Bristow AW189
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kit may be required at any stage - pre, post and during rescue (although obviously not during winching). It would depend upon the aircraft type whether the rearcrew have to unstrap to retrieve it.
In the event of an emergency landing/ditching, every second counts for crewmen trying to get into their crash positions and bracing for impact. A lot of SAR takes place at 200' or below. That's never going to give enough time to re-fold a seat into its housing (which may be fodded with dirt or debris or simply awkward to re-seat), untangle the four point harness, secure oneself and brace.
In the event of an emergency landing/ditching, every second counts for crewmen trying to get into their crash positions and bracing for impact. A lot of SAR takes place at 200' or below. That's never going to give enough time to re-fold a seat into its housing (which may be fodded with dirt or debris or simply awkward to re-seat), untangle the four point harness, secure oneself and brace.
AW will not change the 189 design for you or anyone else on this forum.
Not sure who appointed you the thought-police but expressing an opinion isn't illegal (certainly not one about helicopters anyway) yet.
If no-one wants to listen to experienced SAR operators, that's fine with me - I don't profess to have the answer to everything on SAR but perhaps someone listening to criticism or opinion might not have put the 139 into service in the state it was in.
Do we have to accept a dog's breakfast of an aircraft just because there are economic pressures to get it in on time to avoid contractual penalties?
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Austria
Age: 35
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW189
Hey guys,
just took a look at the AW189 on the Helitech last Week in Amsterdam. It was a Bel-Air one from Denmark. Very impressive and nice Bird.
I applied there wenn they where looking for Pilots&CoPilots this Summer but never get contacted
Is anyone of you a Employee of Bel-Air?
just took a look at the AW189 on the Helitech last Week in Amsterdam. It was a Bel-Air one from Denmark. Very impressive and nice Bird.
I applied there wenn they where looking for Pilots&CoPilots this Summer but never get contacted
Is anyone of you a Employee of Bel-Air?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
... Do we have to accept a dog's breakfast of an aircraft just because there are economic pressures to get it in on time to avoid contractual penalties?
I don't think that's where we are.
I think that the contract tech spec and the various regs that fall from that enforce some aspects of the kit list. Then each of the bidders came to the party with different experience of SAR, in the UK and elsewhere, which influenced their interpretations. As I understand it, in relation to the matters you raise, the two finalists had different approaches that appeared to reflect their recent SAR experience and the aircraft they used.
To be fair to Bristow, they have a history of pushing the spec ahead of MCA requirements. Last year, the GAP aircraft spec took the leap of moving to the Main contract requirements. Rumour has it that the spec may move forward yet again shortly without anyone pushing an arm up their back.
You should become more balanced and less one sided.
In general my criticisms have been of the corporate nature and pressures thereby imposed in civsar - not of the crews - that, I suspect is why I am unpopular; just trying to keep people honest
Additionally I have questioned the claims made about equipment and its claimed superiority, capability and suitability for the UKSAR environment.
Sadly all people read in my posts is the bits they don't like and let that help them ignore some valid arguments - hence I have established a reputation as a civsar-basher which is broadly unfair.
I have stoutly defended RAF SAR which, as the major player in UKSAR for many years, has established and maintained the standard to which the modern service will be compared - that is what has got lots of backs up because it is true but some don't want to accept it.
Btw - even I know RN SAR is Grey and RED
Thank you for your sentiments but the SAR ship has sailed for me.
Jim, don't forget the political pressures and the inevitable insistence on using AW products for some of the solution. The cabin size has always been an issue, not only in terms of working height but also of storage space - it's what happens when you take a corporate helicopter and try to turn it into a SAR helicopter.
Crab,
can you answer the question that you and VSF keep avoiding which is, have you seen a 189 up close in the flesh?
The RAF and RN have done and continue to do a great job providing SAR for the UK which I agree is a gold standard and one which Bristow can aspire to emulate but time moves on. The SK cannot go on forever and thankfully nor can you.
I am not saying that change is always for the better, in fact it is often for the worse when squeezed budgets dictate a new regime but both you and I do not really know how all this is going to pan out.
Introducing a new a/c straight into a harsh environment for state sar is a gamble I know but in time it will develop into a good cab I am sure. You may argue that it should have time in other theatre of operations to iron out it's problems before being accepted for SAR but there was no time for this.
Go back a few years and tell us all how you would have bid for the contract using civvy a/c on a tight budget.
You may not think it's morally right to take SAR away from you and give it to a private operation for remuneration but it's happened and we must accept that.
Now, can you answer my first question please.
can you answer the question that you and VSF keep avoiding which is, have you seen a 189 up close in the flesh?
