SARH to go
Lost - I don't have to insult you - your inability to move on from my alleged contradictions says far more about you than I could ever wish to.
I will again reiterate that although the RAF provided technical advice to the MCA on the interim contract it had (to my knowledge) no part in the letting and management of the contract and any recommendations made would have been on the assumption that goods and services were provided to the correct specification by the manufacturer and contractor. The blame for the failure to provide a suitably equipped 139 lies firmly at the feet of a whole load of civilians not the MoD.
For every failed RAF project (presumably you mean MR4 and Chinook 3) there will be many good ones. I am not going to defend the procurement process as it has its flaws but if you pay someone to produce a piece of kit and it takes 4 years to build, it is not rocket science to see that you might want to modify the specification upwards to take account of new technology. That brings in delays and costs money.
However, in most cases where a project fails it is because the contractor (civilians remember not military) claims to be able to produce a level of performance or capability and then can't - a bit like the present 139 fiasco!
How many computer systems have you seen come in on time, on budget and on spec?
How exactly would you go about defending what has gone on at Lee and Portland? Blame the RAF and Navy for leaving the stations vacant in the past perhaps?
I will again reiterate that although the RAF provided technical advice to the MCA on the interim contract it had (to my knowledge) no part in the letting and management of the contract and any recommendations made would have been on the assumption that goods and services were provided to the correct specification by the manufacturer and contractor. The blame for the failure to provide a suitably equipped 139 lies firmly at the feet of a whole load of civilians not the MoD.
For every failed RAF project (presumably you mean MR4 and Chinook 3) there will be many good ones. I am not going to defend the procurement process as it has its flaws but if you pay someone to produce a piece of kit and it takes 4 years to build, it is not rocket science to see that you might want to modify the specification upwards to take account of new technology. That brings in delays and costs money.
However, in most cases where a project fails it is because the contractor (civilians remember not military) claims to be able to produce a level of performance or capability and then can't - a bit like the present 139 fiasco!
How many computer systems have you seen come in on time, on budget and on spec?
How exactly would you go about defending what has gone on at Lee and Portland? Blame the RAF and Navy for leaving the stations vacant in the past perhaps?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: burnham
Age: 52
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched Highland Emergency a couple of nights ago and noticed the navy crew had to pick up the Air Ambu paramedics for a job as they didn't have a qualified medic onboard??
I thought the reason they stopped carrying Navy medics was because the crewmen were now trained in emergency care.
Confused
Rob
I thought the reason they stopped carrying Navy medics was because the crewmen were now trained in emergency care.
Confused
Rob
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Coast
Age: 79
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a rumour true fact
THERE WILL BE NO S61N COVER OVERNIGHT TONIGHT FOR PORTLAND AND SOLENT FROM 1900 LOCAL DUE TO A SHORTAGE OF AIRCREW.
THE AW139 WILL BE GOING OFF DUTY AT 1900 AND WILL BE AVAILABLE AT 45 MINS NOTICE FOR AIRPORT TO AIRPORT/WELL LIT AREA TRANSFERS ONLY, DUE TO ITS CURRENT FLIGHT RESTRICTION. ANY AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENT FOR NIGHT TIME SEARCHES/CLIFF INCIDENTS OR ANY REQUIRMENT FOR NIGHT TIME WINCHING OPERATIONS WILL REQUIRE THE ASSISTANCE OF ARCCK KINLOSS.
Oh dear
THERE WILL BE NO S61N COVER OVERNIGHT TONIGHT FOR PORTLAND AND SOLENT FROM 1900 LOCAL DUE TO A SHORTAGE OF AIRCREW.
THE AW139 WILL BE GOING OFF DUTY AT 1900 AND WILL BE AVAILABLE AT 45 MINS NOTICE FOR AIRPORT TO AIRPORT/WELL LIT AREA TRANSFERS ONLY, DUE TO ITS CURRENT FLIGHT RESTRICTION. ANY AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENT FOR NIGHT TIME SEARCHES/CLIFF INCIDENTS OR ANY REQUIRMENT FOR NIGHT TIME WINCHING OPERATIONS WILL REQUIRE THE ASSISTANCE OF ARCCK KINLOSS.
Oh dear
Well Chivenor's patch just got a whole load bigger then!
