aircraft for any given incident. The ARCC already had knowledge of the 6 RAF and 2 RN helicopters and it made good sound sense to put the 4 MCA ones into the same pot. It is disappointing that the principles behind this generous offer (concession) have largely been lost amid all the politics and posturing in the lead up to SARH.
Tasking or scrambling the helicopter could be done either through ARCC or MRCC depending on circumstances. The tasking direct within 30/50 miles was to keep the MCA helicopters inline with the pre-existing arrangement for MRCCs tasking MOD SAR helicopters.
Bluenose - no I wasn't at those meetings, I was busy rescuing people which I find far more interesting and challenging than committees
Your standpoint is one of semantics since if the ARRCK says go and the MCA says no, where are we with a joined up UK SAR response?
I would suggest that the situation will never arise so although I take your word for it that opcon might not have been formally ceded, to all intents and purposes it has been.
I am guessing you are MCA or ex-MCA from your comments and standpoint but don't blame the RAF because your contractor provided something that wasn't compatible with existing ARCCK equipment. I would suggest that an interim contract should strive to integrate with the existing elements rather than break new ground without support.
If there is posturing and politics in the runup to SARH, just remember it was driven, to a great extent, by the MCA's desire to emulate the USCG and have control over all the aviation assets.
Your standpoint is one of semantics since if the ARRCK says go and the MCA says no, where are we with a joined up UK SAR response?
I would suggest that the situation will never arise so although I take your word for it that opcon might not have been formally ceded, to all intents and purposes it has been.
I am guessing you are MCA or ex-MCA from your comments and standpoint but don't blame the RAF because your contractor provided something that wasn't compatible with existing ARCCK equipment. I would suggest that an interim contract should strive to integrate with the existing elements rather than break new ground without support.
If there is posturing and politics in the runup to SARH, just remember it was driven, to a great extent, by the MCA's desire to emulate the USCG and have control over all the aviation assets.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 73
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - I'm not an aviator but, as I pointed out in my initial post, I do have a high regard for all SAR helicopter crews. For the record, my background is SAR coordination - a role which may not be as physically dangerous as your own but one that is equally interesting & challenging so let's not be patronising. Just ask any of your colleagues at the ARCC who have worked in both. I've coordinated incidents using RAF helicopters, MCA helicopters & civilian helicopters from a variety of sources in addition to fixed wing aircraft & stuff on the surface too many to mention &, just occasionally, all at the same time. If you think it's straightforward, you haven't studied the subject. Give it a try sometime 
As regards a joined up UKSAR response, well frankly, I don't feel the need to apologise and I would humbly suggest that my contribution considerably outweighs your own.
Let me turn your argument around regarding saying go and saying no. There is as much chance of the ARCC saying no to a MCA request for helicopter assistance as there is the other way round. In many cases they are justified in doing so. That's life, it happens - we can differ & there is not a problem.
You choose not to discuss the previous scenarios possibly because they didn't fit in with your view of the world so let me take you through another one. Man overboard in the Bristol Channel. R169 (RAF SAR helicopter) is tasked following a request from the MRCC. After a period of time with nothing found, ARCC wish to stand down R169. MRCC disagree - they wish to contuinue the search. ARCC stand down R169 because they have OpCon. Their decision, their helicopter, they have OpCon & that is not a problem. MRCC have the responsibility to prosecute the search & will have to continue without the helicopter.
However, man overboard in the East Shetland basin 100 miles offshore. MRCC asks ARCC for helicopter which will be a no-brainer and inevitably R102 (Coastguard SAR helicopter) will be tasked - by MRCC Shetland. After a period of time with nothing found, MRCC will continue to search using R102 even if ARCC feel that there is no hope. ARCC will not tell the MRCC to stand down the helicopter because they do not have the power. It is Shetland's decision, their helicopter, they have OpCon. From your standpoint, ARCC would have the final say. Well actually, they don't. From 2012 they will, as far as I know, & that is fine by me.
Complicated - yes I agree but that's often how it is in SAR coordination. That is why the distinction needs to be made & it is important that everyone (ARCC & MRCC) knows how the system works. Your limited insight, and repeated misinformation on this particular issue, is unhelpful.
You can guess what you wish about my background but does being MCA or ex-MCA automatically make anyone the enemy. As regards my standpoint you have obviously misjudged it - your comments demonstrate preconception and bias.
