Rescue choppers in the UK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: swansea, wales
Age: 66
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
typos my man, I can spell but sometimes type way too fast.
Bit picky to home in on that though, dont you think?
I will try typeing slower for those who are prone to distraction easily.
Bit picky to home in on that though, dont you think?
I will try typeing slower for those who are prone to distraction easily.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Penzance
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bolkow
typos my man, I can spell but sometimes type way too fast.
Bit picky to home in on that though, dont you think?
I will try typeing slower for those who are prone to distraction easily.
Bit picky to home in on that though, dont you think?
I will try typeing slower for those who are prone to distraction easily.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia EMS/SAR
How are your civilian SAR/EMS network of winch equipped helos funded? Govt? charity? private finance?
How/by whom are the civilian crews trained in winch ops and what percentage if any of them are ex military?
and how do they respond to a major incident offshore or would they expect the military to assist?
How/by whom are the civilian crews trained in winch ops and what percentage if any of them are ex military?
and how do they respond to a major incident offshore or would they expect the military to assist?
As said Oz runs combined SAR/EMS choppers funding varies state to state and base to base.
Queensland has a mix Government (3 x AW139 at Cairns, Townsville and Brisbane) and charity ( energex rescue on the sunshine coast 2 x BK117 / Careflight on the gold coast 1 each bell 412, 230 and AS350 / Central queensland rescue and capricorn rescue both bell 412)
NSW again a mix with gov't funded choppers (CHC on contract- AW139 and B412) in syd and surrounds, with charity (westpac) at newcastle, lismore, tamworth. In addition there are 2 ems only charity choppers (careflight hirt and child flight) in syd.
Vic- all gov't funded with 3 sar/ems B412 on contract from CHC, 2 sar/ems B412 on contract from Helicopters Australia?. In addition there is a police airwing that has sar/ems AS365 on contract from CHC shared with the ambulance service.
ACT 1 B412 charity (snowy mountain rescue)
Not sure about SA, NT and WA (I know WA has a charity B412 near perth but not sure about the rest of the state)
Training- All winch ops must hold a civil licence (2911?) so ex mil can do a crossover course, civilians do the full course.Careflight Queensland offer the training. Not sure about % but I beleive that Careflight has 4 line crewies, 3 training crewies and the chief crewie and they're about 50/50 between ex mil and civ ( but most of the civ are ex or part time emergency services and so are used to the type of work)
Responding offshore will be the responsability of the nearest unit, Mil support may be used but a lot of Aus is a long way from a military assist, the mil choppers (Army and navy) are based at Townssville, Syd,Nowra, Perth and Darwin?, if they are available/ close enough then yes they can be asked to respond but it isn't their primary role.
In addition the RAAF has 6 rescue choppers under contract from CHC and again if they are available they can be asked.
Generally, SAR/EMS is a civvy response only, and the units/bases are about 50/50 between charity and government (owned/contracted).
Hope this helps, if you have any more queries hopefully Epiphany or John Eacott will jump in.
Alex
(sorry for the quote, can't work out the blue box thingy)
To insert a quote, try clicking on the quote icon
SP
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 2nd Jun 2009 at 08:32. Reason: to work the blue box thingy
The Oz system
Yes, Australia does have a system that works for us being the combined SAR/EMS model with medium twins, however we also have very different operating environments and needs.
I don't want to knock the dedication, professionalism and enthusiam of the guys in the Australian SAR/EMS community whom do a fantastic job, but I think when we talk about a pure SAR capability we would be a little bit short when compared to the whinging poms - look at the resources that are thrown at SAR and the environment they operate in over there.
How many SAR/EMS operators in oz can fly 150 nm off shore at night in crap weather, perform a rescue off a small yacht or fishing vessel and be back for tea and medals and how often do we really even need to do it? I don't think you could justify the huge cost of having several SAR bases equipped with big shiney aircraft when you compare it to the amount of long distance off shore night rescues that are needed - thats what the Navy can do. I guess though up there in the North things are very different.
We have a cost effective system that works, but I would almost say that we are good jacks of all trades but masters of none, again I am not trying to be disrespectful but thats what our types of operations call for. I don't think we can compare our apples with the poms oranges
Anyway, my humble opinion.
