RAF announces Puma Replacement plan
I remember the Wessex performance very differently, pulling more than 2700 Tq in the hover at SL was unusual unless you had a lot of fuel on board so you were SSE more often than not.
I think the problem with the 145 has been lateral C of G and a relatively small door for winching. It needs to be able to fit two stretchered casualties which the 412 couldn't do and I'm not sure the 145 can either.
I think the problem with the 145 has been lateral C of G and a relatively small door for winching. It needs to be able to fit two stretchered casualties which the 412 couldn't do and I'm not sure the 145 can either.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I remember the Wessex performance very differently, pulling more than 2700 Tq in the hover at SL was unusual unless you had a lot of fuel on board so you were SSE more often than not.
I think the problem with the 145 has been lateral C of G and a relatively small door for winching. It needs to be able to fit two stretchered casualties which the 412 couldn't do and I'm not sure the 145 can either.
I think the problem with the 145 has been lateral C of G and a relatively small door for winching. It needs to be able to fit two stretchered casualties which the 412 couldn't do and I'm not sure the 145 can either.
LM, and of course ,you understood that the ` engineers` were not authorised to allow you,either....
The person breaking the rules and exceeding published limits was me. I signed for the aircraft and I held the responsibility as the Captain - but it worked every single time, and we never had an issue.I will stress that this was NEVER done for training, purely to get a life-saving Op accomplished.
In the military, on Ops we were paid to use our knowledge and judgment to get the task achieved. We did exactly that. When the system changed to rule driven automatons ruling the roost, I PVR’d. I decided that if I had to mindlessly follow rules and could not apply professional judgement to get the job done then I would do it in civvy street where I I could do that for 5 times the salary (I moved to North America)
Am I a dinosaur? Probably, and to many this may sound reckless - I get it. But we were complete professionals who truly understood our aircraft and knew what we could ask of it, in extremis, to save lives. I do not apologize for that.
Last edited by Lucifer Morningstar; 12th Nov 2023 at 22:19.
The following 2 users liked this post by Lucifer Morningstar:
I was flying the only remaining airworthy Wessex last week and we were having a discussion about Tq limits - I remember being told by the old and bold in the 80s that Bristow used to operate it to 3.8 on a regular basis.
However, life saving ops are few and far between in Cyprus, especially inland at 8000' DA (most likely firebucketing) so using 3.2A was never a 'thing' we did - its why there was a fuel jettison system on the aircraft so you could match your weight to the situation.
Did I sit committed often? Not for training but a couple of interesting night cliff jobs required it (although I still had a tricky- no NVG in those days - flyaway option).
But deliberately overtorquing the aircraft? - no. I've seen 3.8 a couple of times in NI due to inexperience (both on my part and others) but only transients.
I concur with your sentiments re automatons blindly rule following but professionalism demands that only in absolute extremis should you put the crew at increased risk by exceeding limits on the aircraft. And it should be put U/S as soon as the rescue is complete, not waived by overkeen engineers.
However, life saving ops are few and far between in Cyprus, especially inland at 8000' DA (most likely firebucketing) so using 3.2A was never a 'thing' we did - its why there was a fuel jettison system on the aircraft so you could match your weight to the situation.
Did I sit committed often? Not for training but a couple of interesting night cliff jobs required it (although I still had a tricky- no NVG in those days - flyaway option).
But deliberately overtorquing the aircraft? - no. I've seen 3.8 a couple of times in NI due to inexperience (both on my part and others) but only transients.
I concur with your sentiments re automatons blindly rule following but professionalism demands that only in absolute extremis should you put the crew at increased risk by exceeding limits on the aircraft. And it should be put U/S as soon as the rescue is complete, not waived by overkeen engineers.
Oh indeed we did😉! This was back in the day when people truly understood what the aircraft could do, and our engineers were not mere ‘box swappers’ - we had an utterly superb engineering team on 84, many ex NI 72Sqn, and they knew the aircraft inside-out. I would tell them what I thought I needed to get the job done, and they would ‘advise’ me. Were we exceeding aircraft published limits?, Oh you betcha, but in those days people with knowledge and experience made educated decisions to get the job done. I always ensured the entire crew was briefed and approved the plan, my rule was ‘one out, all out’.
The person breaking the rules and exceeding published limits was me. I signed for the aircraft and I held the responsibility as the Captain - but it worked every single time, and we never had an issue.I will stress that this was NEVER done for training, purely to get a life-saving Op accomplished.
In the military, on Ops we were paid to use our knowledge and judgment to get the task achieved. We did exactly that. When the system changed to rule driven automatons ruling the roost, I PVR’d. I decided that if I had to mindlessly follow rules and could not apply professional judgement to get the job done then I would do it in civvy street where I I could do that for 5 times the salary (I moved to North America)
Am I a dinosaur? Probably, and to many this may sound reckless - I get it. But we were complete professionals who truly understood our aircraft and knew what we could ask of it, in extremis, to save lives. I do not apologize for that.
The person breaking the rules and exceeding published limits was me. I signed for the aircraft and I held the responsibility as the Captain - but it worked every single time, and we never had an issue.I will stress that this was NEVER done for training, purely to get a life-saving Op accomplished.
In the military, on Ops we were paid to use our knowledge and judgment to get the task achieved. We did exactly that. When the system changed to rule driven automatons ruling the roost, I PVR’d. I decided that if I had to mindlessly follow rules and could not apply professional judgement to get the job done then I would do it in civvy street where I I could do that for 5 times the salary (I moved to North America)
Am I a dinosaur? Probably, and to many this may sound reckless - I get it. But we were complete professionals who truly understood our aircraft and knew what we could ask of it, in extremis, to save lives. I do not apologize for that.
My hope is that the maintenance manuals had different limits to the Pilots' Notes, and they knew that no maintenance checks or actions were necessary. I've certainly see that with other types.
Blackhawk Lease $2M/year
The Malaysian 60A+ ‘out flies’ and ‘out lifts’ anything the U.K. is considering - and all for $2M each per year ;-)
https://www.janes.com/amp/lima-2023-...VI5VFp1cVMwPQ2
https://www.janes.com/amp/lima-2023-...VI5VFp1cVMwPQ2
https://www.find-tender.service.gov....ard_contract-1
6 x 145 at over £23M each with only 3-years support - incredible use of tax payers money
6 x 145 at over £23M each with only 3-years support - incredible use of tax payers money
https://www.find-tender.service.gov....ard_contract-1
6 x 145 at over £23M each with only 3-years support - incredible use of tax payers money
6 x 145 at over £23M each with only 3-years support - incredible use of tax payers money
Yes, I think that is reckless. You can fully understand your aircraft, but are you at the same time a load/stress/fatigue engineer? Did the manufacturer provide you with all the data to “know what you could ask of it”? Or were you just lucky you worked in a time where aircraft and their components by chance were over dimensioned? (Take a BO105 head that went from 1600kg initial design to 3700kg on a H145). If you would do the same with ANY modern aircraft, civil or military, the guy taking the aircraft after you might get killed. Lucky enough for this event exceedance monitoring has been introduced to warn the crew coming after “you”…
The following users liked this post:
The following 2 users liked this post by minigundiplomat:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
You would have thought If they were going to buy anything for Cyprus or Brunei, the obvious choice would have been one that was shortlisted for the replacement programme so they would get operational experience and be able to field test the type. And if it eventually was chosen you would have commonality.
You would have thought If they were going to buy anything for Cyprus or Brunei, the obvious choice would have been one that was shortlisted for the replacement programme so they would get operational experience and be able to field test the type. And if it eventually was chosen you would have commonality.
The following users liked this post: