SAR - Recovering large numbers of survivors.

[unstable load]

Geoffers,
The 76's that went to Honkers had the option of using either hoist for jobs that were difficult to access from one side.

[ShyTorque]

Really? I'm very surprised to hear about this double winch fit. Please check your pms.

[Um... lifting...]

Please to remember the USCG operates with Rescue Swimmers as a standard part of the crew.

Indeed we did, SASless (and do... just not me anymore). Not so long ago USCG machines simply didn't have the guts in them to handle much weight, so swimmers were often not carried (even when available, which they weren't always) and creative fuel burning was one of the ways to get sufficient power available. Hovering fairly low and other various pilot techniques a lot of people didn't necessarily enjoy were others, but that's a long and sordid story not germane here.

crab, the USCG has pretty much been out of the basket to the water business for anyone but a trained survivor for a long time, and even then usually a swimmer is sent down these days since there tends to be some degree of injury/hypothermia/confusion/what-have-you.
But in that vein, I completely agree that a large survivor basket is, under most conditions I can think of, a liability. People falling out, crazy overloading, inability to transit any sort of distance with any sort of speed, etc. Maybe in some well-defined smaller sort of body of water with high volumes of shipping such as the Channel it might work, but anywhere with open ocean I can't see it getting much use. Also, I can't see doing any searching with this thing attached. But then, I'm used to operating single-ship with a fixed-wing cap and open ocean, so I admit there are probably other thoughts on the matter. Probably one's thoughts on this will vary with the areas to which one has been exposed.

The genesis of the CG rescue swimmer program was the SS Marine Electric sinking in 1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Marine_Electric

A history of the program is here. As my master's project, I wrote the initial curriculum for (then-called) and was involved with the prototyping of Advanced Rescue Swimmer School which was first delivered to students in the Spring of 1996. My name appears nowhere in the article or indeed hardly anywhere associated with the program. However, I do have the final edited prototype copy of the syllabus. I take a sort of perverse pride in that.
USCG: Page Title

A thumbnail of advanced helicopter rescue school is here. I've been away from it for years, but I do know that all the U.S. forces have visited and numerous others, if for no other reason than to observe.
USCG Group/Air Station Astoria, OR home

And finally, because it ultimately comes down to how your doctrine is written, this is the manual. I have no idea if it's current and make no claims it is. Pictures, tools, procedures, etc.
www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3710_4B.pdf

[Geoffersincornwall]

Shy and Unstable

Don't keep me guessing any longer - what was so intriguing about the twin hoist set-up. It's been a while but I seem to remember being told that it was to facilitate the rapid insertion of their SWAT team. ?????

In the days of the dear old S61 I had the fanciful notion that you could organise a quick-fit hoist over the air stair door then when the balloon went up - sorry, for our foreign colleagues - when disaster struck - and the day came to carry out mega-evac you pulled the pip-pins on the air stair, clipped on the No.2 hoist grabbed the second winch wiggler and, Robert's your mothers brother (Bob's your uncle for the non Anglos) you are good to go............... lowish hover over the winching spot and multo rapido pax uplift. At least the CG would be a bit more manageable. The lack of a CT7 retrofit unfortunately meant that you would be unlikely to have the oomph to make it all worthwhile.

Still the twin hoist S76 proves it can be done but on a ship that small it hardly seems worth the effort.

No input from the Channel Guardians I see.

G





G

[Lt.Fubar]

The American rescue basket is actually a neat design, and have very long history - it was designed in the 50's... by the Navy I believe, it replaced a rope "bird cage" like device.

Crab, check out the Russian rescue basket, now that's a wild one. Designed to accommodate 3 victims, but they pretty much have to be held in place, or strapped in. So there is no way to use it without a rescue swimmer, although it supposed to be used by... sweeping victims off the surface. Never seen it used like that, and don't think will ever do.

[leopold bloom]

Baskets

Government Flying Service
Don't know where the info about twin hoists on HK GFS 76's came from, check out this link for pics. GFS stopped using the rescue basket after a couple of tragic incidents.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Twin hoists on the S76s

As I said it was a while ago but I believe they were C models and it was during the early 90s - maybe late 80s - when it was called the HK Auxilliary Air Force. I bumped into a C model belonging to BHS in Macae, Brazil 4 years ago which curiously had a second pad for a hoist on the left hand side. I'll check out my phot library and see if I have a piccy. At the time I assumed they had bought it from HK or at least it originated in HK.

G

[TRC]

Baskets & baskets

there seems to be some confusion over the term 'basket' here.