The RAF and RN have done and continue to do a great job providing SAR for the UK which I agree is a gold standard and one which Bristow can aspire to emulate but time moves on. The SK cannot go on forever and thankfully nor can you.
I am not saying that change is always for the better, in fact it is often for the worse when squeezed budgets dictate a new regime but both you and I do not really know how all this is going to pan out.
Introducing a new a/c straight into a harsh environment for state sar is a gamble I know but in time it will develop into a good cab I am sure. You may argue that it should have time in other theatre of operations to iron out it's problems before being accepted for SAR but there was no time for this.
Go back a few years and tell us all how you would have bid for the contract using civvy a/c on a tight budget.
You may not think it's morally right to take SAR away from you and give it to a private operation for remuneration but it's happened and we must accept that.
Now, can you answer my first question please.
Geez are you lot still b1tching at each other? I was interested in the 189, purely from a bystanders point of view but we're up to 6 pages of sniping at each other with very little tech detail of the aircraft.
Why not just agree to disagree FFS
Why not just agree to disagree FFS
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW189 started life as a military aircraft (AW149) not a corporate aircraft.
8 Square Metres of cabin floor and nearly 3 more storage into the baggage bay, surely someone can find a workable solution!
8 Square Metres of cabin floor and nearly 3 more storage into the baggage bay, surely someone can find a workable solution!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeepys
Please see post number 92 then the first word of my response in post 93. How then have I avoided that question?
You seem very emotionally involved in the SAR 189 project. Perhaps that's why you can see nothing wrong with your fingers crossed, everything should be ok, it'll be a good SAR cab given enough time statement. There isn't time. It needs to be capable of providing equivalent or better service from the off.
Please see post number 92 then the first word of my response in post 93. How then have I avoided that question?
You seem very emotionally involved in the SAR 189 project. Perhaps that's why you can see nothing wrong with your fingers crossed, everything should be ok, it'll be a good SAR cab given enough time statement. There isn't time. It needs to be capable of providing equivalent or better service from the off.
Jeepys - I can only go on what Bristow were showcasing on their roadshows for the managed transition - where most of the SAR kit was shoved down the tail (sorry accessed when required from the special SAR equipment storage area).
I would have gone for a full S92 fleet but, as sumpor stylee has said, that wasn't allowed so we have a re-imagined SAR helicopter called the 189 - which isn't actually certified in the SAR role yet is supposed to be online in several bases next year.
This must be costing Bristow money already as they have had to train crews on S92 who were destined for the 189 - they will then have to convert again when the aircraft becomes available.
I would have gone for a full S92 fleet but, as sumpor stylee has said, that wasn't allowed so we have a re-imagined SAR helicopter called the 189 - which isn't actually certified in the SAR role yet is supposed to be online in several bases next year.
This must be costing Bristow money already as they have had to train crews on S92 who were destined for the 189 - they will then have to convert again when the aircraft becomes available.
Yes I agree a nationwide S92 fleet would have been a better option but I am sure the coffers would not allow as this was one of the options originally. If the state does not want to pay for the better option then there is nothing we can do about it.
Although the 189 SAR is not yet certified and yes we all know there are likely to be teething problems for maybe a while to come but it is maybe the best we can get for the money unless you have any other cabs in mind.
Judging the 189 cab from a computer generated picture will not give you a realistic idea of the cabin size. Granted it's not the size of the SK but nonetheless I think you will find it bigger than you are thinking/criticising.
Although the 189 SAR is not yet certified and yes we all know there are likely to be teething problems for maybe a while to come but it is maybe the best we can get for the money unless you have any other cabs in mind.
Judging the 189 cab from a computer generated picture will not give you a realistic idea of the cabin size. Granted it's not the size of the SK but nonetheless I think you will find it bigger than you are thinking/criticising.
This must be costing Bristow money already as they have had to train crews on S92 who were destined for the 189 - they will then have to convert again when the aircraft becomes available.
If the UK government are at fault then where does this leave Bristow in your eyes?
If it is the UK government at fault ............ well you work for them ........
What it boils down to is this a commercial cock up or a government cock up.
If the answer is government cock up then this could well have been the RAF/RN solution.
Well then ............... paint it yellow and it will become the dogs bolleaux
VSF, and what is the width of the 189 cabin?
I have never thought or indicated that there will be nothing wrong with the 189. I am not that naive to think it's all going to plan from the start.
What you have misinterpreted is my point that as long as my arse points down the nations SAR is going to be run by Bristows. It is now a commercial venture and whether that's good or bad the UK government have decided that's how it is to be.
The money available for the contract is not enough for S92 nationwide but a mix of 92 and 189 is maybe the best we can get for the money. What else would you recommend in the price bracket of a 189?
