The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H
Yes they both go fast but for the most part that isn't what SAR is about.
Lee on a job, Culdrose training near the Scillies, Chivenor U/S,(sorry Swansea
) when a tasking in the middle of Lyme Bay comes in.
We did this to death years ago!!!!
3D
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139
The 139 doesn't carry MRT, MIRG, 2 stretchers plus a doctor, hovers 8 degrees nose up and has all the SAR kit stuffed down the tail because there isn't room in the cabin and is awful on sloping ground due to poor clearances. What will change with the 189? Yes they both go fast but for the most part that isn't what SAR is about.
On the matter of Portland being closed, remember that Lee covers their patch from 21:00 to 09:00.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it will be if the current plans go ahead! Lee on a job, Culdrose training near the Scillies, Chivenor U/S,(sorry Swansea) when a tasking in the middle of Lyme Bay comes in.
Lee on a job, Culdrose training near the Scillies, Chivenor U/S,(sorry Swansea) when a tasking in the middle of Lyme Bay comes in.
Sometimes coverage is less than would normally be desirable. Why so parochial and protective over one tiny little patch? The English Channel is extremely well served for rescue helicopters compared to other parts of the UK. Losing one of its flights is unlikely to make that much difference.
DM, perhaps you would like to detail how much bigger the cabin in a 189 is than a 139 then!
What is so disappointing is that AW had the opportunity of creating the de facto SAR helicopter but they couldn't understand the concept that the important working area in a SAR helo is the cabin, not the cockpit. If they had just increased the height of the cabin from 1.4m to 2m and left all the other structures pretty much the same, everyone would have been fawning over it and bought it worldwide.
What is so disappointing is that AW had the opportunity of creating the de facto SAR helicopter but they couldn't understand the concept that the important working area in a SAR helo is the cabin, not the cockpit. If they had just increased the height of the cabin from 1.4m to 2m and left all the other structures pretty much the same, everyone would have been fawning over it and bought it worldwide.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter companies can't invest all their resources into creating a de facto SAR helicopter. EC, AW & SIK all need to promote their model as the helicopter for all seasons, roles, environments etc. There will never be a perfect SAR helicopter as compromises to fulfil varied roles are part of the design process.
VSF,
All valid points - no doubt 20 years ago people were saying "You can't close Leuchars, what if Lossie are on a job, Prestwick are U/S and Boulmer are training in the Lakes?" yet we seem to manage.
Hmmm. How will they get any staff with direct experience of SAR once the RAF has no SAR aircrew? MR guys are great but there needs to be someone 'air-minded' there as well. The proportion of ARCC personnel with relevant experience has already been something of a problem in recent years, and it's hardly likely to get any better beyond 2015.
All valid points - no doubt 20 years ago people were saying "You can't close Leuchars, what if Lossie are on a job, Prestwick are U/S and Boulmer are training in the Lakes?" yet we seem to manage.
The ARCC is unique in Europe, probably the world. Long may it last.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Coast
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone heard any news on whether there has/will be a down select today?
Return of Revised Proposals (Phase 3)
15 October 2012
Issue ISFT
23 November 2012
Return of final tenders (Phase 4)
14 December 2012
Notification of intention to award contract (Phase 5)
7 March 2013
Sign contract
19 March 2013
Extracted from the DfT ITPD
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...to-bidders.pdf
Return of Revised Proposals (Phase 3)
15 October 2012
Issue ISFT
23 November 2012
Return of final tenders (Phase 4)
14 December 2012
Notification of intention to award contract (Phase 5)
7 March 2013
Sign contract
19 March 2013
Extracted from the DfT ITPD
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...to-bidders.pdf
Good point Crab. AW of all people have so much insider inforamtion and data on SAR capabilities and limitations, they could easily design one from scratch that would seel by the bucketfull - the world over. They did it with the 139, why not a bigger dedicated brother (say a 199?).
Now that they have received a hand out of £46 million to keep Vl open longer you'd think they also have the ear of the government too.
Corect me if this has changed, but I believe the Long SAR proposals are about 6 weeks behind, currently.............I would imagine we may hear after Christmas? Anyone?
Now that they have received a hand out of £46 million to keep Vl open longer you'd think they also have the ear of the government too.
Corect me if this has changed, but I believe the Long SAR proposals are about 6 weeks behind, currently.............I would imagine we may hear after Christmas? Anyone?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 57
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter companies can't invest all their resources into creating a de facto SAR helicopter. EC, AW & SIK all need to promote their model as the helicopter for all seasons, roles, environments etc. There will never be a perfect SAR helicopter as compromises to fulfil varied roles are part of the design process.
Hmmm, is there any successful civil formerly mil SAR model in use worldwide we could look at / study? I had thought of the RAAF SAR which has been contracted out with S-76 and operated by CHC (with RAAF titles but not roundel) since the rotary wing assets went to the Army and the only SAR a/c in use by the RAAF were UH-1H Hueys IIRC.
The 76 is good in use with INAER - under contract to various SAR agencies in Spain and has served its time with Norrlandsflyg till Aw139 ENTRY . Unfortunately for Hong Kong GFS and its predecessor Auxillaries - the 76 was the wrong ship which is why the EC225 was picked so I am led to believe.
