Bristow AW189
Take a Wessex.
Make it wider. Give it two big unobstructed doors. A monster fuel tank. Increase the power by 150%. Increase the cruising speed by 40+%. Give it 21st century avionics.
Reduce ground clearance.
Keep the pilots isolated from the workers.
A great way to turn a rescuer into a casualty is to start hover-jumping MRT in mountainous terrain!
Or are we missing something?Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you are missing something. The preferred option is for a helicopter to land and deplane/emplane its passengers quickly and with minimal risk. As soon as you introduce winching, it's an acknowledgement that the helicopter can't land. Winching increases risk and prolongs the evolution, especially if by some miracle they do manage to squeeze six into the back of the 189 and all six need to be winched down. Hover jumping is an uncomfortable but sometimes an expedient option if lots of people and kit are to be deployed.
Bristow AW189
I strongly suspect that it would be embarrassing to call it hover jumping from the 2 foot high 189 cabin floor. It's about twice as high getting out of a Sea King when it's actually landed!
Last edited by jimf671; 17th Oct 2014 at 00:54.
This is an sixteen seat aircraft with options for eighteen or twelve seats. It is expected that there will be eight crashproof utility seats, plenty floor space and two crew belts in the UK SAR version.
"All On State Airborne Systems must be capable of deploying from or retrieving to the Aircraft an MRT Standard Load in a single trip and from the air or on the ground."
"All On State Airborne Systems must be capable of retaining the Hover .. outside of Ground Effect whilst delivering an MRT Standard Load at or below 4000ft amsl at ISA +15 degrees centigrade in still air; and .. with 30 minutes SAR Endurance remaining, at the location of any SAR Incident in the Mountainous Regions of the UK SRR."
"MRT Standard Load" means a team comprising of six members at 80kg each, plus 25kg for hill bags."
Estimates by experienced SAR personnel who have flown this aircraft suggest it will be able to deliver significantly more than contractually required.
Two crew on belts and all seats occupied by MRT (sound familiar) provides for a means of achieving this. The regulator has already introduced the idea of operating for SAR with "Passengers not secured in seats".
Do try to keep up mate.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There's a world of difference between the usefulness of a passenger's ability to quote from glossy brochures or obscure contract documents and an operator's practical realisation that what has been advertised may not actually work.
Read back just a page or two and you'll see a quiet acknowledgement that the number of seats quoted for the SAR variant may well be reduced. Whether it's by two or four (from the quoted six), it's still below what is described as a standard load. It will simply not be possible to operate this aircraft effectively in the SAR role if almost all the kit (medical and otherwise) required to do the job is stuck in a closet behind two seats that may or may not be occupied. Those seats have to go. Having power in hand will make bugger all difference if you can't seat the personnel to be carried.
Suggesting that passengers may be permitted to be carried insecure and not seated in hostile flying environments is one of the barmiest ideas I've heard yet. If you're suggesting they will be secured on the floor using floor belts then that's a lot of holes in the wet fit floor required to access the floor points where those belts would be attached.
Read back just a page or two and you'll see a quiet acknowledgement that the number of seats quoted for the SAR variant may well be reduced. Whether it's by two or four (from the quoted six), it's still below what is described as a standard load. It will simply not be possible to operate this aircraft effectively in the SAR role if almost all the kit (medical and otherwise) required to do the job is stuck in a closet behind two seats that may or may not be occupied. Those seats have to go. Having power in hand will make bugger all difference if you can't seat the personnel to be carried.
Suggesting that passengers may be permitted to be carried insecure and not seated in hostile flying environments is one of the barmiest ideas I've heard yet. If you're suggesting they will be secured on the floor using floor belts then that's a lot of holes in the wet fit floor required to access the floor points where those belts would be attached.
Last edited by Vie sans frontieres; 17th Oct 2014 at 04:23.
And a very retrograde step since we have been trying to protect our pax with crashworthy seats for many years - to the extent that we have rules about what can and cannot be stowed underneath any occupied seats.
Going back to sitting on a floor is just not acceptable except in extremis to save many lives by packing people into the back of the aircraft.
The first legal action following a heavy landing which caused a pax back injury would soon prove the folly of cutting corners - this new SAR contract is supposed to be about doing things properly.
Going back to sitting on a floor is just not acceptable except in extremis to save many lives by packing people into the back of the aircraft.
The first legal action following a heavy landing which caused a pax back injury would soon prove the folly of cutting corners - this new SAR contract is supposed to be about doing things properly.
VSF,
the cabin of the 189 is large enough to have four seats across the front bulkhead with then 2 seats in either corner at the rear. The tunnel access from the cabin through to the boot is then open and accessible between these two seats.
In the picture a page or two back where you see the row of four seats, simply take out the middle two for the tunnel access. The seats in the pic are standard pax seats also.
Not knowing for definite whether this is how the SAR cab will be but it's what AW did with the 139.
the cabin of the 189 is large enough to have four seats across the front bulkhead with then 2 seats in either corner at the rear. The tunnel access from the cabin through to the boot is then open and accessible between these two seats.
In the picture a page or two back where you see the row of four seats, simply take out the middle two for the tunnel access. The seats in the pic are standard pax seats also.
Not knowing for definite whether this is how the SAR cab will be but it's what AW did with the 139.
... Read back just a page or two and you'll see a quiet acknowledgement that the number of seats quoted for the SAR variant may well be reduced. Whether it's by two or four (from the quoted six), it's still below what is described as a standard load. It will simply not be possible to operate this aircraft effectively in the SAR role if almost all the kit (medical and otherwise) required to do the job is stuck in a closet behind two seats that may or may not be occupied. Those seats have to go. Having power in hand will make bugger all difference if you can't seat the personnel to be carried. ...
The seats will have to be there for all of those that the operator is contracted to carry.