Turkey
I don't want to knock the dedication, professionalism and enthusiam of the guys in the Australian SAR/EMS community whom do a fantastic job, but I think when we talk about a pure SAR capability we would be a little bit short when compared to the whinging poms - look at the resources that are thrown at SAR and the environment they operate in over there.
How many SAR/EMS operators in oz can fly 150 nm off shore at night in crap weather, perform a rescue off a small yacht or fishing vessel and be back for tea and medals and how often do we really even need to do it? I don't think you could justify the huge cost of having several SAR bases equipped with big shiney aircraft when you compare it to the amount of long distance off shore night rescues that are needed - thats what the Navy can do. I guess though up there in the North things are very different.
We have a cost effective system that works, but I would almost say that we are good jacks of all trades but masters of none, again I am not trying to be disrespectful but thats what our types of operations call for. I don't think we can compare our apples with the poms oranges
Anyway, my humble opinion.
Turkey
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do my eyes deceive me? A rational, deferential post on Search and Rescue, devoid of jingoism. Well said Turkeyslapper. 
You wouldn't have a word with Epiphany, would you?
You wouldn't have a word with Epiphany, would you?
Last edited by Vie sans frontieres; 2nd Jun 2009 at 09:12.
Spanish - manpower first, no they are not jumping ship yet - a couple have gone to other SAR contracts but the main issue has been moving the Sea King OCU which put rearcrew training on hold for several months. The rest of the RAF is working hard on dets and ops and they are holding back many volunteers for SAR who can't be spared from their current posts. Some senior RAF ranks recently decided that to spread the pain, we should reduce to 4 crews per flight because they don't understand how our shift system works and we are now struggling to meet all our tasks with the resources available. Add in a ridiculous new plan for FI manning and you have a recipe for low morale and further PVRs (premature voluntary retirement) - all because some bean-counters won't man us properly to do the task required.
As for the 139 - it has a small cabin (as has the Griffin/412) and is an awful place to work as a winchman/winchop - there are lots of documented cases of bad backs and knees already from the rearcrew in the RAF (Griffin/412)and I would not be surprised if the same thing is happening in the 139 fleet. It's other shortcomings have been due to the contractor - there is still no over-water night winching capability on the aircraft which covers 90% of the English Channel!!!!! a year on from its introduction to service.
MIRG is an issue but many Fire Brigades aren't aware that the 139 can't do the job.
As for the 139 - it has a small cabin (as has the Griffin/412) and is an awful place to work as a winchman/winchop - there are lots of documented cases of bad backs and knees already from the rearcrew in the RAF (Griffin/412)and I would not be surprised if the same thing is happening in the 139 fleet. It's other shortcomings have been due to the contractor - there is still no over-water night winching capability on the aircraft which covers 90% of the English Channel!!!!! a year on from its introduction to service.
MIRG is an issue but many Fire Brigades aren't aware that the 139 can't do the job.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cool - thanks to all for the replies so far. Maybe...just maybe we have turned the corner and can continue with informative, reasoned discussions on how SAR can be and is successfully performed in different parts of the world without needing to try to justify ones own as better or be quick to judge or throw mud at others.
You never know someone somewhere may at the grass roots level have a good idea/practice that just could make another organisation/individuals' job even better/safer. That is, in my opinion, where pprune is at its best.
Regards,
SW
You never know someone somewhere may at the grass roots level have a good idea/practice that just could make another organisation/individuals' job even better/safer. That is, in my opinion, where pprune is at its best.
Regards,
SW
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK has traditionally always used heavy machines for SAR and has until recently been predominantly military. Ask them to use a medium helicopter and suddenly it is a problem because it can't carry 15 casualties and cannot fly 200nm offshore at night and winch those 15 casualties - sore backs and knees also becomes a big issue. These heavy SAR machines are occasionally used for HEMS tasks at night and in IMC as UK HEMS helicopters (mainly) are day VFR. Otherwise they are not suitable for HEMS tasks as they are too large.
Australia has traditionally used small helicopters for a combined role of SAR and EMS and has been predominantly civilian. In the early 90's we started using medium helicopters (Bell 412 and AS365) and we were very happy to be able to wich up 4 casualties and the crewies were ecstatic that they could actually move around in the back. No complaints about bad backs and knees. Some of us now operate the AW139 which is an excellent machine for the job - power, legs and big cabin.
