Low level overwater ops: radar discussion
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pasptoo - sorry you seem to want to box my comments in to a single service prejudice box. I think you have very much misintepreted both the motivation and detail of my post(s).
Yes it is true that some of my comments are rather damning of several generations of RAF (and RN as it happens) senior staffs (and their staff officers of course!) for failing to secure the future for UK military SAR (of which the RAF has had primary miliatary responsibility and the majority stake), but I have if you had read more closely, been sympathetic to the immense pressures on the UK military decison makers and suggested why they had little resource to worry about what to them was a less signifcant issue than the many others they were dealing with. As a SAR professional and with an understanding of Defence matters, I am entitled to the view that this was a strategic mistake given the wider potential integration and flexibility of a mil SAR force within a revised and revamped UK defence and security structure in the present circumstances. Please do not simplify my opinions by what appears to be a bitter rant (perhaps with a chip on your shoulder) against the RAF SAR service.
As for the all weather SK - your comment re snow in GLA is of course symptomatic of all helicopters and their ultimate limitations in snow and ice. As it happens the UK mil SK has one of the best detailed releases for flight in snow but there are accumulation limits that can defeat any helo in the worst of snow conditions. Icing is a different matter and while the SK has one of the best cold blade clearances of any helo it is now clearly upstaged by the few modern ac fitted with "hot" blades such as the Merlin, S92 and E225. " All weather" is indeed a very all encompassing and sweeping term, but in my case, and given this thread, I was specifically refering to the SK (and by default the RN Lynx and Merlin variants) being the only helos on the UK mil or civ registers who are cleared to descend to the hover and recover from that condition in zero visibility assuming they have their very capable "360" radar and AFCS and other internal aids functioning. In the circumstances of low level over the water this is one step beyond which is normally available.
I can assure you that the IPT was not RAF dominated - very much not the case - check your facts please. While all bidders had their credible representatives including from ex senior RAF and RN officers (as any good balanced bid team should) - they can only respond to the customer's requirements - they do not dictate policy or set the playing field for the competition. So your comments are simply not releveant on this matter.
I am perfectly entitled to mourn the loss of what still remains a world class SAR organisation - the RAF SARF - but you will note I have been very careful not to make comment on other such military or civilain SAR services. That has been debated in other threads on this Forum, often to no real conclusion. I standby my view that whatever the undoubted improvements will arrive with SAR-H - there will also be some losses of future capability. Life in this procurment domain is a trade off - sadly too influenced by departmental politics and a budget limit.
Please take your rather ranting chip back to bed with you - or get out of bed the right side next time!!
Cheers.
Yes it is true that some of my comments are rather damning of several generations of RAF (and RN as it happens) senior staffs (and their staff officers of course!) for failing to secure the future for UK military SAR (of which the RAF has had primary miliatary responsibility and the majority stake), but I have if you had read more closely, been sympathetic to the immense pressures on the UK military decison makers and suggested why they had little resource to worry about what to them was a less signifcant issue than the many others they were dealing with. As a SAR professional and with an understanding of Defence matters, I am entitled to the view that this was a strategic mistake given the wider potential integration and flexibility of a mil SAR force within a revised and revamped UK defence and security structure in the present circumstances. Please do not simplify my opinions by what appears to be a bitter rant (perhaps with a chip on your shoulder) against the RAF SAR service.
As for the all weather SK - your comment re snow in GLA is of course symptomatic of all helicopters and their ultimate limitations in snow and ice. As it happens the UK mil SK has one of the best detailed releases for flight in snow but there are accumulation limits that can defeat any helo in the worst of snow conditions. Icing is a different matter and while the SK has one of the best cold blade clearances of any helo it is now clearly upstaged by the few modern ac fitted with "hot" blades such as the Merlin, S92 and E225. " All weather" is indeed a very all encompassing and sweeping term, but in my case, and given this thread, I was specifically refering to the SK (and by default the RN Lynx and Merlin variants) being the only helos on the UK mil or civ registers who are cleared to descend to the hover and recover from that condition in zero visibility assuming they have their very capable "360" radar and AFCS and other internal aids functioning. In the circumstances of low level over the water this is one step beyond which is normally available.
I can assure you that the IPT was not RAF dominated - very much not the case - check your facts please. While all bidders had their credible representatives including from ex senior RAF and RN officers (as any good balanced bid team should) - they can only respond to the customer's requirements - they do not dictate policy or set the playing field for the competition. So your comments are simply not releveant on this matter.