I did wonder how long this ad-hoc arrangement could last in the South - even if extra S61s and crews were available it would cost a fortune in overtime.
So as ever, the default back-up plan is to rely on the Military - what will you all do when we are gone?
I did wonder how long this ad-hoc arrangement could last in the South - even if extra S61s and crews were available it would cost a fortune in overtime.
So as ever, the default back-up plan is to rely on the Military - what will you all do when we are gone?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
You forget all the times when military aircraft are unavailable and the cover is provided by Civy SAR. It works both ways but keep on with the Crab spin!!!
Good to see you admit to the RAF involvement in the Interim SAR bid and of the failure of many RAF projects at taxpayers expense!
You forget all the times when military aircraft are unavailable and the cover is provided by Civy SAR. It works both ways but keep on with the Crab spin!!!
Good to see you admit to the RAF involvement in the Interim SAR bid and of the failure of many RAF projects at taxpayers expense!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if we could just focus on the important issues for a minute rather than the lost v crab soap opera....
sapper...or anyone else with access to fact....is the lack of S61 overnight cover along the south coast a temporary thing or gonna be a regular (permanent?) feature until the 139s are back on line?
I have my own views on SARH v mil SAR etc but from an interested party, a lack of local helo SAR (accepting the valiant efforts of mil SAR cover from wattisham, culdrose and or chiv) along one of the busiest shipping areas of the UK at night is a worry that, apart from these pages, doesn't seem to be that common knowledge....
sapper...or anyone else with access to fact....is the lack of S61 overnight cover along the south coast a temporary thing or gonna be a regular (permanent?) feature until the 139s are back on line?
I have my own views on SARH v mil SAR etc but from an interested party, a lack of local helo SAR (accepting the valiant efforts of mil SAR cover from wattisham, culdrose and or chiv) along one of the busiest shipping areas of the UK at night is a worry that, apart from these pages, doesn't seem to be that common knowledge....
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: devon
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Well Chivenor's patch just got a whole load bigger then!"
As a N Devon taxpayer I don't mind lending you south coasters OUR helicopters but please bring it back clean and tidy! Of course, it is OURS, it doesn't belong to some company's off-shore bank's hedge fund manager.
arandcee: 'looking up when crab flies over'
As a N Devon taxpayer I don't mind lending you south coasters OUR helicopters but please bring it back clean and tidy! Of course, it is OURS, it doesn't belong to some company's off-shore bank's hedge fund manager.
arandcee: 'looking up when crab flies over'
Lost - would you care to specify an occasion when that has happened - I think the whole of the busiest shipping channel being without overnight SAR cover for an indefinite period is in a completely different league from one flight being off-state for 24 hours. It is becoming tedious highlighting the inadequacies of you posts so do Spanish a favour and find a new tune.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
How about the several occasions when Lossie and Prestwick have been off line and the whole of Scotland was covered by the CG flights. You are constantly telling us how wonderful mil SAR is but you really don't like it when someone points out the problems with it. You say that my posts are tedious but how many times do we have to hear about the range of the sea king and your backwards radar from you. That's your problem, you're happy to continually repeat the same argument but if someone adopts the same tactic you get all high and mighty. It's just so transparent and I'll give you a piece of advice it makes you look silly.
The south coast issue is bad, but there was a company that said it wouldn't work, one that you hate and openly rejoiced in the fact they lost the contract. That company was right. It's also the company that has now said SAR H won't work. The problem with RAF advice is that it has no idea of what happens in the real world. If you are looking at a civy contract the worse person you can get advice from is from the RAF. In the real world companies are not honest, they will bullsh*t. Maybe that's why the mil constantly get screwed by defense contractors is because you believe what they say. The world isn't fair and the sooner you realise it then the better you'll be. That's why you need someone more street wise when dealing with civy contracts. As you've proved by your lack of understanding of EGPWS and AIS, mil SAR is well behind the drag curve on modern equipment you don't understand it so you reject it. These are not the sort of people you want deciding a modern contract. I would also add that your constant ranting and luddite ideas are actually damaging mil SAR.
So I'll going to help you and say why not take some of the posters up on their offer, go to a civy SAR base and have a look. Try to embrace a different way of doing things. Think out of the box even if it is just for a minute and just see, if just maybe there could be a different way of doing things which works as well as your way. Take my word you'll be a better more rounded person for it.