In 20 years of maritime SAR in Australia I have only had to return to a vessel to pick up more survivors (because we couldn't fit them all in) on one occassion and have only had to do a night offshore winch in anger 4 times. Most of our flying is HEMS - primary to accidents and secondary inter-hospital transfers - which we do an awful lot of.
With the Australian system we have an extensive network of 24 hour IFR SAR/EMS medium helicopters that fly regularly on medical tasks and overland SAR tasks- often at night in IFR to remote, unprepared landing sites and winch casualties on a regular basis. These same crews also preform the far less frequent maritime SAR tasks when asked.
The UK mentality seems to be that it is necessary to spend huge sums of money providing dedicated SAR helicopters that can fly 200nm offshore at night and winch 15 survivors. The fact is that this situation almost never happens. These same machines spend a couple of hours each day flying around training. Meanwhile the UK HEMS system operates mainly day VFR in small machines running on a shoe string budget funded by volunteers collecting money from joe public.
The Australian way is to provide a very capable HEMS machine that can pick up one or two casualities and carry them to hospital. This happens every day. The same machine can also perform in a SAR role as it is large enough to carry SAR crew and winch. It may not be capable of flying 200nm and winching 15 casualties but then why should it?
Australia has traditionally used small helicopters for a combined role of SAR and EMS and has been predominantly civilian. In the early 90's we started using medium helicopters (Bell 412 and AS365) and we were very happy to be able to wich up 4 casualties and the crewies were ecstatic that they could actually move around in the back. No complaints about bad backs and knees. Some of us now operate the AW139 which is an excellent machine for the job - power, legs and big cabin.
In 20 years of maritime SAR in Australia I have only had to return to a vessel to pick up more survivors (because we couldn't fit them all in) on one occassion and have only had to do a night offshore winch in anger 4 times. Most of our flying is HEMS - primary to accidents and secondary inter-hospital transfers - which we do an awful lot of.
With the Australian system we have an extensive network of 24 hour IFR SAR/EMS medium helicopters that fly regularly on medical tasks and overland SAR tasks- often at night in IFR to remote, unprepared landing sites and winch casualties on a regular basis. These same crews also preform the far less frequent maritime SAR tasks when asked.
The UK mentality seems to be that it is necessary to spend huge sums of money providing dedicated SAR helicopters that can fly 200nm offshore at night and winch 15 survivors. The fact is that this situation almost never happens. These same machines spend a couple of hours each day flying around training. Meanwhile the UK HEMS system operates mainly day VFR in small machines running on a shoe string budget funded by volunteers collecting money from joe public.
The Australian way is to provide a very capable HEMS machine that can pick up one or two casualities and carry them to hospital. This happens every day. The same machine can also perform in a SAR role as it is large enough to carry SAR crew and winch. It may not be capable of flying 200nm and winching 15 casualties but then why should it?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's remember that it's not just about flying 200 miles and picking up 15 casualties. How many times have I needed the cabin space for moving mountain rescue teams? Plenty. How about two stretcher casualties? Several. SAR isn't about who's got the biggest or shiniest asset, it's about having the right asset, equipment and crew to make sure the people who call us get the service they need.
The choice of UK SAR machine to date has been whatever the military decided to use - Whirlwind then Wessex then Sea King - for a multitude of other tasks - SH, Anti Submarine etc rather than select a SAR specific aircraft. Generally what we got was what Westlands were producing under licence - they all had one thing in common though - a decent sized cabin because most of them were used for trooping and soldiers don't like getting in and out on their knees.
Since all the UKSAR capability came from the military, primarily to rescue ejected FJ mates, it is hardly surprising that UK SAR was built around larger aircraft and it happened long before HEMS and air ambulances became de rigeur.
However, when the mil decided it didn't want/need certain UK SAR flights because there was little FJ activity there, 4 became civilianised but guess what? - they chose the S-61 because it gave the right mix of capability to suit the wide range of UKSAR tasks - a small island nation with a huge Search and Rescue region (SRR) and very busy waterways plus lots of very popular walking/hiking/mountaineering areas as well as masses of tourist-ridden coastline needs SAR capability to meet all those different environments.
For a while we had a mix of aircraft with Wessex and Sea King/S-61 but the superior overwater capability of the Sea King/S-61 and the lack of investment in a Wessex/Puma replacement meant it was replaced.