Where exactly have I blamed the RAF ? I like the RAF. Along with others such as the RN, MCA, RNLI & mountain rescue teams etc they are the bedrock of UKSAR and everyone does a splendid job.
The Interim Contract is a bridge between the old & the new. Are you seriously asking that we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore what new technology might provide, with the chance to test it over a 5 year period? Are you saying we stick with the old and bold stuff and then be faced with addressing (possibly) bad decisions that we will then have to deal with over the next 25 to 30 years of SARH?
Regarding your final comment - having moved in these circles for quite a few years, I have never heard the view that the MCA wished to take over all airborne assets expressed by anyone other than those who wished to defend the status quo in the face of change. Ultimately, the Government of the day makes the decision & those of employed by them i.e. you & me Crab - we have to crack on with it or vote with our feet.
Safe flying
As regards a joined up UKSAR response, well frankly, I don't feel the need to apologise and I would humbly suggest that my contribution considerably outweighs your own.
Let me turn your argument around regarding saying go and saying no. There is as much chance of the ARCC saying no to a MCA request for helicopter assistance as there is the other way round. In many cases they are justified in doing so. That's life, it happens - we can differ & there is not a problem.
You choose not to discuss the previous scenarios possibly because they didn't fit in with your view of the world so let me take you through another one. Man overboard in the Bristol Channel. R169 (RAF SAR helicopter) is tasked following a request from the MRCC. After a period of time with nothing found, ARCC wish to stand down R169. MRCC disagree - they wish to contuinue the search. ARCC stand down R169 because they have OpCon. Their decision, their helicopter, they have OpCon & that is not a problem. MRCC have the responsibility to prosecute the search & will have to continue without the helicopter.
However, man overboard in the East Shetland basin 100 miles offshore. MRCC asks ARCC for helicopter which will be a no-brainer and inevitably R102 (Coastguard SAR helicopter) will be tasked - by MRCC Shetland. After a period of time with nothing found, MRCC will continue to search using R102 even if ARCC feel that there is no hope. ARCC will not tell the MRCC to stand down the helicopter because they do not have the power. It is Shetland's decision, their helicopter, they have OpCon. From your standpoint, ARCC would have the final say. Well actually, they don't. From 2012 they will, as far as I know, & that is fine by me.
Complicated - yes I agree but that's often how it is in SAR coordination. That is why the distinction needs to be made & it is important that everyone (ARCC & MRCC) knows how the system works. Your limited insight, and repeated misinformation on this particular issue, is unhelpful.
You can guess what you wish about my background but does being MCA or ex-MCA automatically make anyone the enemy. As regards my standpoint you have obviously misjudged it - your comments demonstrate preconception and bias.
Where exactly have I blamed the RAF ? I like the RAF. Along with others such as the RN, MCA, RNLI & mountain rescue teams etc they are the bedrock of UKSAR and everyone does a splendid job.
The Interim Contract is a bridge between the old & the new. Are you seriously asking that we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore what new technology might provide, with the chance to test it over a 5 year period? Are you saying we stick with the old and bold stuff and then be faced with addressing (possibly) bad decisions that we will then have to deal with over the next 25 to 30 years of SARH?
Regarding your final comment - having moved in these circles for quite a few years, I have never heard the view that the MCA wished to take over all airborne assets expressed by anyone other than those who wished to defend the status quo in the face of change. Ultimately, the Government of the day makes the decision & those of employed by them i.e. you & me Crab - we have to crack on with it or vote with our feet.
Safe flying
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North East
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SARF is commanded by a Group Captain RAF. Under SKIOS, all of the fwd engineering has been taken on by civilians, which resulted in the RAF engineers being freed up for other duties. Under SAR H there will only be 66 military aircrew, a proportion of which will be Royal Navy - perhaps a third?
Will the legacy SARF senior staffing level and Opcon continue as is under SAR H, and has it been considered that command of the remaining military aircrew could rotate between light and dark blue?