You and a few others can criticise all day long about AW, CivSar, Bristows, big issue sellers and wearing trousers that start from the crutch but you are not going to change anything. Whilst the government like the odd U turn I don't think they will read yours and Crabs posts and say 'bloody hell what have we done. Better call Crab, VSF and Co and reinstate the RAF. God save the Queen'.
Sorry to be of the forward thinking crew but if we all had a negative attitude to change whether good or bad then we would still be living in caves and clubbing animals.
I have never thought or indicated that there will be nothing wrong with the 189. I am not that naive to think it's all going to plan from the start.
What you have misinterpreted is my point that as long as my arse points down the nations SAR is going to be run by Bristows. It is now a commercial venture and whether that's good or bad the UK government have decided that's how it is to be.
The money available for the contract is not enough for S92 nationwide but a mix of 92 and 189 is maybe the best we can get for the money. What else would you recommend in the price bracket of a 189?
You and a few others can criticise all day long about AW, CivSar, Bristows, big issue sellers and wearing trousers that start from the crutch but you are not going to change anything. Whilst the government like the odd U turn I don't think they will read yours and Crabs posts and say 'bloody hell what have we done. Better call Crab, VSF and Co and reinstate the RAF. God save the Queen'.
Sorry to be of the forward thinking crew but if we all had a negative attitude to change whether good or bad then we would still be living in caves and clubbing animals.
P3 - I don't think any of the parties involved are bastards - it's just a reality of commercial and political pressures.
All the bidders wanted to win and knew that cost would be an issue with a cash-strapped government.
The government are always under pressure to secure UK-based jobs (how many times has AW been supported) and so an AW product was always going to be part of the solution (although not putting all your eggs in one basket - or one aircraft type - given problems with other fleets over the years was probably a good idea).
Was it a good idea to go for an aircraft that hadn't been built or proven? Time will tell but if you have to have something from the AW stable and the 139 has already attracted criticism as a SAR aircraft, what choice do you have?
Remember that this whole process wasn't really a government idea, it was born out of a very ambitious Chief CG's desire to build an empire and aided by the Afghan-centric view of the MoD that decided that SAR wasn't core business.
Add in the fact that the Sea King was fast approaching its lifex with zero money for a replacement and you end up with a perfect storm where the easy option is to go for PFI, get SAR off the MoD books where spiralling costs of waging war are causing problems and generate /protect jobs in the UK.
The UK SAR contract provides a superb showcase for Bristow and they will do everything they can to make it work (or, cynically, to make it looks like it works) because the UK model could be sold to other governments around the world as a proven one. Again, this is just commercial reality.
So, no cock-ups, just situations conspiring to produce a decision from government to commercialise UK SAR rather than there being an overriding need to improve UK SAR by putting into the private sector.
That is what hurts the most, that mil SAR has done such a sterling job for so many years and just been consigned to the scrap heap without even being allowed to offer a home-grown solution.
All the bidders wanted to win and knew that cost would be an issue with a cash-strapped government.
The government are always under pressure to secure UK-based jobs (how many times has AW been supported) and so an AW product was always going to be part of the solution (although not putting all your eggs in one basket - or one aircraft type - given problems with other fleets over the years was probably a good idea).
Was it a good idea to go for an aircraft that hadn't been built or proven? Time will tell but if you have to have something from the AW stable and the 139 has already attracted criticism as a SAR aircraft, what choice do you have?
Remember that this whole process wasn't really a government idea, it was born out of a very ambitious Chief CG's desire to build an empire and aided by the Afghan-centric view of the MoD that decided that SAR wasn't core business.
Add in the fact that the Sea King was fast approaching its lifex with zero money for a replacement and you end up with a perfect storm where the easy option is to go for PFI, get SAR off the MoD books where spiralling costs of waging war are causing problems and generate /protect jobs in the UK.
The UK SAR contract provides a superb showcase for Bristow and they will do everything they can to make it work (or, cynically, to make it looks like it works) because the UK model could be sold to other governments around the world as a proven one. Again, this is just commercial reality.
So, no cock-ups, just situations conspiring to produce a decision from government to commercialise UK SAR rather than there being an overriding need to improve UK SAR by putting into the private sector.
That is what hurts the most, that mil SAR has done such a sterling job for so many years and just been consigned to the scrap heap without even being allowed to offer a home-grown solution.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeepys
The cabin width looks like 2.4m externally and 2.16m internally - that's the important dimension and as everyone knows, the dimension of the empty cabin space does not equate to the space you eventually end up having to work with once internal structures and fittings like wet fit floors, floor points etc are fitted. There will be floor points, won't there, or is that the next surprise?