And I'll make a deal with you - I'll change the tune if you will!
How about the several occasions when Lossie and Prestwick have been off line and the whole of Scotland was covered by the CG flights. You are constantly telling us how wonderful mil SAR is but you really don't like it when someone points out the problems with it. You say that my posts are tedious but how many times do we have to hear about the range of the sea king and your backwards radar from you. That's your problem, you're happy to continually repeat the same argument but if someone adopts the same tactic you get all high and mighty. It's just so transparent and I'll give you a piece of advice it makes you look silly.
The south coast issue is bad, but there was a company that said it wouldn't work, one that you hate and openly rejoiced in the fact they lost the contract. That company was right. It's also the company that has now said SAR H won't work. The problem with RAF advice is that it has no idea of what happens in the real world. If you are looking at a civy contract the worse person you can get advice from is from the RAF. In the real world companies are not honest, they will bullsh*t. Maybe that's why the mil constantly get screwed by defense contractors is because you believe what they say. The world isn't fair and the sooner you realise it then the better you'll be. That's why you need someone more street wise when dealing with civy contracts. As you've proved by your lack of understanding of EGPWS and AIS, mil SAR is well behind the drag curve on modern equipment you don't understand it so you reject it. These are not the sort of people you want deciding a modern contract. I would also add that your constant ranting and luddite ideas are actually damaging mil SAR.
So I'll going to help you and say why not take some of the posters up on their offer, go to a civy SAR base and have a look. Try to embrace a different way of doing things. Think out of the box even if it is just for a minute and just see, if just maybe there could be a different way of doing things which works as well as your way. Take my word you'll be a better more rounded person for it.
And I'll make a deal with you - I'll change the tune if you will!
Last edited by Lost at Sea; 22nd Oct 2008 at 12:00.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bucks
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it is shocking that the UK offers no SAR cover for the Channel tonight, and I suppose many nights until the 139 issues are overcome. However, we should remember that there is a pretty advanced nation to the south of La Manche who I believe is quite good with helicopters.
By the way, I think that an experienced SAR officer wearing a light blue uniform was involved in the selection of the AW139 (and S92) for this interim contract. BUT few new aircraft enter service without teething problems, which are usually overcome. I would be surprised if both types do not, in due course, gain enviable reputations for SAR. I would criticize those who chose both for this most challenging role, when neither type had previously gained much operational experience in any role. As a certain senior politician has remarked recently "this is no time for novices".
If proper contract administration by the customer had been in place this sad situation would have been most unlikely. But had it happened, penalties would have bought an alternative at no cost to the customer - MCA.
By the way, I think that an experienced SAR officer wearing a light blue uniform was involved in the selection of the AW139 (and S92) for this interim contract. BUT few new aircraft enter service without teething problems, which are usually overcome. I would be surprised if both types do not, in due course, gain enviable reputations for SAR. I would criticize those who chose both for this most challenging role, when neither type had previously gained much operational experience in any role. As a certain senior politician has remarked recently "this is no time for novices".
If proper contract administration by the customer had been in place this sad situation would have been most unlikely. But had it happened, penalties would have bought an alternative at no cost to the customer - MCA.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Coast
Age: 79
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanish.
The loss of cover we sincerely hope is temporary, but we know there is some severe ar** twiching going on within the higher echelons of the MCA, CHC & AW.
All, please be assured that the 139s at Solent & Portland are now on line and ready for what the South Coast produces.
Crab.
Thanks for looking after us.
The loss of cover we sincerely hope is temporary, but we know there is some severe ar** twiching going on within the higher echelons of the MCA, CHC & AW.
All, please be assured that the 139s at Solent & Portland are now on line and ready for what the South Coast produces.
Crab.
Thanks for looking after us.
With so many unknowns, SAR-H either with the Mil, CHC or Bristow’s in the past, was, and never will be straightforward.
I always thought Bristow’s were going to be the front-runner in this bid followed by CHC as they are both huge offshore helicopter service providers and both have lots of SAR experience behind them, so I’m surprised not to see Bristow’s pop up under another banner - assuming they think there's money to be made.