Last year the interim contract for the 4 civilian bases was let and they chose a mixed fleet based on the belief that a smaller helo would be better for the sheltered inland waters of the Channel. Has it worked? The 139 is fast and powerful but so is the S-92 - SAR autopilot modes and lighting aside, the 139 can do some UK SAR jobs very well but the fundamental shortcoming is the small cabin - only pilots think it is 'large' because they don't have to work in it.
Moving the ever-weightier British public, especially if they are incapacitated, is not something you want to do on your knees (unless you love your chiropractor) but that is what the 139 forces you to do - how anyone got that past a Health and Safety risk assessment I don't know.
I have made the point many times but if a land ambulance was procured that only had enough headroom for a 4' midget, there would be a riot amongst paramedics the length and breadth of the country.
The large capacity might not get used very often but when you need it, and many people have (Boscastle, Gloucester Floods and umpteen sinking or disabled fishing and commercial vessels) it is worth every penny. Try taking the MRT to a job in a 139 - that should be a laugh!
We don't have a joined-up Emergency Services response in UK, partly for historic reasons (mil controlling SAR) and partly through the inability of the Cabinet Office to create one. Air Ambulance/HEMS has come about through charitable moneyraising because the Govt wouldn't fund it through the NHS and individual Police Authorities run their own helicopters if they think they can afford them.
The system still works however and there is a reasonable overlap of capability which means that more often than not, an air ambulance is tasked to the 'land-on for 1 or 2 casualties' jobs and we get the bigger winching stuff. There are still tasking and command and control issues sometimes but because of the professional people in all the Emergency Services we muddle through in a very British way.
As to the future - the nature of UK SAR demands a larger helo, that should be crystal clear by now, but the SARH process has cost a lot already and will cost Billions to replace a system that isn't actaully broken with another system that looks very similar to the old one.
A whole shedload of taxpayers cash could be saved by banging some heads to gether in Whitehall and MoD and creating a PFI that buys in/ leases modern aircraft but lets the boys and girls already doing a pretty damn fine job carry on.
The MoD would have to decide that despite not being core business, SAR requires a skill set that creates excellent military helicopter pilots - the Govt wouyld have to stop contemplating its navel and realise what is about to change and what it will cost.
Instead we will go through a long and painful process of transition (approx 5 years) which will require many military pilots to transfer across (because otherwise it won't work) and cost a fortune in the process. Anyone who thinks this will save money and validate the myth that civvySAR is cheaper than Mil is deluding themselves.
Since all the UKSAR capability came from the military, primarily to rescue ejected FJ mates, it is hardly surprising that UK SAR was built around larger aircraft and it happened long before HEMS and air ambulances became de rigeur.
However, when the mil decided it didn't want/need certain UK SAR flights because there was little FJ activity there, 4 became civilianised but guess what? - they chose the S-61 because it gave the right mix of capability to suit the wide range of UKSAR tasks - a small island nation with a huge Search and Rescue region (SRR) and very busy waterways plus lots of very popular walking/hiking/mountaineering areas as well as masses of tourist-ridden coastline needs SAR capability to meet all those different environments.
For a while we had a mix of aircraft with Wessex and Sea King/S-61 but the superior overwater capability of the Sea King/S-61 and the lack of investment in a Wessex/Puma replacement meant it was replaced.
Last year the interim contract for the 4 civilian bases was let and they chose a mixed fleet based on the belief that a smaller helo would be better for the sheltered inland waters of the Channel. Has it worked? The 139 is fast and powerful but so is the S-92 - SAR autopilot modes and lighting aside, the 139 can do some UK SAR jobs very well but the fundamental shortcoming is the small cabin - only pilots think it is 'large' because they don't have to work in it.
Moving the ever-weightier British public, especially if they are incapacitated, is not something you want to do on your knees (unless you love your chiropractor) but that is what the 139 forces you to do - how anyone got that past a Health and Safety risk assessment I don't know.
I have made the point many times but if a land ambulance was procured that only had enough headroom for a 4' midget, there would be a riot amongst paramedics the length and breadth of the country.
The large capacity might not get used very often but when you need it, and many people have (Boscastle, Gloucester Floods and umpteen sinking or disabled fishing and commercial vessels) it is worth every penny. Try taking the MRT to a job in a 139 - that should be a laugh!
