UK NPAS discussion thread: Mk 3
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can personally attest to :
a) Sid's ability to say NO when needed - including several years ago to his employer
when under considerable pressure from his Maintenance Manager
who somehow managed to remotely ( by telephone ) diagnose an aircraft
with a fuel leak as "fit for one flight" of about 45 miles to the Maintenance Facility
b) The credibility of his Unit's FSO
Can we get back on track now, as I can't really see what Lumberjacking Skycranes
or R22 cow herding have got to do with the title of this Thread : "UK NPAS discussion"
Looking forward to some sensible updates on progress when the next Units join up - soon
a) Sid's ability to say NO when needed - including several years ago to his employer
when under considerable pressure from his Maintenance Manager
who somehow managed to remotely ( by telephone ) diagnose an aircraft
with a fuel leak as "fit for one flight" of about 45 miles to the Maintenance Facility
b) The credibility of his Unit's FSO
Can we get back on track now, as I can't really see what Lumberjacking Skycranes
or R22 cow herding have got to do with the title of this Thread : "UK NPAS discussion"
Looking forward to some sensible updates on progress when the next Units join up - soon
YOP,
Your comment about Dog Handlers shows how badly informed you are.
The "Sitting" done by the handlers in our force occurs whilst at the wheel driving from one end of the County to the other because there are so few of them. 300-400 miles per shift is not un common - and this is by no means a geographically large County.
Your comment about Dog Handlers shows how badly informed you are.
The "Sitting" done by the handlers in our force occurs whilst at the wheel driving from one end of the County to the other because there are so few of them. 300-400 miles per shift is not un common - and this is by no means a geographically large County.
Cabby: Good spot.
About time the 902 was inched out! Bell - you are joking aren't you, cabin too small, crap carrying capacity and...oh yes...exposed tail rotor.
And guess who will win this maintenance contract...
PS: Poorly written article by the way!
About time the 902 was inched out! Bell - you are joking aren't you, cabin too small, crap carrying capacity and...oh yes...exposed tail rotor.
And guess who will win this maintenance contract...
PS: Poorly written article by the way!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
NPAS don't need anyone to deflect, it doesnt matter how good or bad they do, nothing will change. I left BECAUSE of its introduction, my unit was sacrificed. Despite being one of its worst critics, I say.......... Get on with it, make the best of what you have and quit whining, you will change NOTHING.
Sometimes when you spend all this time sitting around and you overdose on PPrune, you read misinformed comments on a subject close to your heart. Try hard as you might, you bite, sorry for sounding like I do TC, I cant help myself!!
Sometimes when you spend all this time sitting around and you overdose on PPrune, you read misinformed comments on a subject close to your heart. Try hard as you might, you bite, sorry for sounding like I do TC, I cant help myself!!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Mr B.
Just landed, 'saw this & thought of you'.
Just landed, 'saw this & thought of you'.
oooohhh.... that's a tricky one, let me think......I know it begins with S..........oh and ends in earch and Rescue
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so.
That item was not written by the 'usual' Editor and I think he assumes too much.... the numbers are wrong... he talks of ten but ten do not need the work... it is only the handful with high skids.
And no where in the NPAS paperwork that this story is based on does it say the 902 or the 109 are dead meat... someone is assuming much too much.
That item was not written by the 'usual' Editor and I think he assumes too much.... the numbers are wrong... he talks of ten but ten do not need the work... it is only the handful with high skids.
And no where in the NPAS paperwork that this story is based on does it say the 902 or the 109 are dead meat... someone is assuming much too much.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is that cost saving then ?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PANews wrote:
.. I think he assumes too much.... the numbers are wrong...
.. I think he assumes too much.... the numbers are wrong...
But in the end I think we will see enforced standardisation - there were even rumours that "big" orders for a single type were part of the motive behind the move to NPAS (supported behind the scenes by more than one manufacturer).
Rumours driven by what. Last time I looked we are in a recession. True it may have just got better but when this plan was hatched we were supposedly in a downward spiral.
The core plan was to adjust the existing resources so that the load was spread more evenly..... i.e. rather than have 5 aircraft doings under 700 hours and the others doing 1300 all the [smaller] fleet could do about the same. [those numbers are plucked from the sky, not 'real' before you start]
There is/was no massive pot that might provide a massive "big" order..... single type..... that would be many times the projected cost of this EC135T2 tweak. They say £3-7M .... but clearly this meeting is all about sounding out industry to see what it can be done for..... Run a rumour like that past any manufacturer and of course they are going to rub their hands and shout 'Me, me, me....'
£1M per airframe seems a massive number but if there is an assumption that the whole fleet will get identical sensor fits that will be a big chunk if they go one way and less if they go another.