Good to hear the South is up and running again
I always thought Bristow’s were going to be the front-runner in this bid followed by CHC as they are both huge offshore helicopter service providers and both have lots of SAR experience behind them, so I’m surprised not to see Bristow’s pop up under another banner - assuming they think there's money to be made.
Good to hear the South is up and running again
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sar Aw139
The interesting fact here is actually that the 139 would have been fit for purpose had it been equipped as promised - it wasn't!
I would like to echo Sappers post. How we have come to this situation is down to people all the way from the top, CHC, MCA, whoever, just not listening or reacting to what they are being told.
I have been involved with SAR, Mil and Civ for more years than I care to remember but rest assured, I have never been more embarressed by a situation than the one we have been forced into now.
Blame who you like, Crab, Crabbette, CHC, MCA, me, but the fact is simple, the 139 is not fit for purpose! At the moment!! That person, in my opinion, needs hanging from the nearest yardarm.
Afterall, you get what you pay for and if you don't ask then you don't get! This situation would have been avoided if some form of trial had been carried out prior to entry into service but there was an indecent rush to get this contract up and running so now it is down to the crews, who btw are still trying to make this thing work, to sort it out!! We did what Crabbette suggested in a previous post, "just got on with it." Well as they say, you reap what you sow! Or something like that.
We are promised fixes but AW do not seem to able to respond to a request for mods. that involve purely a software change let alone semi-major mods like extra lights. Don't hold your breath.
3D
I have been involved with SAR, Mil and Civ for more years than I care to remember but rest assured, I have never been more embarressed by a situation than the one we have been forced into now.
Blame who you like, Crab, Crabbette, CHC, MCA, me, but the fact is simple, the 139 is not fit for purpose! At the moment!! That person, in my opinion, needs hanging from the nearest yardarm.
Afterall, you get what you pay for and if you don't ask then you don't get! This situation would have been avoided if some form of trial had been carried out prior to entry into service but there was an indecent rush to get this contract up and running so now it is down to the crews, who btw are still trying to make this thing work, to sort it out!! We did what Crabbette suggested in a previous post, "just got on with it."
Well as they say, you reap what you sow! Or something like that.We are promised fixes but AW do not seem to able to respond to a request for mods. that involve purely a software change let alone semi-major mods like extra lights. Don't hold your breath.
3D
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Age: 66
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AW 139
A careful analysis of the jobs done by the Solent and Portland S61s over the last few years revealed that they rarely had to lift more than a few casualties.
This analysis suggested that a smaller helicopter would fit the need. However they only considered jobs within the UK SRR (United Kingdom search and Rescue Region). During the period of the study they ignored those shipwrecks just beyond the UK-France median line where the French authorities had asked for help from the UK MRCCs and UK SAR helicopter fleet because the French helicopters were not available, in the wrong place or constrained by weather.
The study came up with the answer that a small fast platform would be just the thing. What was missed that was that although the helo would only need to lift a small number of persons it;
- would need a large working area within the helo to keep the divers lying down so the bubbles didn’t get into their brains,
- would need a large working area so that the two in the back could easily do “chest thumping” (i.e. CPR) and change over as they got tired;
- would need a large working area so that when it landed outside the doors of A&E the hospital resuscitation team could run aboard and start work.
The requirement was defined as kilogrammes of lift instead of cubic metres of working space.
I must disagree with ‘budget1’ who said “ On this one I am with Crab, the aircraft is a delivery system to get the winchman to a casualty”.
No. The helo is a tool to move the person in danger to a place of safety. And deliver them in the same or better condition than when they were collected.
This implies that the transport system must must have “working space” for the aft crew to maintain or improve the status of the casualty.
The AW139 can carry 15 persons, or more correctly “15 pieces of self loading cargo” when operating in budget airline mode. When the cargo is not self loading it is not possible to stack them so neatly in the available space.
So although the AW139 has the power and capability to carry 15 disciplined passengers it does not have the space to carry 15 wild eyed, upset, casualties who must remain prone.
The error in the plan was that the AW139 has the power to carry casualties in terms of kilogrammes but not the cubic metres. A controlled passenger in a fitted seat takes up 0.25 square metres of floor space. A prone casualty takes up 2 square metres of floor space – plus the space the “carer” needs to attend to the casualty and move around to reach his “tools”.