The two-person basket, raised and lowered on a winch looks like this:



The mass rescue, 16 person basket carried on the cargo hook (with a secondary safety) looks like this:


The large 16 man basket is relatively heavy and stable, and it's only suitable for short range rescues - inshore, within an oilfield or where rescue ships are nearby.
Obviously, some supervision of loading is needed to prevent overloading. It's unlikely that people will fall out as has been suggested. One advantage is that it will transport injured, unconcious and children. it is unlikely to be the liability that it is being described on here. The US Air National Guard are equipping with it, so it can't be that awful.

Think outside the box - but inside the basket.

[TRC]

Another advantage of the 16 man basket is that it will float, so it doesn't need to be held in an accurate height hover + or - a foot or two. As long as it remains attached to the helicopter it can be dumped in the water, loaded and depart again in a fairly short time.

[ShyTorque]

I'm not at all convinced about this HK twin hoist thing. AFAIK twin hoists / winches were never fitted to those aircraft. Are you sure the fittings on the left side of the S-76 airframe weren't for the NightSun?

[SASless]

Working off what's left of my memory.....The USCG came up with the basket named after its inventor....Billy Pugh.

[unstable load]

Geoffers and Shy Torque,

In the spirit of a rumour network it appears that I was misled by the bloke who told me about the twin hoists. I actually worked on one of those machines after CHC bought it and even have a photo of it to prove me wrong.

So, grovelling, humble apology to all who have been deeply offended and had to reach for sustenance to calm their nerves after this revelation!

[[email protected]]

So you put a rescue swimmer/winchman on the deck to try and supervise the orderly loading of 16 (at a time) frightened people into your basket - then what? You still need another vessel to put them on so you can go back for the rest. If you have to fly them back for 50nm over the North Sea they will all have hypothermia by the time you get them to land. Much better in a warm cabin with a paramedic to look after them.

The chances are that in the event of a mass evacuation following a collision or fire, the passengers will be in liferafts/lifeboats and perfectly safe (if a little cold and seasick)- they are very unlikely to want to get into the water so you can put them in your basket, even if it does float.

TRC, I can see why you are pushing this device since you clearly have links with the manufacturers but I don't see UKSAR adopting this cage. I'm not sure if the CG S92s and 139 have USL hooks fitted, we don't for much of the time and someone would have to pay for the modifications to the aircraft.

Geoffers, I don't think there are any secret CG plans - whatever assets that are available will be sent, from both sides of the Channel (like with Zeebrugge), there are always more ships there than you can shake a stick at and they are all bound by law to assist. Can we guarantee no loss of life at sea following a major sinking/collision? No and we never will but providing the number of assets are available we will do the best we can.

Lt Fubar - I have seen video of the USCG trying to sweep casualties into the basket when there has been no rescue swimmer - it is one of the reasons I dislike the concept so much since a winchman would have saved them all - even healthy, fit people struggle in the water trying to get into a dinghy/boat/liferaft, what chance does a cold, injured casualty have?

[Lt.Fubar]

Crab, as SS Marine Electric proved - the chances are pretty slim, so today CG don't do that, rescue swimmer goes to the water every time it is save for him. I read many USCG reports, and ones where rescue swimmer couldn't be deployed are very rare (mostly on Bering sea). Here, where the sea don't get so rough, rescue swimmer is always deployed and assist with pick up, the sweeping is not even practiced. and the victim is lifted with sling, stretcher, or in case of Mi-14PS in that fancy basket:


(click to enlarge)

Plus there is option for direct surface pickup, but that will work with calm sea only.

[TRC]

- then what? You still need another vessel to put them on so you can go back for the rest. If you have to fly them back for 50nm over the North Sea they will all have hypothermia by the time you get them to land

Yes crab - I know that.

On the 19th I wrote:

Inshore or oilfields, short-range jobs a basket rescue is the answer

and only last night I wrote:

and it's only suitable for short range rescues - inshore, within an oilfield or where rescue ships are nearby.

they are very unlikely to want to get into the water so you can put them in your basket, even if it does float

So you land it on the deck, don't you.....

I can see why you are pushing this device since you clearly have links with the manufacturers

I am not 'pushing it'. It was mentioned by SASless, then there was an almost undignified race to get to the wrong end of the stick first. I'm just trying to clarify a few misconceptions - and failing with you it seems.

Don't dismiss this out of hand just because it's different to what has always been 'the right way to do it'.

If this is considered advertising - I'll happily remove all references.

