SAR offshore letdown procedure
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
As you sit on top of ‘Brokedown Yellowcab’ Mountain looking down on your fellow pilots with contempt whilst pouring scorn on the rest of the aviation world who dare to fly aircraft without the RAF emblem emblazoned on the side, have you really ever considered that there is more than one way to achieve an tasking even if it isn’t written down in the RAF rule book?
I seem to recall that your argument for not having a dual hoist fit on the Sea King is that you have never needed a second hoist. (Actually, I think your argument is generally along the lines of - if it isn't in a Sea King then its rubbish.) My argument to you is that I have never needed a rearwards facing radar. There we go, we can all move on....
Personally I would prefer to have a radar that points in the direction the aircraft is going, that can be viewed by both pilots and even the winchop or winchman, rather than a radar that points backwards. It makes sense to me but clearly not to you. So be it.
Glad to see that you can be just as sensitive as everyone else on this site! It makes you seem a little bit more human.... that’s a good thing. We can start your rehabilitation back in to society now!
NW
As you sit on top of ‘Brokedown Yellowcab’ Mountain looking down on your fellow pilots with contempt whilst pouring scorn on the rest of the aviation world who dare to fly aircraft without the RAF emblem emblazoned on the side, have you really ever considered that there is more than one way to achieve an tasking even if it isn’t written down in the RAF rule book?
I seem to recall that your argument for not having a dual hoist fit on the Sea King is that you have never needed a second hoist. (Actually, I think your argument is generally along the lines of - if it isn't in a Sea King then its rubbish.) My argument to you is that I have never needed a rearwards facing radar. There we go, we can all move on....
Personally I would prefer to have a radar that points in the direction the aircraft is going, that can be viewed by both pilots and even the winchop or winchman, rather than a radar that points backwards. It makes sense to me but clearly not to you. So be it.
Glad to see that you can be just as sensitive as everyone else on this site! It makes you seem a little bit more human.... that’s a good thing. We can start your rehabilitation back in to society now!
NW
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night Watchman,
I posted the following a few days ago:
'Back to the original question.
Can someone who has done an IMC letdown in strong on-shore wind conditions (ie where the wind speed precludes hovering downwind) using a 120-degree radar describe how they got on?
We will then be able to compare procedures (Crab has provided a detailed description of how he and his milSAR mates conduct it) and decide which is best for ourselves. Radical, I know, and not in the finest traditions of PPRuNe name calling.'
From your comments, you seem to have the experience required to answer my question. Although not stated explicitly, I did mean a 120 degree forward looking radar.
Many thanks in anticipation of a response.
CD
I posted the following a few days ago:
'Back to the original question.
Can someone who has done an IMC letdown in strong on-shore wind conditions (ie where the wind speed precludes hovering downwind) using a 120-degree radar describe how they got on?
We will then be able to compare procedures (Crab has provided a detailed description of how he and his milSAR mates conduct it) and decide which is best for ourselves. Radical, I know, and not in the finest traditions of PPRuNe name calling.'
From your comments, you seem to have the experience required to answer my question. Although not stated explicitly, I did mean a 120 degree forward looking radar.
Many thanks in anticipation of a response.
CD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CD
Low level overwater ops--- you seem hung up on the 360 v 120 debate on this...what's your need to know pray tell?
If you are ex-mil then you will be familiar with an IMC let-down. If not, read crabs post. As for the 120 radar in civilian use, then just like the military, the approach is made at an offset angle (say 30-45 degrees) to the coast, accepting the crosswind. (Only a monkey in a gimp mask is going straight into the coast).
This gives a reduced 'escape' heading turn. When within a viable radar range, usually practised to .25nm and backed up by the FLIR operator if possible. Once visual it’s pedal into wind and winch-op con from there.
The current batch of 92/139 radars will hold a picture half as good again. Let’s face it if all the lights/Flir can’t make out anything from the .25nm point and in extremis beyond that then perhaps it is unlucky for those in need.
Wind above 40 kts I hear crab cry? you must back it in like the good ole boys do!
Well, easy as you go! It gets done, has been done and works at 33.3% of all the current UK SAR bases.
PS. For crab; most Civ Sar units have more Captains than the 'beloved co-jo's' you seem so incredulous about daring to do more than sit on their hands. So it is not a case of ye gad's they let co-jo's do radar talk-downs blah, blah.
Actually it is normal practise for the Captain to be managing the mission wth the co-pilot flying (70% of the time he is also a Captain!). The evolutions like these are practised by all the MCA SAR pilots, black art solved.
If you are ex-mil then you will be familiar with an IMC let-down. If not, read crabs post. As for the 120 radar in civilian use, then just like the military, the approach is made at an offset angle (say 30-45 degrees) to the coast, accepting the crosswind. (Only a monkey in a gimp mask is going straight into the coast).
