UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
Smaller, faster? Faster: no such thing. Eh ... AW139? Well, fine until the day you are 150nm offshore with IMC at your destination and no space to do proper work on your casualty.
As I have suggested, a couple of longer range bases with big helicopters for those rare jobs and smaller, more user-friendly (from a winchman and casualty perspective) for everything else.
We don't have to go down the mountain HEMS route - I still think winching is far better than long-lining - and you need to be able to move MRT around but a 139 sized helicopter with lower downwash has to be a better option for coastal and mountain work.
I know a manufacturer won't design a whole new helicopter for SAR but offering an option with a longer tail boom to accommodate a larger rotor and thus reduce the downwash wouldn't be that difficult, would it?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I know a manufacturer won't design a whole new helicopter for SAR but offering an option with a longer tail boom to accommodate a larger rotor and thus reduce the downwash wouldn't be that difficult, would it?
Not really - if all you do is lengthen the tail and put longer blades on it, the remaining systems (ie most of the helicopter) wouldn't need re-certifying. Not so different from putting a 5-blade rotor on a previous 4 blade type.
Bloody hell Crab. You should get yourself into no. 10. Talk about reversing your decisions! Have you had a bang to the head recently? Have you got to like the 139 now during the last 3 years or so?
I've been flying it for the last 2 years so yes, I do like it - it's not perfect and I know Bristow had some issues with it but for coastal and mountain work it is the right size helicopter with a manageable downwash.
Just trying to offer suggestions since the new contract process has started - chances are it will be more of the same with poor working conditions under the aircraft for the underpaid winchman again
Just trying to offer suggestions since the new contract process has started - chances are it will be more of the same with poor working conditions under the aircraft for the underpaid winchman again
There you go folks, miracles do happen. Crab has publicly said he thinks the 139 is good for SAR or at least two of the biggest aspects of it.
Bristow did have issues primarily related to the fips system which prevents the mast weight being installed to aid with reducing the vibrations. I think the lips system is better and sufficient.
Bristow did have issues primarily related to the fips system which prevents the mast weight being installed to aid with reducing the vibrations. I think the lips system is better and sufficient.
But of course it isn't being used in UKSAR now and wouldn't have been if the contract had gone according to plan.
I don't like the nose up attitude in the hover but the power and the automation are good.
I hate the FMS which would be at home in an airliner but is not optimised for helicopter ops and I know Bristow had issues with the gyros for the AP due to vibration issues.
It is the size and downwash compared to the other modern types that makes it good - it's not a Wessex but you can't have everything
I don't like the nose up attitude in the hover but the power and the automation are good.
I hate the FMS which would be at home in an airliner but is not optimised for helicopter ops and I know Bristow had issues with the gyros for the AP due to vibration issues.
It is the size and downwash compared to the other modern types that makes it good - it's not a Wessex but you can't have everything
A new source of business for SAR and MRT or a bright idea?
Great North Air Ambulance is trialling Jetsuits for their paramedics to reach those in need in hard to reach areas. Not sure what the casualty recovery plan is though?
Great North Air Ambulance is trialling Jetsuits for their paramedics to reach those in need in hard to reach areas. Not sure what the casualty recovery plan is though?
Yep, jetsuits and drones - who needs helicopters?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,578
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
They need to fly two in formation, or even four, to carry the stretcher.
... I hate to think where they would put the handles.....
... I hate to think where they would put the handles.....
Contract extension confirmed:
Bristow to continue delivering UK SAR helicopter service for HM Coastguard under extended contract | Bristow Group
Bristow to continue delivering UK SAR helicopter service for HM Coastguard under extended contract | Bristow Group
During October, the Coasties signed off a document called Single Statement of User Needs (SSUN) that defines their requirements and at the end of that month they sent it out to Government Departments and Category 1 Responders for feedback. Feedback was due back by the end of November. Cat1 were asked to collate feedback from their SAR volunteers. The following video refers.
The SSUN is similar in many respects to the Technical Requirement Matrix issued in February 2012 as part of the previous contract process (and largely inherited from SARH25) that became Schedule 2.1 Specification of the current contract.
Much has been made of the Government policy for a service-based contract that concentrates on outcomes and does not prescribe methodology. There is something to be said for this approach since it may provide for greater bidder innovation. The SSUN layout and style reflect this approach.
However, it seems to me that the operator needs the customer to specify certain aviation requirements so that they have a clearly defined reason to write an appropriate safe procedure into their operating manual, which is key to approval by the regulator, who expresses that approval through the granting of an Air Operating Certificate. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
The SSUN is similar in many respects to the Technical Requirement Matrix issued in February 2012 as part of the previous contract process (and largely inherited from SARH25) that became Schedule 2.1 Specification of the current contract.
Much has been made of the Government policy for a service-based contract that concentrates on outcomes and does not prescribe methodology. There is something to be said for this approach since it may provide for greater bidder innovation. The SSUN layout and style reflect this approach.
However, it seems to me that the operator needs the customer to specify certain aviation requirements so that they have a clearly defined reason to write an appropriate safe procedure into their operating manual, which is key to approval by the regulator, who expresses that approval through the granting of an Air Operating Certificate. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