Will the legacy SARF senior staffing level and Opcon continue as is under SAR H, and has it been considered that command of the remaining military aircrew could rotate between light and dark blue?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 73
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill
I'm not sure if that question was directed at me. I have no insight into what will happen post 2012 other than what is in the public domain and there is not a lot of that. Sorry I can't help. There may be others on the forum who can.
regards
I'm not sure if that question was directed at me. I have no insight into what will happen post 2012 other than what is in the public domain and there is not a lot of that. Sorry I can't help. There may be others on the forum who can.
regards
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I believe the S-92 has a sat-tracking system fitted which is not compatible with any of the ARCCKs systems
Rgds
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Up to my axles
Age: 61
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smart homers
Following the report into the 225 ditching, where smart Vs dumb beacons was highlighted, we were having a discussion about smart homers.
My mate tried to tell me that Civvy cabs are fitted with homers that can discriminate between multiple beacons and enable them to locate scattered survivors but that RAF cabs have old technology that gets confused if there are more than two beacons transmitting in the area. I know that this cannot be true because everyone on here knows that the RAF are superior in all respects. Crab, could you just confirm that for me?
TD
My mate tried to tell me that Civvy cabs are fitted with homers that can discriminate between multiple beacons and enable them to locate scattered survivors but that RAF cabs have old technology that gets confused if there are more than two beacons transmitting in the area. I know that this cannot be true because everyone on here knows that the RAF are superior in all respects. Crab, could you just confirm that for me?
TD
Bluenose - you make some interesting points - it is a shame you can't do it without the snidey tone of thinly disguised personal insults - I am not sure what scenarios you think I chose to ignore, perhaps you could clarify.
I have no doubt that you made a significantly greater contribution the UKSAR than me - I just wonder why you felt you had to say that - I'm just a driver/arframes who goes where he is told but if you think it is straightforward and less challenging than being in a warm, comfy ops room then come out on a dark and stormy night and have a go.
Despite your two scenarios, the only reason I believe that ARCCK would withdraw an asset from a search managed by MRCC is if they had higher priority tasking for it - they don't look over the shoulder of MRCC to see if they are doing their job properly.
Unfortunately, MCA are often slaves to SARIS when sorting out searches and, whilst I understand they are the ones who would go to the coroners court to explain why a search was called off too early, the guys on scene who are actually doing the searching are usually the best arbitrators of how effective the search is and whether calling off the search is a good idea or not.
If the system is complicated for the controllers (and I'm sure it isn't from those I talk to), whose fault is it? The RAFs for having the majority stake in UKSAR aviation?
The interim contract has at least proved that the MCA shouldn't listen to their contractors regarding perceived and actual capability of aircraft - still no overwater night winching in the Channel and it took over 6 months to give the S-92 the range to match the press releases.
Putting an aircraft into service without it being fully compatible with existing comms capability is crass and arrogant - hiding behind the idea that you are introducing new technology is worse and highlights some of the politics that go on far above our (or certainly my) payscales.
You implied the fault of comms problems was with the ARCCK - is it not the fact that you let you contractor specify sat tracking without HF without challenging the decision?
I have no doubt that you made a significantly greater contribution the UKSAR than me - I just wonder why you felt you had to say that - I'm just a driver/arframes who goes where he is told but if you think it is straightforward and less challenging than being in a warm, comfy ops room then come out on a dark and stormy night and have a go.
Despite your two scenarios, the only reason I believe that ARCCK would withdraw an asset from a search managed by MRCC is if they had higher priority tasking for it - they don't look over the shoulder of MRCC to see if they are doing their job properly.
Unfortunately, MCA are often slaves to SARIS when sorting out searches and, whilst I understand they are the ones who would go to the coroners court to explain why a search was called off too early, the guys on scene who are actually doing the searching are usually the best arbitrators of how effective the search is and whether calling off the search is a good idea or not.
If the system is complicated for the controllers (and I'm sure it isn't from those I talk to), whose fault is it? The RAFs for having the majority stake in UKSAR aviation?
The interim contract has at least proved that the MCA shouldn't listen to their contractors regarding perceived and actual capability of aircraft - still no overwater night winching in the Channel and it took over 6 months to give the S-92 the range to match the press releases.
Putting an aircraft into service without it being fully compatible with existing comms capability is crass and arrogant - hiding behind the idea that you are introducing new technology is worse and highlights some of the politics that go on far above our (or certainly my) payscales.
You implied the fault of comms problems was with the ARCCK - is it not the fact that you let you contractor specify sat tracking without HF without challenging the decision?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Control, Co-ordination, Tasking, Allocation..... All good words which I fear are sometimes used in the wrong context.