[SASless]

Does the RAF SAR Sea Kings deploy with Rescue Swimmers as a standard?

In the past I believe Crabs answer was that only on specified job would a trained diver be assigned.

Can you clarify that for me Crab?

Again I fear there is a perceived insult to the RAF SAR concept that brings about Crabs response to anyone suggesting baskets might have a place in SAR work vice the "Dope on a Rope" method.

Crab please to remember the USCG has been in the helicopter SAR business since day one of Helicopters. They were flying doing convoy escort missions during WWII using helicopters and have done a few rescues since then. They adopted the basket technique early on and thus feel the basket has its place along with other methods. You will notice they now prefer the Rescue Swimmer method over the basket. They have changed with the times.

[Um... lifting...]

In USCG parlance, the basket is a 'device'. That's the term used for anything that is hung from the hoist (or winch if you prefer) hook. While crab may not like hearing it, the rescue hoist in a helicopter is indeed an American invention, and the photo at the end of this post is one Commander Frank Erickson, USCG at the controls with cap mashed firmly on his head... hoisting some fellow named Sikorsky. That's not to say some fellows somewhere else weren't doing the same sort of thing at the same-ish time (I certainly wasn't there), but Erickson is generally accepted as being the first.
Besides the basket, there are other devices, including the quick strop & sling (the quick strop part looks vaguely like the old horse collar, but is more clever and safer and was invented by the USCG), and the collapsible stokes litter. Pretty much all those devices are used in conjunction with the swimmer (what you might call a diver) in various ways for various types of situations.

Putting aside horse collar pickups, in the old days, the basket was the ne plus ultra for recovering a survivor without a swimmer if it weren't possible to do a ramp pickup (yes, the HH-52 (S-62) and HH-3F (S-61) both landed on the water sea state permitting. Keep in mind that diversely trained helicopter rescue swimmers for functions substantially different than picking up military aviators is a comparatively new concept. I am aware that the RN and RAF have had winchmen/divers for 30-odd years, but I stand by the statement in its full context. So have the U.S. Forces.

An unassisted basket pickup presumes the survivor is in some position to help him or herself. An often unwarranted assumption due injury or hypothermia or what-have-you, that at one time the USCG made. There are reasons, but there's no point in going into them. That said, I suspect the films crab has watched on USCG operations are probably 30 years old or more. A good deal has changed since then. I was in the middle of it.

The primary problem I have with the 16-person basket is that I suspect it would seldom (if ever) be used. That isn't to say everyone would agree with me, but some of my questions would be... Where do you store the thing? Offshore on a rig, or ashore in the aircraft hangar? Who inspects and load tests it periodically, to make sure the thing can still support 16? In the USCG, a device that hasn't been maintained by a military command is never hung from an aircraft and this would be just one more piece of gear that needs a care and maintenance procedure to keep it serviceable. What do you do with it if you take off with it on the hook, arrive on scene, and find you don't need it, or indeed it is a liability for your particular situation?
Crab's admonitions about exposure and so forth are also well-considered, and in my experience, accurate.

The nature of SAR is rife with uncertainty. I submit (based upon my dozen or so years of doing the work in some diverse locales) that much of the time when one takes off on a SAR mission, the nature of the notification and the actual nature of the case when one arrives on scene can be so different that it is hard to believe it is the same mission.
As often as not, the potential rescuees don't know where they are (yes, even in the days of GPS) and must be located, hence the 'S'. I for one don't fancy searching with anything hung outside the aircraft, especially in weather. I think the concept of this basket underestimates a great deal the inherent complexity and uncertainty in SAR, especially helicopter SAR.
While there is more than one way to skin a cat, I suspect this basket would virtually never be used. It's too specialized and too limited... and limiting.

Point of interest, SASless... I believe Billy Pugh invented various nets for personnel transport and rescue in the oil field environment. As far as I can determine, he didn't invent the rescue basket, but I gather he was such a humble fellow that even when directly approached about his net inventions he often denied being 'that' Billy Pugh, so one couldn't say with total certainty. The fellow who bought his company some years back has said he believes that the Billy Pugh name was the most important asset that came with the purchase.

[TRC]

....I suspect it would seldom (if ever) be used

It has been used for maritime rescue.

Where do you store the thing? Offshore on a rig, or ashore in the aircraft hangar

Either or both, as applicable. A fold-flat version is in development.

Who inspects and load tests it periodically

Who looks after your helicopters?

....to make sure the thing can still support 16

It has a payload of 2 tonnes at a safety factor of 3.75:1. Not as difficult to maintain as the thing that carries it.