We don't have a joined-up Emergency Services response in UK, partly for historic reasons (mil controlling SAR) and partly through the inability of the Cabinet Office to create one. Air Ambulance/HEMS has come about through charitable moneyraising because the Govt wouldn't fund it through the NHS and individual Police Authorities run their own helicopters if they think they can afford them.
The system still works however and there is a reasonable overlap of capability which means that more often than not, an air ambulance is tasked to the 'land-on for 1 or 2 casualties' jobs and we get the bigger winching stuff. There are still tasking and command and control issues sometimes but because of the professional people in all the Emergency Services we muddle through in a very British way.
As to the future - the nature of UK SAR demands a larger helo, that should be crystal clear by now, but the SARH process has cost a lot already and will cost Billions to replace a system that isn't actaully broken with another system that looks very similar to the old one.
A whole shedload of taxpayers cash could be saved by banging some heads to gether in Whitehall and MoD and creating a PFI that buys in/ leases modern aircraft but lets the boys and girls already doing a pretty damn fine job carry on.
The MoD would have to decide that despite not being core business, SAR requires a skill set that creates excellent military helicopter pilots - the Govt wouyld have to stop contemplating its navel and realise what is about to change and what it will cost.
Instead we will go through a long and painful process of transition (approx 5 years) which will require many military pilots to transfer across (because otherwise it won't work) and cost a fortune in the process. Anyone who thinks this will save money and validate the myth that civvySAR is cheaper than Mil is deluding themselves.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Moose it is about having the right machine for the job. If you regularly carry lots of pax then you obviously need a large helicopter. Although REGA seem to do a good job of mountain rescue in the Swiss Alps using an A109K2 and we manage to carry 2 stretcher patients quite easily in a Bell412. I guess it is also what you are used to and can adapt to.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it interesting how some, who have come from smaller beginnings suggest that
whilst others who started large...
(I make no apologies for selective quoting but it makes the point )
Epi - are you a front seater by chance? Crab makes the valid point that the 139 is a great pilots machine but the rear crew suffer? Would be interesting to hear from any 139 current SAR back seaters to get facts fom the 'horses mouth' as to whether the smaller cabin is as much of a problem as those who promote the large option like to make out.
I would imagine a massive percentage of the incidents that the UK SAR guys get called to could be handled by a 412/139 size machine but with the caveat of limited space for casualty treatment / equipment carriage. Of course its great to have the size & legs for the infrequent long range / mass casualty event but you have to draw the line somewhere and as crab again has pointed out in the UK that line has been driven by what has been provided to the military by westlands originally for other tasks. With the advent of civilianisation does the Aussie model highlighted by landy, Epi & others meet the majority needs of the UK and therefore provide better value for money or as the SAR(H) bids have shown does the unique UK requirement justify the large helo whatever the cost bearing in mind both options are, to a degree, unknown quantities
No complaints about bad backs and knees. Some of us now operate the AW139 which is an excellent machine for the job - power, legs and big cabin.
the 139 can do some UK SAR jobs very well but the fundamental shortcoming is the small cabin
)Epi - are you a front seater by chance? Crab makes the valid point that the 139 is a great pilots machine but the rear crew suffer? Would be interesting to hear from any 139 current SAR back seaters to get facts fom the 'horses mouth' as to whether the smaller cabin is as much of a problem as those who promote the large option like to make out.
I would imagine a massive percentage of the incidents that the UK SAR guys get called to could be handled by a 412/139 size machine but with the caveat of limited space for casualty treatment / equipment carriage. Of course its great to have the size & legs for the infrequent long range / mass casualty event but you have to draw the line somewhere and as crab again has pointed out in the UK that line has been driven by what has been provided to the military by westlands originally for other tasks. With the advent of civilianisation does the Aussie model highlighted by landy, Epi & others meet the majority needs of the UK and therefore provide better value for money or as the SAR(H) bids have shown does the unique UK requirement justify the large helo whatever the cost bearing in mind both options are, to a degree, unknown quantities
Since the thread title is "Rescue choppers in the UK", I feel there is a unique requirement there which isn't necessarily met by the aircraft and manning used elsewhere.
The Australian set up suits the conditions of long distances and low population, whereas the UK plethora of day only/short range EMS helicopters backed up by medium/long range/all weather/large cabin machines for a dense population in a small area has developed to meet the demands of the nation.