In my now civvy world I believe that my organisation operationally controls the use of the aircraft, our operations rooms co-ordinate SAR operations (Civil maritime in the main) and task the SAR units involved and, under an agreement with the RAF we contact ARCCK who allocate the aircraft to be used just in case there is another aircraft in the area of which we are unaware.
If the job is within 30 miles of the base we can go ahead and task, launch, allocate that helicopter without recourse to ARCCK. Of course the ARCCK would be contacted ASAP and informed of the situation to enable them to update their big picture and ensure that the future allocation process is not affected should another job arise.
As a SAR Co-ordinator it would be churlish, possibly grossly negligent of me not to prioritise should a request arise from any other organisation for a helo (or any other unit for that matter) already involved in an operation we are co-ordinating.
Regarding Search Planning, we have a number of tools in the box (and some out of the box) which can be used to determine a search area. I can assure you that the subsequeent board of enquiry does not even figure when determining a search area and/or allocating SAR resources.
Regarding termination of search, something which I have been involved in on a number of occasions and it's a task not undertaken or a decision made lightly, certainly not by one unit on-scene. The decision should be, and is, made in consultation with many of the parties involved be they on-scene, in Ops Rooms or Duty Officers at a number of levels.
We may also be approached by other organisations for the use of our aircraft and given that it's not involved in its' primary role then every effort will generally be made to provide it.
I see multi-organisation operations increasing monthly and in the main they work very well. Lets hope that what progress there is continues and that we can all live happily ever after.
Be safe and best regards to all.
In my now civvy world I believe that my organisation operationally controls the use of the aircraft, our operations rooms co-ordinate SAR operations (Civil maritime in the main) and task the SAR units involved and, under an agreement with the RAF we contact ARCCK who allocate the aircraft to be used just in case there is another aircraft in the area of which we are unaware.
If the job is within 30 miles of the base we can go ahead and task, launch, allocate that helicopter without recourse to ARCCK. Of course the ARCCK would be contacted ASAP and informed of the situation to enable them to update their big picture and ensure that the future allocation process is not affected should another job arise.
As a SAR Co-ordinator it would be churlish, possibly grossly negligent of me not to prioritise should a request arise from any other organisation for a helo (or any other unit for that matter) already involved in an operation we are co-ordinating.
Regarding Search Planning, we have a number of tools in the box (and some out of the box) which can be used to determine a search area. I can assure you that the subsequeent board of enquiry does not even figure when determining a search area and/or allocating SAR resources.
Regarding termination of search, something which I have been involved in on a number of occasions and it's a task not undertaken or a decision made lightly, certainly not by one unit on-scene. The decision should be, and is, made in consultation with many of the parties involved be they on-scene, in Ops Rooms or Duty Officers at a number of levels.
We may also be approached by other organisations for the use of our aircraft and given that it's not involved in its' primary role then every effort will generally be made to provide it.
I see multi-organisation operations increasing monthly and in the main they work very well. Lets hope that what progress there is continues and that we can all live happily ever after.
Be safe and best regards to all.
Tractor driver - did you mean you want to confirm that the RAF is superior or that our homers are less than perfect?
The Griffins in Cyprus have a more modern system that copes well with multiple beacons and shows you which quadrant they are in. Our Chelton homers have a simple left/right needle indication that moves with the signal from the beacon. Multiple beacon homings are possible but dealing with more than two gets tricky; usually when doing a double beacon homing we try to seperate the signal indications and go for the closest/strongest first. We have been moaning about the homers for many years but the wheels turn slowly in the Sea King IPT
Cyclic Gal, I have been involved in too many searches not to recognise when the MRCC has run out of ideas and there is a heavy reliance on SARIS which is only a computer program and can't think for itself. I only found out the other day that SARIS doesn't cater for land mass - we were tasked to complete a sector search for a PIW with a radius of 1 nm and a datum that was almost on the shoreline so half the search area was over land! I have also seen, on many occasions, the reluctance to terminate a clearly pointless search because SARIS doesn't do logic, only number crunching.
I am not having a go at MRCC staff and I agree that generally one unit on scene doesn't have the overview to cancel a search - but often MRCCs underestimate the ability of a helicopter crew to assess the effectiveness of a search and the suitability of the search area.