I am perfectly entitled to mourn the loss of what still remains a world class SAR organisation - the RAF SARF - but you will note I have been very careful not to make comment on other such military or civilain SAR services. That has been debated in other threads on this Forum, often to no real conclusion. I standby my view that whatever the undoubted improvements will arrive with SAR-H - there will also be some losses of future capability. Life in this procurment domain is a trade off - sadly too influenced by departmental politics and a budget limit.
Please take your rather ranting chip back to bed with you - or get out of bed the right side next time!!
Cheers.
Tallsar - I just think it is me that pasptoo doesn't like
Interesting picture on the 'Canada Cormorant and Cyclone woes' thread - post #48 showing a maritime S-92 (presumably how the 148 is destined to look) with all the bells and whistles of a 21st Century helicopter including what appears to be a 360 radar!!
Since the B model of the S-92 (as I am led to believe) is what is planned to be delivered for SARH with a new MRGB and a redesigned aux fuel tank, adding the 360 radar is clearly feasible and would, at a stroke, kill this whole argument stone dead.
Interesting that apparently the IPT requirements to demonstrate radar let downs didn't include an onshore wind to a cliff scenario - no wonder it didn't have to be met and a 360 radar wasn't mandated.
Pasptoo - I want the future of UKSAR to be as strong and capable as possible and those of us who really understand the capability available at the moment do not want it to be lost. The technology is there, it is just the will to provide the capability that is required. Frankly, the budget is so big now that a few more quid for a 360 radar will hardly be noticed.
Interesting picture on the 'Canada Cormorant and Cyclone woes' thread - post #48 showing a maritime S-92 (presumably how the 148 is destined to look) with all the bells and whistles of a 21st Century helicopter including what appears to be a 360 radar!!
Since the B model of the S-92 (as I am led to believe) is what is planned to be delivered for SARH with a new MRGB and a redesigned aux fuel tank, adding the 360 radar is clearly feasible and would, at a stroke, kill this whole argument stone dead.
Interesting that apparently the IPT requirements to demonstrate radar let downs didn't include an onshore wind to a cliff scenario - no wonder it didn't have to be met and a 360 radar wasn't mandated.
Pasptoo - I want the future of UKSAR to be as strong and capable as possible and those of us who really understand the capability available at the moment do not want it to be lost. The technology is there, it is just the will to provide the capability that is required. Frankly, the budget is so big now that a few more quid for a 360 radar will hardly be noticed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately Crab, when the sums are done for the modifcation costs, as well as the procurement and through life support for a 360 radar ,on either the 92 or the 225, the delta cost is significant. When set against other issues to be afforded in an immense programme like SAR-H it has to fight its corner unless the requirement is explicitly essential for the task. Sadly I do not believe this was the case in the SAR-H requirement (and the rationale for that was more than just technical sadly).
Maybe it might get a look in during the final contractural negotiations - but I am not convinced.
As for the standard of S92 to be used - I look forward with eagerness to see what Soteria have to offer in the end. The final radar spec will be worthy of scrutiny to see if they have offered the most cost effective civ solution that has the best target range/discrimination - I hope so. Meanwhile the present Interim Contract IR shack is opposite the front winching door - not the most ergonomic position I believe particularly when bulky (stretcher) jobs are in progress - so hopefully they will have moved it as part of the cabin reconfig and fuel tank mods. Shame the 225 didn't win as I understand despite its lower cabin roof it would not have needed any cabin intrusions to achieve full misson radius - and of course those large cabin doors wither side would have proven their worth on many occasions. I am curious as to why you call it an S92 B model - I must have missed something - I thought the S92B was to have major improvements such as an extra bladed head - certainly not a project that would be likely to be ready for the ISD of SAR-H - even if it was affordable - but no doubt part of Sikorsky's bid for the revised Presdiential procurement.
Cheers
Maybe it might get a look in during the final contractural negotiations - but I am not convinced.
As for the standard of S92 to be used - I look forward with eagerness to see what Soteria have to offer in the end. The final radar spec will be worthy of scrutiny to see if they have offered the most cost effective civ solution that has the best target range/discrimination - I hope so. Meanwhile the present Interim Contract IR shack is opposite the front winching door - not the most ergonomic position I believe particularly when bulky (stretcher) jobs are in progress - so hopefully they will have moved it as part of the cabin reconfig and fuel tank mods. Shame the 225 didn't win as I understand despite its lower cabin roof it would not have needed any cabin intrusions to achieve full misson radius - and of course those large cabin doors wither side would have proven their worth on many occasions. I am curious as to why you call it an S92 B model - I must have missed something - I thought the S92B was to have major improvements such as an extra bladed head - certainly not a project that would be likely to be ready for the ISD of SAR-H - even if it was affordable - but no doubt part of Sikorsky's bid for the revised Presdiential procurement.