England is about the size of Victoria (IIRC), which has 4 x 412EP EMS machines, 1 x 365N3 EMS and 1 x 365N3 Police/SAR machine, all State Government funded and available 24 hours a day, IFR/VFR as required. That's for a population of 4.5 million, and most EMS jobs from country Victoria are round trips of 1.5 - 2 hours. It is difficult, IMO, to compare that with the UK!
Aircraft type is also subjective. For someone used to the cabin of a Sea King, then a 412 or 139 seems to have limitations which are not acceptable. For someone coming from a BK117, a 412 cabin is luxury, and a 412 crew view the 139 as an acceptable advance in their life
All 139 crew that I have spoken to are quite happy with the cabin, although some fit-outs could do with revision in the future. Work space hasn't been raised as an issue, except that one operator seems to have used the extra space (after the 412) to put in extra crew, which limits the improvement!
Crab has his points for the UK: they have devolved from an essentially military SAR requirement to now being an all over civilian and military service, called upon to provide everything from EMS to overwater rescues to mountain SAR and so on. That calls for a large airframe just to carry all the kit to cover every eventuality. The S92 is the next generation to take on the task of the SK/S61, whereas the 139 is better suited (in UK) to Channel ops and short range stuff.
Horses for courses: there is no machine yet that will do everything, hence the need (in UK) for a mixed fleet. And the EMS Air Ambulance in UK should be 24 hour, and is long overdue for full Government funding: it's a disgrace that they have to run themselves as a charity (maybe they should all have second homes to claim upon, that would solve two problems at once
).
The Australian set up suits the conditions of long distances and low population, whereas the UK plethora of day only/short range EMS helicopters backed up by medium/long range/all weather/large cabin machines for a dense population in a small area has developed to meet the demands of the nation.
England is about the size of Victoria (IIRC), which has 4 x 412EP EMS machines, 1 x 365N3 EMS and 1 x 365N3 Police/SAR machine, all State Government funded and available 24 hours a day, IFR/VFR as required. That's for a population of 4.5 million, and most EMS jobs from country Victoria are round trips of 1.5 - 2 hours. It is difficult, IMO, to compare that with the UK!
Aircraft type is also subjective. For someone used to the cabin of a Sea King, then a 412 or 139 seems to have limitations which are not acceptable. For someone coming from a BK117, a 412 cabin is luxury, and a 412 crew view the 139 as an acceptable advance in their life
All 139 crew that I have spoken to are quite happy with the cabin, although some fit-outs could do with revision in the future. Work space hasn't been raised as an issue, except that one operator seems to have used the extra space (after the 412) to put in extra crew, which limits the improvement!Crab has his points for the UK: they have devolved from an essentially military SAR requirement to now being an all over civilian and military service, called upon to provide everything from EMS to overwater rescues to mountain SAR and so on. That calls for a large airframe just to carry all the kit to cover every eventuality. The S92 is the next generation to take on the task of the SK/S61, whereas the 139 is better suited (in UK) to Channel ops and short range stuff.
Horses for courses: there is no machine yet that will do everything, hence the need (in UK) for a mixed fleet. And the EMS Air Ambulance in UK should be 24 hour, and is long overdue for full Government funding: it's a disgrace that they have to run themselves as a charity (maybe they should all have second homes to claim upon, that would solve two problems at once
).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: swansea, wales
Age: 66
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about youtake up and comment on the point and question being asked? Being picky about typos is frankly petty.
I quite agree.
But it wouldn't hurt you to read through your posts before submitting them
SP
I quite agree.
But it wouldn't hurt you to read through your posts before submitting them
SP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: swansea, wales
Age: 66
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does anyone think the UK should use a couple of strategically placed ch53's for long distance offshore rescues solely? 1000 litres an hour for up to seven hours max?
If the arguement is that big metal is neccessary I cannot see why that type of machine is not represented to some degree.
If the arguement is that big metal is neccessary I cannot see why that type of machine is not represented to some degree.
Apache for HEMS - Strafe those Survivors!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to intrude on private grief, but having flown the SK for 10 years on SAR and then the 135 for 3 years (day/night SP IFR ems in Scotland) I feel I may have some expertise.
Both are great aircraft for the job they do (although the SK, which I love dearly, is getting long in the tooth now).
