Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread

Old 16th Sep 2015, 21:18
  #2261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Flight: Bristow still waiting on AW189 SAR introduction

Delays to their service entry have been caused by the slow certification of ice protection systems. However, AgustaWestland confirms that it has now attained EASA approval for its Limited Ice Protection System on the type. Validation of the more comprehensive Full Ice Protection System will not take place until the middle of next year, however.
I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 09:10
  #2262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
Nobody saw that coming.............
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 09:28
  #2263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Nobody saw that coming.............
Yes it's certainly a problem that mil SAR has never had within living memory - since of course they haven't introduced any new aircraft in the past 40 odd years.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 20:56
  #2264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 444
I don't think we ever lost a job through not having full ice protection so it would seem a bit of an over kill - that was up in the frozen north. What limited icing capability does the 189 have? Probably more than enough to achieve the goal.
cyclic is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 08:44
  #2265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by cyclic View Post
I don't think we ever lost a job through not having full ice protection so it would seem a bit of an over kill - that was up in the frozen north. What limited icing capability does the 189 have? Probably more than enough to achieve the goal.
Yes, 189 with LIPS will be more capable than SK in icing conditions. I expect deiced a/c to be able to enter some mountain locations with considerably more confidence than in the past. Trip to Raigmore across the NW or return to base becomes simpler by just going up and over rather than long trip round Ardnamurchan or Durness or hours of hover taxi in a blizzard.

Time to hospital - tick the box.

Availability for next job - tick the box.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 17:08
  #2266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
So you'll be able to tell us what the ice accretion limits on the airframe/Torque limits in icing conditions are then.

It's not just the rotor icing up that is the problem and just because you can control the shedding from the rotors doesn't mean you can fly safely in those conditions.

I know of 2 occasions (at least) where a Sea King was only saved by breaking cloud due to airframe ice accumulation - the rotor shedding was a minor irritation compared to doubling the AUM of the aircraft with ice.

Will they be able to fly in freezing rain or drizzle?????????? Don't think so for the same reasons.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 19:51
  #2267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Univers
Posts: 34
doubling the AUM

[QUOTE]was a minor irritation compared to doubling the AUM of the aircraft with ice/QUOTE]

WOW, that was a hack of an ice storm, you would have been flying in there for a month!

P.S. Freezing rain or drizzle are not covered by any certification rule, there are no rotorcraft capable of that in the entire world.
Margins is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 21:23
  #2268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
P.S. Freezing rain or drizzle are not covered by any certification rule, there are no rotorcraft capable of that in the entire world.
No, really????

Doubling the AUM was just an indication that there wasn't enough power to keep the aircraft airborne with all the ice - it wasn't meant to be literal.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 10:49
  #2269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 50 50 Broome
Posts: 107
It seems that the 189 will not be flying SAR for sometime.

HeliHub Bristow UK to import four more SAR S92s in place of AW189s
Brother is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 11:11
  #2270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Out West
Posts: 283
Margins - I see that you are relatively new to this thread. The rules is that when someone posts something positive about Bristow UK SAR Crab counters it with a negative. When his negative post is questioned by someone with accurate or more factual information Crab posts lots of smilies and condescendingly explains that he was merely being sarcastic or ironic and that it was not meant to be literal.

Stick around for a while - you'll get the drift.
Same again is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 17:35
  #2271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
Same again - so you really think I didn't know that freezing rain and drizzle isn't included in the icing certification?

If I post something negative it is usually to counter a false or over-inflated positive. Jim doesn't understand that popping up into and dropping back out of cloud overland isn't that simple, especially in the mountains.

The fact is that the extra icing clearance above what the Sea King had will make a very small difference - if you are trying to get to a hospital IFR you still have to find some way of getting down - that takes time and then you still have to grope around underneath to get from the ILS/letdown point to the hospital.

Perhaps you would like to put some positive spin on how the 189 is so late for SAR service and the contract spec isn't being made.

