UKSAR2G - MCA CivSAR Second Generation
Thread Starter
SK and Whirlwind are out of service I'm afraid, so all 6, 8, 12 tonne helicopters in the 2020s are going to have sh1tloads of downwash and we're all safer in the air because of it. Realistically, not just S-92 have downwash issues and there have been downwash incidents with 135s. There has been some recent research going on about downwash and the effects on loads below the aircraft and a pattern has been emerging related to the aircraft weight, rotor disc area, and air density. More work on this is expected to produce something worthwhile that can be added to a RFM near you in the future.
189 has performed well and done jobs far out to sea that some might have expected would be solely S-92 territory. I haven't seen any specifics about the economics but it's not hard to imagine a significant cost margin between the types. With the 189's speed, range and payload there may just be no need to pay for a S-92.
Scotland will be an all-189 territory and there is not much to complain about with that. The S-92 has been described as a very stable winching platform in challenging mountain conditions and for large searches one might imagine it deploying more MRT. Realistically though, there's not really much difference overall.
What does surprise me is the number of 139. It has been described by paramedics as not having enough room for them to do proper work on a patient. Some of us may have heard that complaint about Merlins from people used to Chinooks but once you get down to the size of the 139 and there is a long flight back to dry land I think I can see how it could be difficult to keep a seriously injured patient alive and stable. Having said that, there is BHL data available from operation of 139 at Lydd and St Athans 2015-2018 and of course CHC at Portland and Lee-on-Solent for 10 years up until 2017.
The current contract, although very good, has to some extent been a quick-fix, one size fits all, sort of a spec. That came about after the collapse of the PFI. I can see from the way the spec was laid out from the very start that UKSAR2G is far more aligned with the real data that has been collected since 2015. Even on the PFI, this quality of data wasn't really available since, as the NAO pointed out many years before, the MoD and DfT were not measuring the same things and did not co-ordinate their statistics.
189 has performed well and done jobs far out to sea that some might have expected would be solely S-92 territory. I haven't seen any specifics about the economics but it's not hard to imagine a significant cost margin between the types. With the 189's speed, range and payload there may just be no need to pay for a S-92.
Scotland will be an all-189 territory and there is not much to complain about with that. The S-92 has been described as a very stable winching platform in challenging mountain conditions and for large searches one might imagine it deploying more MRT. Realistically though, there's not really much difference overall.
What does surprise me is the number of 139. It has been described by paramedics as not having enough room for them to do proper work on a patient. Some of us may have heard that complaint about Merlins from people used to Chinooks but once you get down to the size of the 139 and there is a long flight back to dry land I think I can see how it could be difficult to keep a seriously injured patient alive and stable. Having said that, there is BHL data available from operation of 139 at Lydd and St Athans 2015-2018 and of course CHC at Portland and Lee-on-Solent for 10 years up until 2017.
The current contract, although very good, has to some extent been a quick-fix, one size fits all, sort of a spec. That came about after the collapse of the PFI. I can see from the way the spec was laid out from the very start that UKSAR2G is far more aligned with the real data that has been collected since 2015. Even on the PFI, this quality of data wasn't really available since, as the NAO pointed out many years before, the MoD and DfT were not measuring the same things and did not co-ordinate their statistics.
Last edited by jimf671; 10th Dec 2022 at 11:07.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I've been told it is much about downwash..
If it's not then why the change?
If it's not then why the change?
My information came from someone who operates the aircraft on a daily basis, in role - I'll let them know they are wrong.....
Unlike the previous SAR contract which was very prescriptive for UKSAR2G the bidders were asked to come up with solutions which met all the requirements. As cost is a big factor in any contract bidding process the Bristow solution uses a mix of airframes with less S92 (replaced with AW189's) and some of the AW189's replaced with AW139's while still achieving all the requirements.
So all down to costs savings, nothing to do with rotor downwash.
So all down to costs savings, nothing to do with rotor downwash.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
My information came from someone who operates the aircraft on a daily basis, in role - I'll let them know they are wrong.....
One operator can have a very serviceable and capable aircraft due to a solid spares and servicing package and another operator of the same type can find their aircraft/fleet spends more time on the ground due to lack of same.
The way different operators maintain the same aircraft has markedly different results. Just because you happen to ‘know someone’ who flys the aircraft has no real bearing on the types abilities.
How an aircraft operates in role is influenced strongly by ‘who’ is operating it.
One operator can have a very serviceable and capable aircraft due to a solid spares and servicing package and another operator of the same type can find their aircraft/fleet spends more time on the ground due to lack of same.
The way different operators maintain the same aircraft has markedly different results. Just because you happen to ‘know someone’ who flys the aircraft has no real bearing on the types abilities.
One operator can have a very serviceable and capable aircraft due to a solid spares and servicing package and another operator of the same type can find their aircraft/fleet spends more time on the ground due to lack of same.
The way different operators maintain the same aircraft has markedly different results. Just because you happen to ‘know someone’ who flys the aircraft has no real bearing on the types abilities.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I've been told it is much about downwash..
If it's not then why the change?
If it's not then why the change?
Why operate a 189 at additional cost when the 139 can achieve the end result just aswell?
LZ
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
So someone in UKSAR flying the aircraft on a daily basis and knows it's abilities intimately has no valid opinion then?