Epiphany makes the mistake of equating what he does in Oz with the requirement/task in the UK. I do not know enough about the task in Oz to offer an opinion on what works there, so I won't.
However, I have taken a SK 200nm out over the atlantic on several occasions, at night, imc, and sometimes in poor weather, not always to rescue multiple cas, but the point is simple here - a 135 does not have the legs for that kind of task. I have also used a SK to deploy large numbers of Mountain rescue personnel, sometimes on rescues that literally lasted for days, in crap weather, in winter, day and night. On all these occasions the SK was ideal for the task and would have been my weapon of choice. I think the S-92 would probably be a very effective replacement, and certainly the UK coastguard units seem to be making good use of it.
As for the 135, great air ambulance machine. Very fast response time, both in getting airborne and in the cruise. Fits into spaces and places that are surprisingly small, class 1 helipad perf at MTOM, SL, +21 deg. Great medical fit for the 2 paramedics, for the pilot full efis cockpit and a great autopilot make it a highly capable SP ifr machine (nhs scotland has all its pilots sp IFR qual'd).
So what am I saying here? the 2 are complementary, you need both. Don't get overly fascinated by the number of casualties carried. Sometimes you need lots of space for a special care baby team to work during a long night transit in pants weather (SK), other times you need rapid response over shorter ranges to an rta with a critically injured casualty (135). A hospital tranfer of a seriously ill patient can easily be accomplished by a 135, a long search in mountains in winter needs a SK.
I have no axe to grind having been on both sides of the fence, but please do not make the mistake of oversimplifying the requirement, or doing down one asset, when both are needed and effective, if used appropriately.
You all be careful out there
Both are great aircraft for the job they do (although the SK, which I love dearly, is getting long in the tooth now).
Epiphany makes the mistake of equating what he does in Oz with the requirement/task in the UK. I do not know enough about the task in Oz to offer an opinion on what works there, so I won't.
However, I have taken a SK 200nm out over the atlantic on several occasions, at night, imc, and sometimes in poor weather, not always to rescue multiple cas, but the point is simple here - a 135 does not have the legs for that kind of task. I have also used a SK to deploy large numbers of Mountain rescue personnel, sometimes on rescues that literally lasted for days, in crap weather, in winter, day and night. On all these occasions the SK was ideal for the task and would have been my weapon of choice. I think the S-92 would probably be a very effective replacement, and certainly the UK coastguard units seem to be making good use of it.
As for the 135, great air ambulance machine. Very fast response time, both in getting airborne and in the cruise. Fits into spaces and places that are surprisingly small, class 1 helipad perf at MTOM, SL, +21 deg. Great medical fit for the 2 paramedics, for the pilot full efis cockpit and a great autopilot make it a highly capable SP ifr machine (nhs scotland has all its pilots sp IFR qual'd).
So what am I saying here? the 2 are complementary, you need both. Don't get overly fascinated by the number of casualties carried. Sometimes you need lots of space for a special care baby team to work during a long night transit in pants weather (SK), other times you need rapid response over shorter ranges to an rta with a critically injured casualty (135). A hospital tranfer of a seriously ill patient can easily be accomplished by a 135, a long search in mountains in winter needs a SK.
I have no axe to grind having been on both sides of the fence, but please do not make the mistake of oversimplifying the requirement, or doing down one asset, when both are needed and effective, if used appropriately.
You all be careful out there
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Second star on the left
Posts: 124
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a lot of comment based on winching various numbers of casualties, very few comments about what happens when you get them in the cabin. Having operated in various sizes of helicopter, Bell 412 to SeaKing and Super Puma, give me the bigger cabin anytime. Having suffered the frustration of trying to administer IEC to 2 trauma casualties in the back of a 412, I never want to do it again. There is not enough room in the cabin to intubate a casualty, especially if you have another injured person as well. Yes I know that we do not do it often, I suspect that a lot of the comments come from pilots, not the guys who do the dirty work. It is all very well winching people, but better still to have the facilities to get them to hospital alive.
My bad back was only exacerbated by the 412, it was caused by too many fat casualties when on the larger helicopters.
Head down, look out for the flack.
My bad back was only exacerbated by the 412, it was caused by too many fat casualties when on the larger helicopters.
Head down, look out for the flack.