The error in the plan was that the AW139 has more than enough engine power to lift the typical load but not enough floor space where the typical load is lying down and needs room around them for the “life supporters” to keep them alive.
If you think this argument is nonsense; consider the typical ambulance. An estate car could carry one casualty, a driver and and a medic but yet the NHS still insist on vehicles with six foot of headroom and working space in the back- for the one casualty in the ambulance.
All of the above has really been about the size of the 139. Changing the subject.
Something has gone wrong with the equipment fit. It would appear that there is a disconnect between the AW139 as it appears in the brochure and should be available in 20xx and the AW139 as it is currently available now.Some important bits that were promised are missing. “The software is not yet available.”
It is probably a very good helicopter but not for the SAR role.
This analysis suggested that a smaller helicopter would fit the need. However they only considered jobs within the UK SRR (United Kingdom search and Rescue Region). During the period of the study they ignored those shipwrecks just beyond the UK-France median line where the French authorities had asked for help from the UK MRCCs and UK SAR helicopter fleet because the French helicopters were not available, in the wrong place or constrained by weather.
The study came up with the answer that a small fast platform would be just the thing. What was missed that was that although the helo would only need to lift a small number of persons it;
- would need a large working area within the helo to keep the divers lying down so the bubbles didn’t get into their brains,
- would need a large working area so that the two in the back could easily do “chest thumping” (i.e. CPR) and change over as they got tired;
- would need a large working area so that when it landed outside the doors of A&E the hospital resuscitation team could run aboard and start work.
The requirement was defined as kilogrammes of lift instead of cubic metres of working space.
I must disagree with ‘budget1’ who said “ On this one I am with Crab, the aircraft is a delivery system to get the winchman to a casualty”.
No. The helo is a tool to move the person in danger to a place of safety. And deliver them in the same or better condition than when they were collected.
This implies that the transport system must must have “working space” for the aft crew to maintain or improve the status of the casualty.
The AW139 can carry 15 persons, or more correctly “15 pieces of self loading cargo” when operating in budget airline mode. When the cargo is not self loading it is not possible to stack them so neatly in the available space.
So although the AW139 has the power and capability to carry 15 disciplined passengers it does not have the space to carry 15 wild eyed, upset, casualties who must remain prone.
The error in the plan was that the AW139 has the power to carry casualties in terms of kilogrammes but not the cubic metres. A controlled passenger in a fitted seat takes up 0.25 square metres of floor space. A prone casualty takes up 2 square metres of floor space – plus the space the “carer” needs to attend to the casualty and move around to reach his “tools”.
The error in the plan was that the AW139 has more than enough engine power to lift the typical load but not enough floor space where the typical load is lying down and needs room around them for the “life supporters” to keep them alive.
If you think this argument is nonsense; consider the typical ambulance. An estate car could carry one casualty, a driver and and a medic but yet the NHS still insist on vehicles with six foot of headroom and working space in the back- for the one casualty in the ambulance.
All of the above has really been about the size of the 139. Changing the subject.
Something has gone wrong with the equipment fit. It would appear that there is a disconnect between the AW139 as it appears in the brochure and should be available in 20xx and the AW139 as it is currently available now.Some important bits that were promised are missing. “The software is not yet available.”
Perhaps it is not totally suited to the UK SAR role.
The designers assumed it would always land on tarmac and so they gave it small wheels. Landing in a wet field to un-load a casualty may smash the FLIR and other bits (radio aerials) as it sinks into the mud.
Now just who was it that decide that this was the “bee’s knees” and must be used on the south coast ? What happened to asking the users ? The answer is nothing. The users are never asked and never have been. When the bottom life forms in the fish tank realised what was happening they were horrified, but it was too late by then.The designers assumed it would always land on tarmac and so they gave it small wheels. Landing in a wet field to un-load a casualty may smash the FLIR and other bits (radio aerials) as it sinks into the mud.
It is probably a very good helicopter but not for the SAR role.
As much as some would seem to want it, the RAF/MOD are not culpable or blameworthy in any way in this fiasco. Even if one RAF Officer said it was an accpetable SAR aircraft (which it would be if properly euipped) that doesn't remove the responsibility for AW to provide the kit as specified, CHC to accept the aircraft as fit for purpose (or reject it) or the MCA to ensure that what they were promised is what is delivered.