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that apparently the IPT requirements to demonstrate radar let downs didn't include an onshore wind to a cliff scenario - no wonder it didn't have to be met and a 360 radar wasn't mandated.
Louis
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In The Trap, trapped.....
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallsar and Crab, There are not many people in the world i don't like, if i had an axe to grind i'd let you know.
Also, TS, I certainly have no chip, I am more than happy with my lot, my grass is very green.
All I seem to read here is how we are better than your camp etc. I personally believe that there is much to be gained in SAR-H by combining the best of all current SAR providers. If any one camp were the ultimate solution don't you think the government would stay with that solution?
Unfortunately for the military, the government must see a different solution to that of the SARF and that is the way. If anyone wanted a better solution to their own future they could have asked for a posting to the IPT, thus ensuring the future was in capable hands.
Talking of which, I'm sure many current military SAR crews will be looking to join the civilian (and ex-military SAR) SAR crews in SAR-H. So I don't see how the capability is lost. You can teach old dogs new tricks, they just have to listen and want change. As Crab once said (i think) "if you need a Cat Skinned go to the Cat Skinners!" ergo SAR trained personnel will teach SAR crews of the future.
Radars: Lynx 120 deg - I understand.
S92 min radar range 140 yds or thereabouts. Do you need any less range? Yes you can sanitise an area with 120 deg field of view, then work around it. No one is going to move so fast in poor light or fog with a strong onshore wind that you misplace a target! If you have a target of interest, mark it. All as demonstrated to the senior Radop Specialist of the SARF i believe.
Isn't the CG S92 cleared to the hover and recover in zero visibility over water?
This is not a rant, I am merely highlighting a few facts that appear to have been misconstrued
Ironcheffley - keep posting it is good to see an different perspective occasionally.
P
Also, TS, I certainly have no chip, I am more than happy with my lot, my grass is very green.
All I seem to read here is how we are better than your camp etc. I personally believe that there is much to be gained in SAR-H by combining the best of all current SAR providers. If any one camp were the ultimate solution don't you think the government would stay with that solution?
Unfortunately for the military, the government must see a different solution to that of the SARF and that is the way. If anyone wanted a better solution to their own future they could have asked for a posting to the IPT, thus ensuring the future was in capable hands.
Talking of which, I'm sure many current military SAR crews will be looking to join the civilian (and ex-military SAR) SAR crews in SAR-H. So I don't see how the capability is lost. You can teach old dogs new tricks, they just have to listen and want change. As Crab once said (i think) "if you need a Cat Skinned go to the Cat Skinners!" ergo SAR trained personnel will teach SAR crews of the future.
Radars: Lynx 120 deg - I understand.
S92 min radar range 140 yds or thereabouts. Do you need any less range? Yes you can sanitise an area with 120 deg field of view, then work around it. No one is going to move so fast in poor light or fog with a strong onshore wind that you misplace a target! If you have a target of interest, mark it. All as demonstrated to the senior Radop Specialist of the SARF i believe.
Isn't the CG S92 cleared to the hover and recover in zero visibility over water?
This is not a rant, I am merely highlighting a few facts that appear to have been misconstrued
Ironcheffley - keep posting it is good to see an different perspective occasionally.
P
40 kt fog - TM airmass in the SW not entirely uncommon - blowing onto a rocky shore with 200-300' cliffs and aboat run aground getting pounded by the surf with a family of 4 on board.
Our option would be a modified letdown to a hover facing into wind and then reversing in using the radar to accurately pinpoint the coastline until visual contact acquired - min radar range 75m.
How is this possible with a 120 radar? You could fly in downwind if your aircraft limit permits but you are supremely poorly placed for a donk stop.
You could sanitise the area with a mapping run and then let down into wind but you still don't have radar contact with the hard stuff as you reverse in so you are guessing not pinpointing.
Oh and by the way, it's dark and raining so the FLIR is next to useless because of all the moisture in the air.
S-92 I know it's not a real B model but SK have at least addressed some of it's shortfalls.
Our option would be a modified letdown to a hover facing into wind and then reversing in using the radar to accurately pinpoint the coastline until visual contact acquired - min radar range 75m.