I heartily agree that multi-agency ops are the way forward and knowledge of each others capabilities is vital to make this work.
The Griffins in Cyprus have a more modern system that copes well with multiple beacons and shows you which quadrant they are in. Our Chelton homers have a simple left/right needle indication that moves with the signal from the beacon. Multiple beacon homings are possible but dealing with more than two gets tricky; usually when doing a double beacon homing we try to seperate the signal indications and go for the closest/strongest first. We have been moaning about the homers for many years but the wheels turn slowly in the Sea King IPT
Cyclic Gal, I have been involved in too many searches not to recognise when the MRCC has run out of ideas and there is a heavy reliance on SARIS which is only a computer program and can't think for itself. I only found out the other day that SARIS doesn't cater for land mass - we were tasked to complete a sector search for a PIW with a radius of 1 nm and a datum that was almost on the shoreline so half the search area was over land! I have also seen, on many occasions, the reluctance to terminate a clearly pointless search because SARIS doesn't do logic, only number crunching.
I am not having a go at MRCC staff and I agree that generally one unit on scene doesn't have the overview to cancel a search - but often MRCCs underestimate the ability of a helicopter crew to assess the effectiveness of a search and the suitability of the search area.
I heartily agree that multi-agency ops are the way forward and knowledge of each others capabilities is vital to make this work.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 73
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
I initially put pen to paper because you were asserting things that were incorrect. If the situation isn't complicated, why has it taken everyone, including some of your former senior colleagues, so long to understand it ? It's complicated because there are two main helicopter providers MOD (RAF & RN) and MCA. One military & one civilian. The civilian one is contractor provided. When coming up with some sort of standard working procedures you need to recognise the non-standard background.
I, personally speaking, am quite comfortable with RAF having the majority stake in UKSAR aviation.
I apologise if you think I was being snidey - I thought I was trying to answer your comments in a calm & reasoned manner. However, as peace appears to breaking out, can I very gently try to correct one or two issues in your last reply to me.
I did say that both roles were equally interesting & challenging. They are undoubtedly different. I didn't say that one or the other was superior.
I did make a claim about "joined up UKSAR response" i.e. not "UKSAR" and there lies the difference. While I admire your personal contribution to SAR aviation, your obvious pride in your own organisation has to be balanced against what occasionally appears to be a negative view of your partners in UKSAR. I've gone out of my to promote other authorities, including your own, even when in my humble opinion, they were behaving rather badly.
I've twice led posts stating my admiration for you chaps at the front end & although I would enjoy the opportunity of seeing your work at first hand on a dark & stormy night my age, increasing waistline and your own 2 Group (??) procedures would probably exclude me. I am, however, familiar with the concept of a dark & stormy night having bobbed around the seven seas on a variety of tubs in the past and, believe me, the waves look even bigger when you're down in among them.
As regards units being withdrawn from a search, I wasn't having a go at the ARCC who have a very difficult job to do and for whom I have the utmost respect. I also consider many of the staff there, past & present, as personal friends. They will be looking at all sorts of factors including crew fatigue, previous jobs, potential jobs, aircraft hours, serviceability - all areas you are familiar with. The MRCC will be looking at it from their perspective. Occasionally & it happens more frequently than you would assume, the ARCC & the MRCC may agree to differ. I did say that wasn't a problem. I was merely using the scenario to demonstrate who had OpCon.
I also didn't imply the comms problem was the fault of the ARCC. Clever Richard asked whether "prior to the intro of the S92, did the MCA tell the ARCC, the tasking authority, that they were not fitting HF ?" I replied "Yes. Some folks were not listening though". The relevant meeting took place in 2005. SARF were represented. I queried the decision because I felt that a combination of HF & Satcom gave a more flexible solution i.e. security of Satcom alongside the broadcast facility of HF. That was, and is, my personal view - looking at it from a SAR coordinators viewpoint. However, I am but a humble foot soldier, & Satcom it was. IPT decision, I believe. Slipping into rumour mode - there is an interesting story behind this & one you may not be entirely comfortable with. Back to reality - SARF later claimed that they were first made aware at the 2006 Conference which is incorrect but that particular myth has grown legs. In any case, both events preceded the introduction of the first S92 at Stornoway in 2007.