Or are you too busy sniping at me to offer any real contribution?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 17:49
  #2272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Out West
Posts: 283
Oh Crab... you disappoint me - I was merely being humorous
Same again is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 19:14
  #2273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 444
He is right of course, the let down will always be challenging unless the hospital/landing site is adjacent to an airport. Even Raigmore and ARI with relatively close airports will provide quite a challenge and then what do you do when you don't get visual at DA on the ILS? Go out to sea and let down? May have been better to come all the way at 100' on goggles...
cyclic is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 19:30
  #2274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
Oh Crab... you disappoint me - I was merely being humorous
You must have caught me in a shy and sensitive moment

He is right of course
I think I might frame that comment from this august thread - and no I don't mean the month
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 22:56
  #2275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
I am certain that the SAR Dep Ch Pilot who I recently discussed this with has a good grasp of this subject Crab. Anyway, Raigmore ~100' ASL and minutes from large sea area. Several other Scottish hosp similar.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 07:55
  #2276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
I am certain that the SAR Dep Ch Pilot who I recently discussed this with has a good grasp of this subject Crab
Then he will doubtless have told you that an IMC overwater letdown isn't a rapid process. You then have to deal with the conditions underneath as you coast back in which may be very different to what you left in the hills, possibly much worse.

Yes, a better icing clearance is welcome but it isn't a panacea for dealing with poor weather in the hills (or anywhere else). You still have to get to the job in the first place and I don't see them doing IMC letdowns into the mountains no matter how clever the aircraft is.

Will they be flying if there is a triggered lightning risk declared?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 08:35
  #2277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Out West
Posts: 283
No. That's why we get paid lots of money. To make the right decisions.
Same again is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 10:30
  #2278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
In less than a week the last UK RAF SAR flights are due to close and an enormous gap in coverage opens up on the east coast. At the start of this process the DfT were gullible enough to be taken in by the ruse that Prestwick’s new aircraft and its ability to charge west to east across the country through icing conditions would compensate for the loss of Boulmer’s SAR cab. Yet for the next three months Prestwick won’t have a new SAR cab and when they do, questions still remain about airframe icing and its potential impact on an aircraft attempting such a transit. Were large super-cooled droplets not part of the discussion some time ago? As I recall the icing clearance was based upon the aircraft not flying through large super-cooled droplets. How one judges that whilst airborne is beyond me. Now we have this lightning risk threat thrown in to the equation. Notwithstanding the distance involved, it sounds to me as though Prestwick’s ability to cover Boulmer’s patch is not what was advertised. Sadly it is going to take an unspeakable tragedy of some sort for the DfT to realise the folly of this decision. When Humberside go u/s, which they will at some point, east coast SAR coverage is non-existent. Who in their right minds thinks that this is a good idea?

Last edited by Vie sans frontieres; 24th Sep 2015 at 10:44.
Vie sans frontieres is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 14:58
  #2279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
Who in their right minds thinks that this is a good idea?
everyone except you and me it would seem

No. That's why we get paid lots of money. To make the right decisions.
that depends if you think triggered lightning is a real risk inland or not - are you going to make your go/no go decision based on an unproven forecast? It is certainly not predicted with as good a certainty as frezzing rain/drizzle and SAROPS have been conducted many times in conditions which 'theoretically' could have induced triggered lightning.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 20:29
  #2280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
Nobody is suggesting IMC letdowns over mountains.

The distances involved in many of the alternatives in a Highland context make the time and care required for a safe letdown over the Moray Firth a reasonable approach.

Regarding the Inverness to Humberside gap, I do agree that it is a potential problem. I do not think that means that the 10 base solution is deeply flawed. I think that the 10 base solution is generally a good element of the first entirely plan SAR helicopter service for the UK.

The Inverness solution is good for me and very good for my team. However, particularly with my marine/offshore hat on, this part of the Bristow version of the 10 base solution may be stretching the concept a little too far.

Crab. I know you know and have worked with many of the guys and girls who are now out there doing it in CG-Bristow aircraft. Why don't you give them a ring and get the proper gen? Are they not speaking to you?
jimf671 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.