How is this possible with a 120 radar? You could fly in downwind if your aircraft limit permits but you are supremely poorly placed for a donk stop.
You could sanitise the area with a mapping run and then let down into wind but you still don't have radar contact with the hard stuff as you reverse in so you are guessing not pinpointing.
Oh and by the way, it's dark and raining so the FLIR is next to useless because of all the moisture in the air.
S-92 I know it's not a real B model but SK have at least addressed some of it's shortfalls.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A much more reasonable perspective PPtoo - thank you.
I too have always wanted a singular focus for SAR in the UK - but have never believed it should be in the civilian domain - sorry that is not a slight on those civ companies who have practised helo rescue so well over the years - its more a strategic perspective of flexibility, military responsiveness to wider security and operational challenges beyond just the actual rescue capability and at times pushing limits or developing new and approvable techniques rapidly that the civ licensed domain is just not set up to respond to quickly or maybe condone. NVG capability being a classic example. Thats what the military are about after all.
There were many who sought to be part of the IPT believe me ....I was one at one stage....but the posts were not there and as I repeat, the construction of the IPT was commercially focussed not as a "standard" IPT for aviation procurement -- so unfortuantely it has nothing to do with individual military people wanting or not wanting to have an influence. The reality is that the top level MoD decision to relinquish "ownership" of UK SAR was taken some years ago in a vacuum of single minded budget driven thinking - not from a wider future policy perspective. Anyone who wanted to influence this from the SAR military component had little influence on it. Sad but largely true.
Civilain release for the 92 and the 139 does not permit let downs to the same limits as available under mil regualtion for the UK SAR SKs.
There are many training and real SAROp scenarios where the lack of a 360 radar will at best complicate matters, some would say make it less safe, and at worst prevent an effective and safe let down at all. Some will argue that this will be on a very few occasions - and that is probably true too. I would not wish to be the casualty(s) on those "few" occasions. Nothing brought home to me the real merits of such an installation as the (very dramatic but nonetheless infrequent) operation for a rig accident many years ago - the Alexander Kielland (and there have been several others on the N Sea since). Over 9 rescue helos, extremely poor viz, a Nimrod overhead - and some very close calls as those helos transitioned up and down and searched the accident scene in gales and poor viz. Believe you me, when you have experienced that situation - you will always understand the merits of a well balanced crew working together as a close and professional team using the best of the sensors that are available with the workload spread amongst them to best effect and sensible human capacity - particularly using a 360 radar. Even roaming around the coast off Essex on a good night with all those vessels scooting about and those monstrous wind farms springing up all over can be one hell of a challenge without such a capability.
Cheers
I too have always wanted a singular focus for SAR in the UK - but have never believed it should be in the civilian domain - sorry that is not a slight on those civ companies who have practised helo rescue so well over the years - its more a strategic perspective of flexibility, military responsiveness to wider security and operational challenges beyond just the actual rescue capability and at times pushing limits or developing new and approvable techniques rapidly that the civ licensed domain is just not set up to respond to quickly or maybe condone. NVG capability being a classic example. Thats what the military are about after all.
There were many who sought to be part of the IPT believe me ....I was one at one stage....but the posts were not there and as I repeat, the construction of the IPT was commercially focussed not as a "standard" IPT for aviation procurement -- so unfortuantely it has nothing to do with individual military people wanting or not wanting to have an influence. The reality is that the top level MoD decision to relinquish "ownership" of UK SAR was taken some years ago in a vacuum of single minded budget driven thinking - not from a wider future policy perspective. Anyone who wanted to influence this from the SAR military component had little influence on it. Sad but largely true.
Civilain release for the 92 and the 139 does not permit let downs to the same limits as available under mil regualtion for the UK SAR SKs.
There are many training and real SAROp scenarios where the lack of a 360 radar will at best complicate matters, some would say make it less safe, and at worst prevent an effective and safe let down at all. Some will argue that this will be on a very few occasions - and that is probably true too. I would not wish to be the casualty(s) on those "few" occasions. Nothing brought home to me the real merits of such an installation as the (very dramatic but nonetheless infrequent) operation for a rig accident many years ago - the Alexander Kielland (and there have been several others on the N Sea since). Over 9 rescue helos, extremely poor viz, a Nimrod overhead - and some very close calls as those helos transitioned up and down and searched the accident scene in gales and poor viz. Believe you me, when you have experienced that situation - you will always understand the merits of a well balanced crew working together as a close and professional team using the best of the sensors that are available with the workload spread amongst them to best effect and sensible human capacity - particularly using a 360 radar. Even roaming around the coast off Essex on a good night with all those vessels scooting about and those monstrous wind farms springing up all over can be one hell of a challenge without such a capability.
