Bristow AW189

[Vie sans frontieres]

John

So where do the rearcrew sit when 6 MRT (the standard load) occupy the six seats? Or if all eight seats are in, how do the rearcrew access items of role equipment?

Do not confuse SAR requirements in the wider world with those in the UK. Irrespective of the diverse nature of the SAR region, the new contract has to deliver on its promise of no reduction in quality of service - one aspect of that is kit carried to deal with all manner of rescue and/or medical scenarios.

[noooby]

Put the other two seats in one of the other two completely empty rows!

There is room for 18 seats in there. Fitting 8 AND having access to all the SAR goodies won't be a problem.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Thanks for the comic relief noooby. I needed that.

[jimf671]

Now let me see.

The basics of the MRT std load thing is that the contract requires that the aircraft has the capability to deploy or recover a party of 6 of us, in the air or on the ground, at 4000' in certain conditions.

At this point, one of two scenarios is normally in place.
- The cas/misper has not yet been accessed: and no role eqpt is yet req'd from storage
- The cas/misper has already been evacuated: and the role eqpt has already been stored or unloaded at the HLS

(The second scenario is less likely since we have probably been left to walk home.)

In the unusual scenario of 6 MRT onboard and the storage area needs accessed then one or both rear crew are clearly not in seats and the access problem is reduced or eliminated. I have been asked to move around in the cabin of a Sea King many times and I expect it to be no different in an AW189.

Occasionally, there will be cas/misper and MRT in the cabin and packed in any way they will fit because it would not be sensible to leave people on the hill in bad conditions. That's why there has been a reference to passengers not secured in seat, why the Bristow website refers to up to 16 persons, and why I described such occasions above. On most of those occasions, patient condition will normally be hypothermia treated by squeezing them in with hot sweaty smelly MRT with the cabin heater on. On the rare occasions when more sophisticated medical care is necessary, people will use their initiative (which normally includes chucking MRT out at the earliest opportunity).

[[email protected]]

Crab.......... come on. Making sure there is no SAR kit under a canvas Seaking PAX seat does not make it "crashworthy"

quite right but putting stuff under it makes it very un-crashworthy - cast your mind back to the Wessex that went into the lake in Snowdonia many years ago - that killed some cadets who were sitting in seats that had kit stored underneath them and this was a major contributory factor to their deaths because there was no 'planned progressive failure' of the seat which might have absorbed some of the impact. The seats in the SK are the same as the Wessex which is why the pax are protected now by the 'no kit under the seats' rule. Not crashworthy per se but much less un-crashworthy than with kit underneath.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Jimf671

I've changed my mind. I think you had better stick to quoting directly from websites and glossy brochures after all. That last post was pure gibberish in virtually every respect. You're not aircrew so please stop pretending you understand how they operate, their thought processes and how and when they utilise their resources.

You cannot temporarily remove seats that are designated crash positions. Should sh1t happen, no matter how quick the mechanism is, you will never get them re-fitted and the rearcrew strapped in in time unless you have thousands of feet to play with.

[Um... lifting...]

It ain't rocket surgery.

_/----\_
/_P_P_\
|x x x C|
[x
[x
|x-----C|]
-\ KIT /-]

[Vie sans frontieres]

I think you may need rocket surgery (sic) to place two stretchered casualties on the floor in that seat configuration.

[Sandy Toad]

Vie. Have you actually sat in an empty AW189!

[Vie sans frontieres]

No, but I can read. Dimensions are one aspect of a product's technical data that aren't going to change on a daily basis. The entire width of the cabin will be required to comfortably load a casualty in a stretcher widthways.

[Um... lifting...]

I think you may need rocket surgery (sic) to place two stretchered casualties on the floor in that seat configuration.

No I won't, because I won't be doing it. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

It's laudable that you can read technical data, it's a dying art.

So is reading a specification.

Now, I don't know if it actually can work or not, and I have no dog in this fight, but there is usually more than one way to satisfy a spec and there are a number of things one can do with the configuration requirements here.

[[email protected]]

but there is usually more than one way to satisfy a spec

that's called a fudge and is a tactic employed when the actual intent of a spec can't be met - a bit like getting a landrover up the ramp into a Merlin(having to take the windscreen off and deflate the tyres) or getting 6 troops into a Wildcat (using Gurkhas because they are smaller).

We might see the introduction of a smaller stretcher (OK unless you are 6'7"), a diagonal loading plan or all sorts of other fudges - the real fun is going to be with a bariatric patient

[soggyboxers]

This thread seems to have been taken over by a couple of disaffected individuals who are just basing all sorts of opinion based on nothing but speculation and supposition . Why not just wait and see what the finalised cabin fit looks like and then start your moaning

[[email protected]]

Why not just wait and see what the finalised cabin fit looks like and then start your moaning

because then it's too late to ask questions and have the discussion - at the point when it gets to the front line it will be a done deal and only minor feckling will be possible with the kit.

If by disaffected you mean 'unwilling to just believe the hype and spin from various PR machines and glossy brochures' then I guess the cap fits.

[jimf671]

Be quiet. Crab has bought a barbecue and is looking forward to his weekends off next spring.

[[email protected]]

Already enjoying my weekends off

[dClbydalpha]

... the role equipment would be inaccessible if all six remaining passenger seats were in position so two need to be removed ...

is it not possible to fold the seat backs to give access to the equipment?

[Vie sans frontieres]

Not if someone's already sitting in it. Plus, that seat would need to be a readily available crash position. However clever a foldaway mechanism might be, it would still take an unacceptably long amount of time for the crewman/men to remove himself/themselves from the role equipment closet, re-fit the seat/seats, sit down and strap in.

[dClbydalpha]

What is defined as an unacceptable amount of time? How long does it normally take to get say from a winching position to fully strapped in - is this a measure of acceptable? I am sure a mechanism exists that allows a seat back to be reinstated to an upright position from folded with only a couple of actions, no need to re-fit just unfold. I don't think, from what I've seen, that the crewmember has to get into the equipment storage area.

For my understanding, is it normal to access equipment during flight in any other SAR aircraft? In general is there a need for someone to be unseated whilst reconfiguring the cabin equipment for those aircraft. Or is everybody fully strapped in all the time.

[jeepys]

High up on your pedestal.

Quote:

because then it's too late to ask questions and have the discussion - at the point when it gets to the front line it will be a done deal and only minor feckling will be possible with the kit.

Crab, do you honestly think then that your comments and opinions are going to change the AW design layout? We all know you think your opinions are of the highest order but AW will not change the 189 design for you or anyone else on this forum.

If you want to be part of it rather than slate it then join Bristows.

Have you seen a 189 up close yet???