On the issue of equipment being brought into service without being fully tried & tested, well I can only point you in the same direction that other contributors to this forum have suggested in the past. Who is immune ? I understand that the MOD have some previous (and current) here.
Job done & hopefully slipping back into obscurity before I get into hot water ...........
I initially put pen to paper because you were asserting things that were incorrect. If the situation isn't complicated, why has it taken everyone, including some of your former senior colleagues, so long to understand it ? It's complicated because there are two main helicopter providers MOD (RAF & RN) and MCA. One military & one civilian. The civilian one is contractor provided. When coming up with some sort of standard working procedures you need to recognise the non-standard background.
I, personally speaking, am quite comfortable with RAF having the majority stake in UKSAR aviation.
I apologise if you think I was being snidey - I thought I was trying to answer your comments in a calm & reasoned manner. However, as peace appears to breaking out, can I very gently try to correct one or two issues in your last reply to me.
I did say that both roles were equally interesting & challenging. They are undoubtedly different. I didn't say that one or the other was superior.
I did make a claim about "joined up UKSAR response" i.e. not "UKSAR" and there lies the difference. While I admire your personal contribution to SAR aviation, your obvious pride in your own organisation has to be balanced against what occasionally appears to be a negative view of your partners in UKSAR. I've gone out of my to promote other authorities, including your own, even when in my humble opinion, they were behaving rather badly.
I've twice led posts stating my admiration for you chaps at the front end & although I would enjoy the opportunity of seeing your work at first hand on a dark & stormy night my age, increasing waistline and your own 2 Group (??) procedures would probably exclude me. I am, however, familiar with the concept of a dark & stormy night having bobbed around the seven seas on a variety of tubs in the past and, believe me, the waves look even bigger when you're down in among them.
As regards units being withdrawn from a search, I wasn't having a go at the ARCC who have a very difficult job to do and for whom I have the utmost respect. I also consider many of the staff there, past & present, as personal friends. They will be looking at all sorts of factors including crew fatigue, previous jobs, potential jobs, aircraft hours, serviceability - all areas you are familiar with. The MRCC will be looking at it from their perspective. Occasionally & it happens more frequently than you would assume, the ARCC & the MRCC may agree to differ. I did say that wasn't a problem. I was merely using the scenario to demonstrate who had OpCon.
I also didn't imply the comms problem was the fault of the ARCC. Clever Richard asked whether "prior to the intro of the S92, did the MCA tell the ARCC, the tasking authority, that they were not fitting HF ?" I replied "Yes. Some folks were not listening though". The relevant meeting took place in 2005. SARF were represented. I queried the decision because I felt that a combination of HF & Satcom gave a more flexible solution i.e. security of Satcom alongside the broadcast facility of HF. That was, and is, my personal view - looking at it from a SAR coordinators viewpoint. However, I am but a humble foot soldier, & Satcom it was. IPT decision, I believe. Slipping into rumour mode - there is an interesting story behind this & one you may not be entirely comfortable with. Back to reality - SARF later claimed that they were first made aware at the 2006 Conference which is incorrect but that particular myth has grown legs. In any case, both events preceded the introduction of the first S92 at Stornoway in 2007.
On the issue of equipment being brought into service without being fully tried & tested, well I can only point you in the same direction that other contributors to this forum have suggested in the past. Who is immune ? I understand that the MOD have some previous (and current) here.
Job done & hopefully slipping back into obscurity before I get into hot water ...........
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluenose 50,
An interesting post. I find it strange that the RAF claim that they were not informed about the lack of HF on the interim S-92 if it was stated at a meeting with an RAF rep(presumably it was minuted).
It was mentioned previously that the sat-tracker on the S-92 can be accessed over the internet. As a mission critical system, do you know if the MCA has a dedicated comms set-up for handling this data as I would be worried if they left themselves at the mercy of the vagaries of the internet.
CD
An interesting post. I find it strange that the RAF claim that they were not informed about the lack of HF on the interim S-92 if it was stated at a meeting with an RAF rep(presumably it was minuted).
It was mentioned previously that the sat-tracker on the S-92 can be accessed over the internet. As a mission critical system, do you know if the MCA has a dedicated comms set-up for handling this data as I would be worried if they left themselves at the mercy of the vagaries of the internet.
CD