It depends whether the intention is to upgrade and modify regardless of the cost or to take the cheapest route [i.e. keeping the Spectrolab searchlight rather than convert the whole fleet to a different searchlight option would be a no brainer].
I suspect that this side of the meeting next week no-one knows the answer or the cost.
If you need a mind picture of where it will go.... I suggest you just look at the seven most recent deliveries.
The core plan was to adjust the existing resources so that the load was spread more evenly..... i.e. rather than have 5 aircraft doings under 700 hours and the others doing 1300 all the [smaller] fleet could do about the same. [those numbers are plucked from the sky, not 'real' before you start]
There is/was no massive pot that might provide a massive "big" order..... single type..... that would be many times the projected cost of this EC135T2 tweak. They say £3-7M .... but clearly this meeting is all about sounding out industry to see what it can be done for..... Run a rumour like that past any manufacturer and of course they are going to rub their hands and shout 'Me, me, me....'
£1M per airframe seems a massive number but if there is an assumption that the whole fleet will get identical sensor fits that will be a big chunk if they go one way and less if they go another.
It depends whether the intention is to upgrade and modify regardless of the cost or to take the cheapest route [i.e. keeping the Spectrolab searchlight rather than convert the whole fleet to a different searchlight option would be a no brainer].
I suspect that this side of the meeting next week no-one knows the answer or the cost.
If you need a mind picture of where it will go.... I suggest you just look at the seven most recent deliveries.
Mighty Gem
do you have any idea how many night medtransfers and night medrescues UK SAR does? It's a lot
Not so crab. Our unit's had 3 or 4 casevacs in the past couple of years, and turned down others.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Sid, 90kilos???? I've launched on 90 kilos
it say the 902 or the 109 are dead meat
do you have any idea how many night medtransfers and night medrescues UK SAR does? It's a lot
There is a fear, brought on wholly by the record of the 902, about reliance upon 'one manufacturer' although the recent experience with EC and the 225 suggests that EC will be capable of putting right the problem quickly [if you count 6 months as quick].
Anyway, nothing that the EC135 ever did - and the police across the world are reliant on it so if it does go wrong air support as we know it will be suspended across Europe.
The trouble is that the alternatives are either too old [109], too big [189] or not certified [Bell 429] so the 902 will have to limp on a fair bit longer.
Anyway, nothing that the EC135 ever did - and the police across the world are reliant on it so if it does go wrong air support as we know it will be suspended across Europe.
The trouble is that the alternatives are either too old [109], too big [189] or not certified [Bell 429] so the 902 will have to limp on a fair bit longer.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in complete agreement with SS (from an editing, number of posts, point of view) as there are a few issues that could be dealt with in one edition, since I last read this thread. In a particular, linked, order therefore:
1. Spare capacity = flexibility. 100kgs (in a 135) either means one pax (but not 20 St) OR 30 mins fuel. Either can be loaded quickly - but de-fuelling in any sensible timescale is not an option.
2. Fuel load is the easiest to adjust, but often needs to take into account the weight of subsequent shift crew, with or without planned pax, and therefore needs a little planning. As SS intimates, saying “No” to the pax comes higher up the list than saying no to fuel. [And some posters need to get their heads round the different aircraft types/weights quoted, rather than criticise the professionals who have posted correctly and relevant to their type experience]
3. 20 stone Pilots or Obs make a mockery of flexibility. Some (pre-NPAS) units had weight limits to enhance operational flexibility, but I understand this may appear too difficult for NPAS HR to get their heads round.
4. NPAS needs visitors to ASUs to spread the message. Flying visitors (specifically Police employees, including PCSOs) is an essential part of “selling the message” about Air Support. It’s even more important under NPAS, since there will be more occasions where “the aircraft’s not available”, due to one thing or another (but normally being miles away in the service of another county), which is the general impression the ground officers have of helicopter availability. Unless they actually see what the job entails, they won’t understand the pressures on the aircraft. Yes, some posters who don’t work in the business may see it as a “Jolly” but it makes little difference to endurance, unless your aircraft is less capable than it should be . . . which leads on to -
5. Standardising aircraft types/specs makes complete sense in the 135 fleet, especially with everybody flying further under NPAS. This is not to say they’re discounting the 902 fleet, just that they’re dealing with the most prolific model in the fleet first. Whilst the most recent multi-purchase were all P2+, it would seem sensible, in the light of the above discussion, to at least ensure all 135s were able to maximise their endurance by upgrading to 2910kgs. That way, the only payload variables would be the removable equipment (varies by unit, but not drastically so), fuel and weight of crew/pax . . . discussed before!
6. Police equipment & upgrades are obviously important as well, and especially for those older aircraft that rely on 8-10 year old sensors etc, and it would be much better to have a similar standardisation for the older airframes, as has been afforded to the P2+ bulk-buy. It all makes things a lot easier when swapping airframes around and sorting out efficient Police mapping is an essential start IMHO.