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 28th Feb 2010 at 15:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Louis
You are quite right, there was a scenario to a cliff with a 45 kt onshore wind, actually a headland in Cornwall (I forget the name). It was clear that it could not be achieved with a 120 radar with anything like the same degree of safety as with a 360. It (The 120 solution) involved lots of hover taxying sideways and backwards using nothing but visual clearances and with no full SA picture. It was the main reason why AK opted for the 360. In producing the AK solution it was clear to me that, particularly in a dynamic radar contact environment and whether close to a cliff or not, the 360 added a huge level of safety reassurance and flexibility. AK would not have acccepted the cost delta of a 360 (as opposed to the established Primus 701 120 deg) if they were not convinced of the validity of that argument.
In the event the SARH decision did not hinge on that one issue, there were obviously others but I think it's a shame to say the least that this capability will not be on the 92 unless of course....................!!
You are quite right, there was a scenario to a cliff with a 45 kt onshore wind, actually a headland in Cornwall (I forget the name). It was clear that it could not be achieved with a 120 radar with anything like the same degree of safety as with a 360. It (The 120 solution) involved lots of hover taxying sideways and backwards using nothing but visual clearances and with no full SA picture. It was the main reason why AK opted for the 360. In producing the AK solution it was clear to me that, particularly in a dynamic radar contact environment and whether close to a cliff or not, the 360 added a huge level of safety reassurance and flexibility. AK would not have acccepted the cost delta of a 360 (as opposed to the established Primus 701 120 deg) if they were not convinced of the validity of that argument.
In the event the SARH decision did not hinge on that one issue, there were obviously others but I think it's a shame to say the least that this capability will not be on the 92 unless of course....................!!
Out of intrest could someone explain how an approch to a confined inlet such as the Cromerty firth would be acomplished in a Sea king. If the weather was nil wind and viz of 800m with the casulty along the shore say some where near Eventon.
There are allot of rigs and boats in that area at the moment.
Its just to get a idea of the procedures involved in clearing the area infront in a confind area transit taking into account that blind spot.
Having no background in sea kings or there operations i would find the answer enlighting.
Thanks
Lioncopter
There are allot of rigs and boats in that area at the moment.
Its just to get a idea of the procedures involved in clearing the area infront in a confind area transit taking into account that blind spot.
Having no background in sea kings or there operations i would find the answer enlighting.
Thanks
Lioncopter
Not really a problem in the Seaking. Although it is 20 yrs since I flew out of Lossiemouth and the radar might have improved but using the radar and its overlay you could let down along the length of the inner loch, which is about 1 mile wide, and hover taxy to the shore. The rigs tend to be further up towards Cromarty so it is the small targets you have to be aware of. The so-called blindspot is a myth as it is a moveable area, so with good training it can easily be overcome. I am sure a S92 would do it the same way, unless civil rules preclude coming below safety altitude close to the shore
Now make it a 50kt onshore wind and 100m viz! How would a S92 do that?
HF
Now make it a 50kt onshore wind and 100m viz! How would a S92 do that?
HF
Thanks hummingfrog
So there is no area that the radar on a sea king can not see with out having to turn the aircraft?
Recently with all the rigs in there they are bring them further west down towards Dalmore area, though as you mention there are alot of small contacts kicking around there as well.
Lioncopter
So there is no area that the radar on a sea king can not see with out having to turn the aircraft?
Recently with all the rigs in there they are bring them further west down towards Dalmore area, though as you mention there are alot of small contacts kicking around there as well.
Lioncopter
Lioncopter - no, the Sea King does have a blind arc 15 degrees either side of the nose but, as hummingfrog points out, only a small amount of manoeuvring is required to clear that arc.
The extra coverage of the 360 radar means that you can see into the area you are about to turn into which, when manoeuvring in a tight and busy area, is a very big advantage.
That extra coverage, as tallsar highlights, gives much better SA when operating with multiple assets and avoids the constant traffic alerts from a TCAS system which would be another distraction on a busy sortie.
Interesting that a headland was used in the SARH scenario wheras a bay or straight line area of cliff would have been far more challenging for a 120 radar as they would have to taxi in backwards to get the job done.