Not that it's relevant to a discussion about the 189 but my solution would not have involved the total annihilation of front-line, every day involvement of military SAR personnel. Remember military crews were an important if complicated element of the original SARH plan. Removing the military's proven ability to select and train SAR buoys from scratch turns off the taps that the MCA flights have relied upon for decades and is extremely myopic of the government. This is frucked up.
The cabin width looks like 2.4m externally and 2.16m internally - that's the important dimension and as everyone knows, the dimension of the empty cabin space does not equate to the space you eventually end up having to work with once internal structures and fittings like wet fit floors, floor points etc are fitted. There will be floor points, won't there, or is that the next surprise?
Not that it's relevant to a discussion about the 189 but my solution would not have involved the total annihilation of front-line, every day involvement of military SAR personnel. Remember military crews were an important if complicated element of the original SARH plan. Removing the military's proven ability to select and train SAR buoys from scratch turns off the taps that the MCA flights have relied upon for decades and is extremely myopic of the government. This is frucked up.
Blimey Crab a sensible post without a civvy or 189 bashing in sight, steady on old boy.
Quote:
Was it a good idea to go for an aircraft that hadn't been built or proven? Time will tell but if you have to have something from the AW stable and the 139 has already attracted criticism as a SAR aircraft, what choice do you have?
Exactly, what choice do we have? What other a/c will fit this bill with a price tag equal to or less than the 189?
We all know the RAF/RN have done a great job and have built a gold standard model for which all the crews over the years have contributed to not least yourself. Nobody should be disputing that and I know it must hurt to see it go to an organisation that you feel may not be able to continue to offer the high class service. It's your headshed, the CG top dogs and ministers that have forced this, not pprune contributors.
Quote:
Was it a good idea to go for an aircraft that hadn't been built or proven? Time will tell but if you have to have something from the AW stable and the 139 has already attracted criticism as a SAR aircraft, what choice do you have?
Exactly, what choice do we have? What other a/c will fit this bill with a price tag equal to or less than the 189?
We all know the RAF/RN have done a great job and have built a gold standard model for which all the crews over the years have contributed to not least yourself. Nobody should be disputing that and I know it must hurt to see it go to an organisation that you feel may not be able to continue to offer the high class service. It's your headshed, the CG top dogs and ministers that have forced this, not pprune contributors.
That's a width of over 7ft. What is the length of your stretcher?
The internal width of the 189 should not change a great deal if at all in some areas if you look at the 139 model. The floor points will be fitted in the floor and will not therefore reduce the width. The sea tray we will have to wait and see but again if it follows the 139 model there will be no reduction of width between the two sliding doors area. Granted you won't be able to have a party in there but it will work.
I agree with your opinion about the way military SAR has been seemingly dumped without thought but as I just said previously it's your bosses and other ministers that need consulting. If you want to vent your frustration on somebody start with them. Bristows are simply taking advantage of a contract won and will no doubt do their best in providing a good service. Until they are up and running none of us can really slate the service that has not even started yet.
There have been quotes to suggest that the service must be equal or better than the current system from the outset which I am sure is the plan but it's not often that a takeover of any kind is produces the said results from day 1.
I am sure the mil SAR had it's teething problems all those decades ago.
I agree with you completely that the mil will soon have a limited/no ability to select, train and release crews for the UK SAR. The mil model is second to none and one which must be preserved as much as poss in the new system.
The internal width of the 189 should not change a great deal if at all in some areas if you look at the 139 model. The floor points will be fitted in the floor and will not therefore reduce the width. The sea tray we will have to wait and see but again if it follows the 139 model there will be no reduction of width between the two sliding doors area. Granted you won't be able to have a party in there but it will work.
I agree with your opinion about the way military SAR has been seemingly dumped without thought but as I just said previously it's your bosses and other ministers that need consulting. If you want to vent your frustration on somebody start with them. Bristows are simply taking advantage of a contract won and will no doubt do their best in providing a good service. Until they are up and running none of us can really slate the service that has not even started yet.
There have been quotes to suggest that the service must be equal or better than the current system from the outset which I am sure is the plan but it's not often that a takeover of any kind is produces the said results from day 1.
I am sure the mil SAR had it's teething problems all those decades ago.
I agree with you completely that the mil will soon have a limited/no ability to select, train and release crews for the UK SAR. The mil model is second to none and one which must be preserved as much as poss in the new system.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it's nice to find a bit of common ground on something. The original point about the width, specifically, was that someone a while back suggested inserting seats along the port side of the aircraft. A 6'6 stretcher would not fit widthways in that circumstance.