I agree with Harry, that the S-61 in its mil Sea King / Jolly Green / R and civil N has and is the best SAR platform.
Cheers
The 76 is good in use with INAER - under contract to various SAR agencies in Spain and has served its time with Norrlandsflyg till Aw139 ENTRY . Unfortunately for Hong Kong GFS and its predecessor Auxillaries - the 76 was the wrong ship which is why the EC225 was picked so I am led to believe.
I agree with Harry, that the S-61 in its mil Sea King / Jolly Green / R and civil N has and is the best SAR platform.
Cheers
Why so parochial and protective over one tiny little patch?
Also....I believe that chopping Boulmer is wrong! In my opinion, we should be enhancing our world beating SAR capabilities, not cutting them!!
3D
Just had a brilliant idea... Make every alternate base around the U.K. 12Hr. That would save even more money!
Sorry.. too much food with my evening wine!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What will we say about this thread.......
....... when the MILSAR in the UK is long dead and buried?
It has been said that in the context of medical care each generation from time immemorial has been more than satisfied with the quality of medical care delivered by that generation of medicos. That is medicine! Strange to contemplate being happy about being blead but it was so and folk were happy to be on the receiving end of what we now know are crank cures. In times past that was the way it was!
The same might be said about SAR (of all shades) after all, can anyone recall a time in our history when there was a public outcry at the failure of our SAR assets to deliver a service that fell short of expectations? (And I don't mean a public outcry in the shape of a rant by CRAB, but a genuine, plastered over all the newspapers, public campaign to 'right wrongs').
The prophets of doom may complain about the profits of gloom - but I seriously doubt that the streets of Britain will see marches to complain about crews that don't deliver the goods. On the contrary we have a proud history of stepping up to the plate and getting the job done by individual dedication, skill and adaptability. Would we all love to work with the SAR equivalent of the Spitfire? Of course, but we didn't do so bad with Hurricanes and Mosquitoes to mention just a couple of 'make-do' types (tongue in cheek before I get lynched by Hurri-fans). But you get my drift. Nobody, in 25 years time is going to look back on the next ten years and say "they failed, they let us down, they could not do the job."
G.
It has been said that in the context of medical care each generation from time immemorial has been more than satisfied with the quality of medical care delivered by that generation of medicos. That is medicine! Strange to contemplate being happy about being blead but it was so and folk were happy to be on the receiving end of what we now know are crank cures. In times past that was the way it was!
The same might be said about SAR (of all shades) after all, can anyone recall a time in our history when there was a public outcry at the failure of our SAR assets to deliver a service that fell short of expectations? (And I don't mean a public outcry in the shape of a rant by CRAB, but a genuine, plastered over all the newspapers, public campaign to 'right wrongs').
The prophets of doom may complain about the profits of gloom - but I seriously doubt that the streets of Britain will see marches to complain about crews that don't deliver the goods. On the contrary we have a proud history of stepping up to the plate and getting the job done by individual dedication, skill and adaptability. Would we all love to work with the SAR equivalent of the Spitfire? Of course, but we didn't do so bad with Hurricanes and Mosquitoes to mention just a couple of 'make-do' types (tongue in cheek before I get lynched by Hurri-fans). But you get my drift. Nobody, in 25 years time is going to look back on the next ten years and say "they failed, they let us down, they could not do the job."
G.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 23rd Nov 2012 at 22:13.
... sometimes it is a function of not having aircrew with SAR experience in there any more. ...
... However, they don't deliberately task RAF assets into MCA patches just to pi** you off, there will generally be a good reason, ...
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Sikorsky did exactly that 60 years ago with the Sea King
I think the "60 years ago" part is the key issue. I should perhaps have said no modern helicopter company. It's never going to happen as the O&G, charter, (passenger config aircraft generally) etc. market beats SAR everyday.
Just compare S92 in SAR usage to others? Same with AW139 and eventually AW189. SAR is not a big enough deal for a company to invest in the perfect solution.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I seriously doubt that the streets of Britain will see marches to complain about crews that don't deliver the goods
Not everything is about aircrew. Not all SAR is about helicopters.
Geoffers - would you like to go back to the NHS and ambulance services of the 60s? I am often the one accused of living in the past! Progress and an increase in capability is often hard won and the harsh fact that many won't acknowledge is that the RAF have taken the professionalism and true (rather than assumed) capability to a level that should not be allowed to slip.
Contractorisation is a fact of life with SAR, I fully accept that but not if it is simply an excuse to make money out of providing a lesser capability which won't get questioned because so few of either the politicians or the public actually understand what they are talking about with SAR.
It would only take one inquest into a major SAROP where people died to show limitations of capability and highlight if corners had been cut to get the service established within budget.
The 139 is selling like hot cakes but it is what they have available rather than the best tool for the job - a 139 with a bigger cabin would sell just as well but be far more useful.
Yes Crab. A for aero. SARF, MRS, Nimrod & signallers are well represented which is appropriate diversity. What do you think you'd get from the weakest link ... eh ... I mean the Coastguard?