The extra coverage of the 360 radar means that you can see into the area you are about to turn into which, when manoeuvring in a tight and busy area, is a very big advantage.
That extra coverage, as tallsar highlights, gives much better SA when operating with multiple assets and avoids the constant traffic alerts from a TCAS system which would be another distraction on a busy sortie.
Interesting that a headland was used in the SARH scenario wheras a bay or straight line area of cliff would have been far more challenging for a 120 radar as they would have to taxi in backwards to get the job done.
Just bumping this back up to ask if anyone has done a risk- assessment/feasibility study of radar let downs IMC over water to prove what equipment (ie radar capability and sweep) one would need to carry out the operation safely.
I suspect that Boscombe Down (before they were qinetiq) must have done many trials to allow the MoD Sea Kings to operate the way we do. Anything similar been done regarding 120 radars??
I suspect that Boscombe Down (before they were qinetiq) must have done many trials to allow the MoD Sea Kings to operate the way we do. Anything similar been done regarding 120 radars??
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Crab
I am personally not aware of such an assessment (and given the general acceptance of the use of radar for "high" level transit as a weather radar I suspect that none has been done - certainly recently). That said, maybe the CAA/CHC had some thoughts for the recent CG Interim Contract release for the 92 and 139??? - or maybe they just read across approval of an AOC submission by CHC based on the previous S61 clearance -focussed on a clear airspace over water requirement - I suspect so.
As you know from my background, I would be clear myself that a 120 would get only a limited clearance in the UK mil environment for zero viz ops these days - check out the Lynx Mk3/8 MAR - the closest to that sort of radar installation in the mil domain.
You will be aware of the excellent performance assessments the RAF RWOETU SK element did when the SK3 FLIR procurement went ahead - I have to say the fonts of knowledge of radar performance in such a low level environment are few and far between - and that alone often leads to a fairly shallow perspective across industry and customers on how best to assess (never mind risk assess) radar (and complimentary sensor) performance in any operational environment. There are exceptions - that done for the RN Merlin being one.
Cheers
I am personally not aware of such an assessment (and given the general acceptance of the use of radar for "high" level transit as a weather radar I suspect that none has been done - certainly recently). That said, maybe the CAA/CHC had some thoughts for the recent CG Interim Contract release for the 92 and 139??? - or maybe they just read across approval of an AOC submission by CHC based on the previous S61 clearance -focussed on a clear airspace over water requirement - I suspect so.
As you know from my background, I would be clear myself that a 120 would get only a limited clearance in the UK mil environment for zero viz ops these days - check out the Lynx Mk3/8 MAR - the closest to that sort of radar installation in the mil domain.
You will be aware of the excellent performance assessments the RAF RWOETU SK element did when the SK3 FLIR procurement went ahead - I have to say the fonts of knowledge of radar performance in such a low level environment are few and far between - and that alone often leads to a fairly shallow perspective across industry and customers on how best to assess (never mind risk assess) radar (and complimentary sensor) performance in any operational environment. There are exceptions - that done for the RN Merlin being one.
Cheers
I find it difficult to believe that the CAA has allowed the same exemptions to ANO for the S-92/AW139 and previously to the S-61 with a 120 radar as the MoD has to the Sea King with a 360(nearly) radar ie operating below SAlt IMC overwater but close to coasts and in amongst vessels/masts etc.
Surely no-one would just read across weather radar capability and apply it to such a hazardous environment - the AAIB investigation would ask some interesting questions I am sure.
Perhaps Soteria did use someone like qinetiq to carry out a risk assessment and confirm a 120 radar was sufficient, I don't know but it seems a big gamble to take if all they are relying on is the CAA to say 'it was OK for S-61 20 years ago therefore it is OK for S-92 in 2012'.
Someone in the CAA has to 'take the risk' and sign off the SAR AOC allowing such ops - I am sure they must have some empirical standard that must be met when doing so.
Surely no-one would just read across weather radar capability and apply it to such a hazardous environment - the AAIB investigation would ask some interesting questions I am sure.
Perhaps Soteria did use someone like qinetiq to carry out a risk assessment and confirm a 120 radar was sufficient, I don't know but it seems a big gamble to take if all they are relying on is the CAA to say 'it was OK for S-61 20 years ago therefore it is OK for S-92 in 2012'.
Someone in the CAA has to 'take the risk' and sign off the SAR AOC allowing such ops - I am sure they must have some empirical standard that must be met when doing so.