Fortunately the rot stopped with the CHC crews who did exactly the right thing - it's a shame none of them were asked about the aircraft and what they wanted from a SAR cab before the machine was ordered (or maybe they were and were ignored).
WE come back to my fundamental worry about the whole SARH concept - the integrity of the contractors (management) involved.
This episode highlights how badly this can go wrong when profit is the driving factor behind providing a service - when profit is threatened the service suffers if someone thinks they can get away with it without someone else noticing.
In many ways it is good that this has happened now because it can be rectified - if we were stuck into a 30 year contract covering all the SAR flights and this situation occurred the whole of UK SAR would be compromised.
I know the bidders aren't happy with the SARH contract terms - a lot of it to do with the profitability element - we come back to the fact that to replace everything that the military SAR machine does now (and that includes all the training system) costs a lot of money - those bidders have realised how much when they prepared their bids.
Lost - if Bristows (and I'm talking about the management not the crews) were so chuffing good, why did they lose the contract in the first place?
Put the blame for this cockup firmly where it belongs - CHC - they are the contractors and as such are responsible for the safe and effective provision of service.
Fortunately the rot stopped with the CHC crews who did exactly the right thing - it's a shame none of them were asked about the aircraft and what they wanted from a SAR cab before the machine was ordered (or maybe they were and were ignored).
WE come back to my fundamental worry about the whole SARH concept - the integrity of the contractors (management) involved.
This episode highlights how badly this can go wrong when profit is the driving factor behind providing a service - when profit is threatened the service suffers if someone thinks they can get away with it without someone else noticing.
In many ways it is good that this has happened now because it can be rectified - if we were stuck into a 30 year contract covering all the SAR flights and this situation occurred the whole of UK SAR would be compromised.
I know the bidders aren't happy with the SARH contract terms - a lot of it to do with the profitability element - we come back to the fact that to replace everything that the military SAR machine does now (and that includes all the training system) costs a lot of money - those bidders have realised how much when they prepared their bids.
Lost - if Bristows (and I'm talking about the management not the crews) were so chuffing good, why did they lose the contract in the first place?
Put the blame for this cockup firmly where it belongs - CHC - they are the contractors and as such are responsible for the safe and effective provision of service.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send’em
I agree with what you say entirely including the quote as to the role of the aircraft ‘The helo is a tool to move the person in danger to a place of safety. And deliver them in the same or better condition than when they were collected’ a much more eloquent way than the one I once agreed with crab on. I guess at the time I was trying to highlight the point that the cabin is not big enough for a winchman to carry out his role.
Bottom line is the cabin is too small to carry out our role, we should have room to work around a casualty relatively easily when in our medical role. We should also be prepared for removing casualties from that dangerous situation such as a vessel sinking in the middle of the channel.
The Channel is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world and accidents happen. Loads shift putting vessels at risk of capsizing, collisions in fog, fires onboard etc. We should also have the capability to take a full fire fighting team to a large vessel with a fire onboard and we should feel confident with the tool we use to carry out the role.
I agree with what you say entirely including the quote as to the role of the aircraft ‘The helo is a tool to move the person in danger to a place of safety. And deliver them in the same or better condition than when they were collected’ a much more eloquent way than the one I once agreed with crab on. I guess at the time I was trying to highlight the point that the cabin is not big enough for a winchman to carry out his role.
Bottom line is the cabin is too small to carry out our role, we should have room to work around a casualty relatively easily when in our medical role. We should also be prepared for removing casualties from that dangerous situation such as a vessel sinking in the middle of the channel.
The Channel is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world and accidents happen. Loads shift putting vessels at risk of capsizing, collisions in fog, fires onboard etc. We should also have the capability to take a full fire fighting team to a large vessel with a fire onboard and we should feel confident with the tool we use to carry out the role.
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
Is anyone able (remembering that this is a public forum) to spell out, in detail and in evaluator-speak, just what it is that is wrong with the AW139?
And remember, every aircraft is a gross compromise. Performance, payload, flight envelope, cost, safety. Change one and the others have to change. So what needs doing and what else is going to give to get it done?
Sven
And remember, every aircraft is a gross compromise. Performance, payload, flight envelope, cost, safety. Change one and the others have to change. So what needs doing and what else is going to give to get it done?
Sven