This gives a reduced 'escape' heading turn. When within a viable radar range, usually practised to .25nm and backed up by the FLIR operator if possible. Once visual it’s pedal into wind and winch-op con from there.
The current batch of 92/139 radars will hold a picture half as good again. Let’s face it if all the lights/Flir can’t make out anything from the .25nm point and in extremis beyond that then perhaps it is unlucky for those in need.
Wind above 40 kts I hear crab cry? you must back it in like the good ole boys do!
Well, easy as you go! It gets done, has been done and works at 33.3% of all the current UK SAR bases.
PS. For crab; most Civ Sar units have more Captains than the 'beloved co-jo's' you seem so incredulous about daring to do more than sit on their hands. So it is not a case of ye gad's they let co-jo's do radar talk-downs blah, blah.
Actually it is normal practise for the Captain to be managing the mission wth the co-pilot flying (70% of the time he is also a Captain!). The evolutions like these are practised by all the MCA SAR pilots, black art solved.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and backing in 'blind' from the 'first hover' position isn't a black art either, as long as you've previously mapped & checked the area with radar and are fairly sure that vessels which don't have AIS haven't cunningly sneaked in behind you while you weren't looking.
Even in the thickest fog you can see further than the edge of the rotor disc, so as long as you move at a steady, slow pace you are going to see the shoreline before you bump into it. Modern aircraft can control speed and direction of closing movement to a steady and accurate degree without suffering from the complications of old doppler-only systems, so the process is further de-risked. It's no different in principle to closing with the coast sideways or backwards (ideally not forwards unless committed!) below min radar range in a SK.
A good GPS display is also very useful for assisting awareness; if the system fails completely then you stop using it - but then the radar is just as susceptible to failure at an awkward moment. If the GPS is using RAIM then any error from one of the satellites being used will be flagged up as soon as the system recognises it, so claiming that the GPS position could be 'faulty' doesn't really hold water.
Both aircraft layouts and radar systems can achieve the same effect, just using different equipment combinations and therefore different procedures.
Just as well we don't get too many jobs at the back of coves in 40kts of onshore fog; think of the collision risk as the SK and AW139/S-92 operators race to prove how efficiently they can each complete the job!
Louis
Even in the thickest fog you can see further than the edge of the rotor disc, so as long as you move at a steady, slow pace you are going to see the shoreline before you bump into it. Modern aircraft can control speed and direction of closing movement to a steady and accurate degree without suffering from the complications of old doppler-only systems, so the process is further de-risked. It's no different in principle to closing with the coast sideways or backwards (ideally not forwards unless committed!) below min radar range in a SK.
A good GPS display is also very useful for assisting awareness; if the system fails completely then you stop using it - but then the radar is just as susceptible to failure at an awkward moment. If the GPS is using RAIM then any error from one of the satellites being used will be flagged up as soon as the system recognises it, so claiming that the GPS position could be 'faulty' doesn't really hold water.
Both aircraft layouts and radar systems can achieve the same effect, just using different equipment combinations and therefore different procedures.
Just as well we don't get too many jobs at the back of coves in 40kts of onshore fog; think of the collision risk as the SK and AW139/S-92 operators race to prove how efficiently they can each complete the job!
Louis
Louis : "Just as well we don't get too many jobs at the back of coves in 40kts of onshore fog; think of the collision risk as the SK and AW139/S-92 operators race to prove how efficiently they can each complete the job!"
Hehe... I have often had a giggle at the same thought!
One thing about the GPS in the s-92....we have 4 separate independent systems....part of the SAR checks is to make sure that the three easiest to read are all telling the same story. The forth could be used but it is by no means the easiest to access at important times....
Hehe... I have often had a giggle at the same thought!
One thing about the GPS in the s-92....we have 4 separate independent systems....part of the SAR checks is to make sure that the three easiest to read are all telling the same story. The forth could be used but it is by no means the easiest to access at important times....
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a comment
While I can't add to the SAR comments all I needed to know was summed up in these few words
While some might have something to prove a professional is well past the point of proving himself "the man's way" and will use all of the tools available to include coupled modes because he knows it's safer. Doesn't matter if your talking SAR, military, EMS, corporate, those tools were developed and purchased for a reason. To not use them only speaks to ignorance or ego, both of which are bad things in a cockpit.
...and fly to airport for ILS the man's way - uncoupled...
Last edited by jeffg; 29th Jun 2011 at 19:21.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeffg
Don't worry about that comment from Crab
We have all been laughing on Pprune and in the crew rooms at that one.
Done it the mans way when it was all we had. Rather prefer the fully coupled spot on to auto-level at O'crack sparrow when shattered after that all night mission after a safe IMC let-down and cliff rescue
We have all been laughing on Pprune and in the crew rooms at that one.
Done it the mans way when it was all we had. Rather prefer the fully coupled spot on to auto-level at O'crack sparrow when shattered after that all night mission after a safe IMC let-down and cliff rescue