The AW189 is a large SAR aircraft by world standards.
(The presentation I saw last week from AW about the 169 showed layouts with FOUR seats and one stretcher. This is in an aircraft with a cabin volume of 6.3m3 compared to the 189's 11.2m3.)
The Bristow website details 3 stretchers and 10 seats in the S-92 but acknowledges the need for up to 21 persons. For the AW189, 2 stretchers and 6 seats but up to 16 persons.
There is no record of a suggestion of passengers on belts or of floor belts.
Last edited by jimf671; 17th Oct 2014 at 10:03.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeepys
Yes, you said that. If those two seats are removed that will leave six - two crash positions for the rearcrew and four for pax. That's two less than the contract appears to demand for a MRT.
Jimf671
Glossy brochures and websites naturally put the best possible spin on an aircraft's performance and characteristics. Reality often turns out to be considerably different. Simply regurgitating that website information does not put you 'in the know'. In fact, it gives the opposite impression. Likewise, quoting extreme examples of aircraft and crews exploring the envelope to get the job done in extremis is not a good way of winning an argument about day to day capability.
If you weren't suggesting that floor belts were being proposed, then you can only have meant that passengers should be routinely insecure in the back of the aircraft. Who in their right mind would advocate that? Only someone without a clue about helicopters.
Yes, you said that. If those two seats are removed that will leave six - two crash positions for the rearcrew and four for pax. That's two less than the contract appears to demand for a MRT.
Jimf671
Glossy brochures and websites naturally put the best possible spin on an aircraft's performance and characteristics. Reality often turns out to be considerably different. Simply regurgitating that website information does not put you 'in the know'. In fact, it gives the opposite impression. Likewise, quoting extreme examples of aircraft and crews exploring the envelope to get the job done in extremis is not a good way of winning an argument about day to day capability.
If you weren't suggesting that floor belts were being proposed, then you can only have meant that passengers should be routinely insecure in the back of the aircraft. Who in their right mind would advocate that? Only someone without a clue about helicopters.
Glossy brochures and websites naturally put the best possible spin on an aircraft's performance and characteristics. Reality often turns out to be considerably different. Simply regurgitating that website information does not put you 'in the know'. In fact, it gives the opposite impression. Likewise, quoting extreme examples of aircraft and crews exploring the envelope to get the job done in extremis is not a good way of winning an argument about day to day capability.
'CAP 999, Helicopter Search and Rescue (SAR) in the UK - National Approval Guidance', has so far appeared in public in two forms. Version 2, in 2014, now puts the responsibility on the AOC holder to "request relevant permissions and exemptions from the regulations as appropriate to their SAR operational or training requirements". However, version 1, in 2010, at Appendix 1, listed 24 'Exemptions from Regulations'.
Amongst those exemptions, at Item 15, was the 'Alleviation from Requirements' of "Passengers not secured in seats. Alternative procedures must be established where there are insufficient seats available."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, that can only be in extremis when needs must and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion which is about the number of seats potentially available for the deployment and recovery of passengers during training and routine SAR Ops. It would be grossly irresponsible to make insecure passengers a day to day SOP.
The bottom line is the MRT standard load is six, the rearcrew need two seats, the role equipment would be inaccessible if all six remaining passenger seats were in position so two need to be removed. Therefore the MRT standard load requirement of the contract can't be met. Someone needs to have a rethink. Fast.
The bottom line is the MRT standard load is six, the rearcrew need two seats, the role equipment would be inaccessible if all six remaining passenger seats were in position so two need to be removed. Therefore the MRT standard load requirement of the contract can't be met. Someone needs to have a rethink. Fast.
Ok, that can only be in extremis when needs must and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion which is about the number of seats potentially available for the deployment and recovery of passengers during training and routine SAR Ops. It would be grossly irresponsible to make insecure passengers a day to day SOP.
The bottom line is the MRT standard load is six, the rearcrew need two seats, the role equipment would be inaccessible if all six remaining passenger seats were in position so two need to be removed. Therefore the MRT standard load requirement of the contract can't be met. Someone needs to have a rethink. Fast.
The bottom line is the MRT standard load is six, the rearcrew need two seats, the role equipment would be inaccessible if all six remaining passenger seats were in position so two need to be removed. Therefore the MRT standard load requirement of the contract can't be met. Someone needs to have a rethink. Fast.
VSF,
the cabin of the 189 is large enough to have four seats across the front bulkhead with then 2 seats in either corner at the rear. The tunnel access from the cabin through to the boot is then open and accessible between these two seats.
In the picture a page or two back where you see the row of four seats, simply take out the middle two for the tunnel access. The seats in the pic are standard pax seats also.
Not knowing for definite whether this is how the SAR cab will be but it's what AW did with the 139.
the cabin of the 189 is large enough to have four seats across the front bulkhead with then 2 seats in either corner at the rear. The tunnel access from the cabin through to the boot is then open and accessible between these two seats.
In the picture a page or two back where you see the row of four seats, simply take out the middle two for the tunnel access. The seats in the pic are standard pax seats also.
Not knowing for definite whether this is how the SAR cab will be but it's what AW did with the 139.
I'm well away from this discussion, but even I can see that you appear not to want to hear what others say.
Six seats, all proper crew crashworthy types, four facing aft behind the drivers and two fwd facing with gear access between them in the AW139. In the AW189 there is a cabin much larger than currently exists for SAR in most of the rest of the world save the S92 and the Sea King, with ample room for extra seats to meet the contract criteria. Only you seem determined to second guess the contract winners (Bristow) and constantly surmise configurations based on nothing but your thoughts.
I'd love to fly the AW189 and it sounds fit for purpose, but your constant nay-saying based on misinterpretation and/or shear bloodymindedness is beginning to grate.