Thread Starter
Downwash is a consideration of operating the 189, as it should be with every aircraft but it had absolutely no influence on the change of types in the South. As another poster has stated, the selection of types for 2G had been based on contract requirements, data harvested over the last 9 years and the obvious commercial/financial component.
Why operate a 189 at additional cost when the 139 can achieve the end result just aswell?
LZ
Why operate a 189 at additional cost when the 139 can achieve the end result just aswell?
LZ
Interesting Development in Sumburgh SAR
https://www.orcadian.co.uk/proposals...times-queried/
It is being reported in the Orcadian that the MCA is planning to change the readiness state of the Sumburgh aircraft to 60 minutes all day. This is a change from 15 minutes 08:00-22:00 and thereafter, 45 minutes over night.
Perhaps it’s time for Bond, Babcock, OSHUK or whatever they are called this week to expand and put a machine in Sumburgh to cater for the helicopter traffic and offshore MEDEVAC flights.
Seems like a very odd move.
P3
It is being reported in the Orcadian that the MCA is planning to change the readiness state of the Sumburgh aircraft to 60 minutes all day. This is a change from 15 minutes 08:00-22:00 and thereafter, 45 minutes over night.
Perhaps it’s time for Bond, Babcock, OSHUK or whatever they are called this week to expand and put a machine in Sumburgh to cater for the helicopter traffic and offshore MEDEVAC flights.
Seems like a very odd move.
P3
Yes, does seem very odd.
Cant' see any benefit to that!
The only reason i could suggest would be if it meant they could crew the operation with fewer people.
But i don't see that it would make a difference - you will still require a duty crew regardless of what readiness they are on. ( Unless the CAA would allow them to do longer shifts if they are on increased readiness? - Can't see it though)
I wonder if this is simply an example of 'We've agreed it up to such and such date, with no particular intention to change it thereafter, but we've not formalised it yet'?
The only reason i could suggest would be if it meant they could crew the operation with fewer people.
But i don't see that it would make a difference - you will still require a duty crew regardless of what readiness they are on. ( Unless the CAA would allow them to do longer shifts if they are on increased readiness? - Can't see it though)
I wonder if this is simply an example of 'We've agreed it up to such and such date, with no particular intention to change it thereafter, but we've not formalised it yet'?
Thread Starter
In the draught SSUN for the UKSAR2G contract, the "Measure of Effectiveness (Threshold)" for readiness is the same as the current state, being as follows.
"Lot 1, Lot 2 (Helicopter): 15 Minutes 08:00-22:00, 45 minutes 22:01 -07:59."
"Lot 3 (UAV): 45 Minutes 08:00-22:00, 60 minutes 22:01 -07:59."
Meanwhile, the spec the bidders were encouraged to aim for, in the next column, was as follows.
"Measure of Effectiveness (Objective)"
"Higher Readiness State than Threshold level for both Readiness State times"
What would be nice is if this was simply a mix up with the Lot 3 figure for the UAV fleet. However, since "Discussions relating to readiness states beyond this date are ongoing." is attributed to 'an MCA spokeswoman', I remain concerned.
Remind me. How long does it take to drown?
"Lot 1, Lot 2 (Helicopter): 15 Minutes 08:00-22:00, 45 minutes 22:01 -07:59."
"Lot 3 (UAV): 45 Minutes 08:00-22:00, 60 minutes 22:01 -07:59."
Meanwhile, the spec the bidders were encouraged to aim for, in the next column, was as follows.
"Measure of Effectiveness (Objective)"
"Higher Readiness State than Threshold level for both Readiness State times"
What would be nice is if this was simply a mix up with the Lot 3 figure for the UAV fleet. However, since "Discussions relating to readiness states beyond this date are ongoing." is attributed to 'an MCA spokeswoman', I remain concerned.
Remind me. How long does it take to drown?
The following users liked this post:
Perhaps they have done an analysis of the type and number of callouts Sumburgh get and identified that they are mostly long-range or medevac style ops rather than the short range quick jobs you get at flights in busy tourist areas.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Perhaps they have done an analysis of the type and number of callouts Sumburgh get and identified that they are mostly long-range or medevac style ops rather than the short range quick jobs you get at flights in busy tourist areas.
Then they awarded a contract based on all of that, getting it for a price that is an estimated (JF) 1.3%pa below inflation compared the last one, and then ... ... something else ... what?
Thread Starter
The words "too prescriptive" or "overly prescriptive" were used many times is the UKSAR2G process. So many good ideas emerged. Did somebody forget to take minutes?
For the current UKSAR2015/26 contract, I have a complete set of documents made publicly available shortly after award. Having, since then, "taken back control" (nearly fkn choked typing that!) not only do I not know exactly what the £1.6bn UKSAR2G contract entails but there is evidence that neither the DfT nor BHL know what it entails either since they appear to still be, well, not negotiating, but stumbling about in a fog of their own creation. Thus the 60 minute thing, and more.
Simple contract: complicated outcome?
For the current UKSAR2015/26 contract, I have a complete set of documents made publicly available shortly after award. Having, since then, "taken back control" (nearly fkn choked typing that!) not only do I not know exactly what the £1.6bn UKSAR2G contract entails but there is evidence that neither the DfT nor BHL know what it entails either since they appear to still be, well, not negotiating, but stumbling about in a fog of their own creation. Thus the 60 minute thing, and more.
Simple contract: complicated outcome?