7. Before there’s any miss-reading of para 5, I am not suggesting the demise of types other than the 135, just enhancing the 135 fleet, as mentioned by PAN.
Dolphin 101
1. Spare capacity = flexibility. 100kgs (in a 135) either means one pax (but not 20 St) OR 30 mins fuel. Either can be loaded quickly - but de-fuelling in any sensible timescale is not an option.
2. Fuel load is the easiest to adjust, but often needs to take into account the weight of subsequent shift crew, with or without planned pax, and therefore needs a little planning. As SS intimates, saying “No” to the pax comes higher up the list than saying no to fuel. [And some posters need to get their heads round the different aircraft types/weights quoted, rather than criticise the professionals who have posted correctly and relevant to their type experience]
3. 20 stone Pilots or Obs make a mockery of flexibility. Some (pre-NPAS) units had weight limits to enhance operational flexibility, but I understand this may appear too difficult for NPAS HR to get their heads round.
4. NPAS needs visitors to ASUs to spread the message. Flying visitors (specifically Police employees, including PCSOs) is an essential part of “selling the message” about Air Support. It’s even more important under NPAS, since there will be more occasions where “the aircraft’s not available”, due to one thing or another (but normally being miles away in the service of another county), which is the general impression the ground officers have of helicopter availability. Unless they actually see what the job entails, they won’t understand the pressures on the aircraft. Yes, some posters who don’t work in the business may see it as a “Jolly” but it makes little difference to endurance, unless your aircraft is less capable than it should be . . . which leads on to -
5. Standardising aircraft types/specs makes complete sense in the 135 fleet, especially with everybody flying further under NPAS. This is not to say they’re discounting the 902 fleet, just that they’re dealing with the most prolific model in the fleet first. Whilst the most recent multi-purchase were all P2+, it would seem sensible, in the light of the above discussion, to at least ensure all 135s were able to maximise their endurance by upgrading to 2910kgs. That way, the only payload variables would be the removable equipment (varies by unit, but not drastically so), fuel and weight of crew/pax . . . discussed before!
6. Police equipment & upgrades are obviously important as well, and especially for those older aircraft that rely on 8-10 year old sensors etc, and it would be much better to have a similar standardisation for the older airframes, as has been afforded to the P2+ bulk-buy. It all makes things a lot easier when swapping airframes around and sorting out efficient Police mapping is an essential start IMHO.
7. Before there’s any miss-reading of para 5, I am not suggesting the demise of types other than the 135, just enhancing the 135 fleet, as mentioned by PAN.
Dolphin 101
Last edited by zorab64; 24th Aug 2013 at 09:38. Reason: Typo
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
(shortened)
1. Spare capacity = flexibility.
2. Fuel load is the easiest to adjust
3. 20 stone Pilots or Obs make a mockery of flexibility.
4. NPAS needs visitors to ASUs to spread the message.
5. Standardising aircraft types/specs
6. Police equipment & upgrades
1. Spare capacity = flexibility.
2. Fuel load is the easiest to adjust
3. 20 stone Pilots or Obs make a mockery of flexibility.
4. NPAS needs visitors to ASUs to spread the message.
5. Standardising aircraft types/specs
6. Police equipment & upgrades
1. Spare capacity = Operational Limitation
2. Fuel Load = Operational Availability
3. 20 stone Pilots or Obs don't exist
4. NPAS does get visitors
1. When the times I've been called to carry an 'unannounced' operational pax straight from base can be counted on no fingers, yet the times I have been on a 'routine task that' turns into a distant and/or prolonged task etc. can be counted on a centipede or two, I'd rather have that extra 30 mins fuel already on board thanks!
2. Sitting on the dispersal with 30 minutes less fuel than I can take, generally means that in 90 minutes time I have to; leave the job earlier, not do the jobs that always crop up on the way back in and limits my circle of ops by a 30 mile radius etc. If an operational passenger was ever to have to board at base (see 1.) and the fuel load was too high, one of the observers can always be initially left behind. As far as subsequent crews are concerned, my zfw is probably of the heavier, so as it turns out, I tend to leave the ac below the max fuel for the next crew configuration anyway. Besides, come the latter flight(s) of the shift, the fuel uplift is adjusted, if necessary, to allow for any special loadings for the next crew, such as a visitor or training. Surely the easiest thing to adjust, is the thing that you don't have to adjust just before going out
3. We are still waiting for evidence of this mythical 20 stone observer.
4. I think you'll find that most if not all units run a visitor scheme to allow for just that process to take place.
---
If I may finish on a point from 5.
it would seem sensible, in the light of the above discussion, to at least ensure all 135s were able to maximise their endurance by upgrading to 2910kgs.