What do you do with it if you take off with it on the hook, arrive on scene, and find you don't need it, or indeed it is a liability for your particular situation?

It shouldn't be difficult to drop it somewhere for later retrieval.

Crab's admonitions about exposure and so forth are also well-considered, and in my experience, accurate.

See:

On the 19th I wrote:

Quote:
Inshore or oilfields, short-range jobs a basket rescue is the answer

and only last night I wrote:

Quote:
and it's only suitable for short range rescues - inshore, within an oilfield or where rescue ships are nearby.

It is fully acknowledged that it is a short range solution for mass rescue.

I'm not suggesting that it should be used instead of a winch for rescue. It is a far quicker way of shifting large numbers of people short distances - as mentioned previously. Not to mention floods on 'dry' land.

[Um... lifting...]

My experience and observations lead me to believe that the lads who turn the wrenches on the helicopters, the lads who pack the chutes, check the pyro, load test the hoisting baskets, etc. are already overworked. But, our outlooks apparently differ. It certainly depends upon your organization, where you are located, how the SAR organization is funded and set up, whether it's civil or military, manning structure, what types of airframes are operated, etc. Many variables involved.

A 16-person basket implies a hook and lifting capacity of some 2000kg once you get the people in it. That's a fairly good-sized helicopter, which is great if you have a few. My guess is that a rescue device will seldom, in and of itself, drive other acquisitions. You also need somewhere to set the basket down on both ends of the lift and it needs to be loaded and unloaded.
{Since more than once I've seen a 50' boat off Haiti with over 300 people aboard and about 20cm of freeboard in the Caribbean and have an acquaintance rescue swimmer who disarmed a freighter crewmember of a rather large knife he was using as a means to persuade his fellows that he belonged at the head of the queue, I am a bit leery about trusting frightened rescuees, even trained ones, with managing their own loading in an orderly fashion and staying within the load limits of the device... to my mind that raises the further question of how are you going to get someone on the deck or in the water to supervise loading this thing?}.
As far as putting this basket on a ship deck in a seaway... depends upon the ship, depends upon the seas and other environmental factors. If an oil rig is in such extremis that everybody needs to get off and hasn't already done so via the lifeboats, I can't think of a lot of scenarios where it will be possible to put this basket down on the rig safely to carry out the initial evacuation when it wouldn't also be possible to land aboard. If there's a fire on the rig... can't use it. If the wind is howling at 70 knots... can't use it. Post-hurricane, lifting people off roofs and porches in sketchy weather with telephone lines and trees and the like about... I surely wouldn't enjoy trying it. Those are precisely the times when large numbers of people can find themselves wishing to be evacuated.

It might work in the UK or similar location in a tightly confined waterway, though I still have my doubts, because it is not particularly likely that it will be consistently used on a lovely day.
But, weather, terrain, and other existing conditions differ widely between different locations, and I may be limiting my thought processes. In the U.S., simply because of the transit distances involved on a significant percentage of SAR cases (we considered anything out to 100nm to be short-range) it would be impractical because you'd either need a whole lot of these things in various spots (all of which need to be maintained, which would be a logistical nightmare) or you'd need something to haul it internally so you could get it on scene with some haste. And even then, you still have to rig it to the outside of the machine once on scene.

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. My last SAR unit had an operating area of approximately 18 million square miles... that is not a typo. I have friends in Alaska who have done SAR cases with 10-hour transit times from Kodiak to Attu via Cold Bay and Adak in the Aleutians just to get to the jumping off point so the case can be prosecuted. Even in someplace considered to be comparatively small, such as Hawaii, it's an hour and a half to Hilo from Oahu and just under an hour to Barking Sands, Kauai at 140 knots.

Someone also has to pay for all this. I suspect if the sums were done and a history of actual cases where it might have made the difference was developed within a given operating area, a cost-benefit analysis wouldn't support it when everything from infrastructure to airframe mods and maintenance were taken into account in most SAR environments. It may seem blasphemous that the saving of lives at sea would ever be reduced to an accounting exercise, but the reality is that it generally does come down to that in the end.

But, maybe this could be made to work and I'm sure it has its place. I just don't happen to think in the environments I'm familiar with it would be particularly useful, so up 'til now, I haven't been sold on it.

That said, I could be wrong, I often am.

[arandcee]

Not to mention floods on 'dry' land.

Would it have been useful at Boscastle Crab? Or Glos? Would it have robbed us of the cool footage of the SKs stacking over Boscastle?