special 25
 

Hat off to you for taking my little dig as it was meant...a bit of a laugh, however Jknife doesn't seem to appreciate humour, he must be ex RAF, (OR IS HE)??? I just had a quick look through your previous posts, are you making it up as you go along??? check the dates, they don't quite tie in... QUOTE...
28th March 2003, 17:50
JKnife
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 12
I have read this topic with interest. I am ex-military and work for a large civil company.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16th May 2004, 20:39
JKnife
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 12
As someone still in UK military SAR I would like to ask Mountainman why he says "Ex military pilots are generally very good, but it takes time to get them up to speed".

Sorry if you find me rude, just an ex sailors humour, I shall get back in my box now as pruning gets me into trouble!!!

S92 & AB139 sound great good luck CHC!!

Angelonawire said "S92 & AB139 sound great good luck CHC!!"

As an experienced SAR crewmen, could you tell us what you like about the AB139?:ok:

Some interesting times ahead for the new Scotia Chief Pilot:ok:

Are there any commercial operations using A139s in Europe yet? If not whats the delay, as I thought CHC had a couple in Holland?
RI

CHC Netherlands (their new trading name) have had one AB139 delivered and another due soon. AFAIK it is not yet in commercial operation but heavily involved in training up crews.

Now that this thread has stopped being a p.....g contest between Sikorsky and Eurocopter, I feel it is time to throw in my two shillings worth.
Dillon, the Whirlwind had long gone by the time of the Fastnet incident, the Wessex was the major SAR asset at that time but your point is still valid. In this game size does matter. However, the argument goes back to the early 70's. Two incidents off Cornwall, the Lovat and the Merc Enterprise made the SAR 'higher ups' realise that the Whirlwind had passed it's sell by date. It was replaced by the Wessex which in time gave way to the Sea King and S61. Sorry for the history lesson but it is important, given that the MCA do not seem to remember it. For the Whirlwind read the AB139 for today.
Special 25, you are 100% correct in saying that this requirement should always use the worst case scenario. The chosen aircraft has to be able to not just lift the "bent diver" and his buddy to "the pot" but also evacuate as many people as possible in one sortie, from a damaged/sinking Ro/Ro ferry, at maximum range. Could the 139 have carried out the job of two days ago in the Channel? Ably performed by the Lee S61 and filmed by Chivenors' Sea King. ( I knew they were there for something! Sorry lads, just jesting.)
The MCA appear to have gone for the "shiny new helicopter" rather than thinking of what is realy needed on the south coast. The S92 should be used at all MCA bases. That would make the crewing so much easier and cut down on the spares supply requirement. But then that may be too logical.
Neither the S92 nor the Ab139 are actually flying in the SAR role yet so 2007 seems a trifle optimistic as a start date for this contract.
There is still no real data about the AB139 on this thread yet so one can only assume that it is not up to much. Or have CHC Netherlands been sworn to secrecy in case the cat gets out of the bag too soon?
One final point.
Portland is not daylight only. It is on call, at 15 minutes readiness the same as all other units, from 0900 until 2100, 365 days a year. It was also one of the busiest units in the UK until our friends in Light Blue at ARCC got involved last year. (But that is another story, Jobs for the boys??)
There, I feel better now that is off my chest.

No callouts after 2100 until 0900? I reckon one must be careful to schedule your emergency for working hours or something.

SASless.
Callouts outwith these hours are handled by the 24hr unit at Lee or Chivenor or Culdrose depending on the location of the incident. If Portland was a 24hr unit, (which the MCA will not fund) then it would have been them involved in the incident in the Channel on Tuesday. ALL uinits should be 24hr but unfortunately we are not in an ideal world.

3D,

I don't think the MCA have had much to do with this contract tender and bid process. It seems to me that the DfT and the MOD want to evaluate a different contractor and two different aircraft. I hope to goodness that CHC are not blamed for a drop in service (I am thinking about the capability or otherwise of the 139 here) leading to the MOD (RAF) shutting the door on harmonisation and civillian SAR.

I've read the report on the MV Ece incident. If you include the crew, Rescue IJ had 17 POB on its return. Try fitting them into an AB139.

3D Cam, thanks for the history lesson:ok: , I bow to your superior knowledge.

I agree with you that the type selected should be based on the worst case, within reason, not the average.

Basically you will need two AB139s to do the job that one S61/S92 could do if a big incident occurs, so effectively the SAR coverage over the S Coast will be halved (in capacity terms) from 2007 and that is if the rumours bubbling under about the 139 are not true - it could be worse!

Looking at all the posts on this thread it strikes me that almost all the posts running down the AB139 are from people who admit to knowing nothing about it. Yes in an ideal world we all want the biggest, best, toys, but in the real world economics also plays a role. Maybe when you were a kid you wanted a PS2 but your father could only afford a Nintendo Gameboy. The only thing you knew was that all the boys whose dad's had money bought them PS2s, so they must be better. There's so much garbage being spouted about how CHC has the aircraft but has not come up to defend it so it must be rubbish. Maybe they just feel it's not worth replying to uninformed gossip - which is about what most of it amounts to. Let's wait and see what actually happens in light of the facts and real figures. In the meantime, good luck to CHC and I hope the transition to the new types goes smoothly :ok:

3DCAM your recollection is not quite right viz
"the Whirlwind had long gone by the time of the Fastnet incident, the Wessex was the major SAR asset at that time"

The Whirlwind was still going at the time of the Fastnet incident Chivenor didn't change to Wessex until 1982 so the mix was Seaking/Whirlwind.

I was duty pilot on 72Sqn at Odiham when the call went out for helicopter support for the Fastnet incident and was briefing a crew ready to respond when as usual when something interesting came up the "wheels" appeared and decided they would provide the crew:yuk: In the end we were not needed as there were enough helicopter assets allocated.

The SAR assests for the country have to be looked at as a whole. While yes it would be nice to have the most capable helicopter at every base on the off chance of its maximum capacity been required it is perhaps not economic.

In my time it would have be daft to have a Seaking at Brawdy as well as one at Chivenor the Wessex at Chivenor was ideal for most of our callouts which were generally local holiday makers as cliff fallers/cut off by the tide/blown out to sea on inflatables or windsurfers. I was never maxed out on capacity.

When I was at Brawdy on the Seaking we did the night/ long range/big ship rescues backed up by Chivenor if required.

Another major incident I was involved in was the Air India 747 blown up west of Cork. Although we were the 1st there that night we were soon followed by 2 more Seakings from Brawdy (one OCU a/c), 2 Navy Seakings at least one Chinook and a US Jolly Green CH53.

Helicopters are very mobile assets so I wouldn't get too worked up by having a mix of types so long as both types are capable of meeting their design requirements. (The 139 being the unknown quantity)

HF

Hummingfrog, I stand corrected and offer humble apologies. I didn't realise the RAF were that far behind the FAA in replacing the Whirlwind.
etiene t boy, I for one am not rubbishing the AB139, I don't know enough about it to do that. What I am asking for, is information on its' capabilities so I can make an informed opinion. There are plenty of rumours but no actual facts! No one should be asked to go out in an untested, unproven machine to help someone in distress. This is a very good looking machine but that does not mean it can do the job it will be asked to do! A dark and stormy night is not the time to find out you have been sold a pup. It needs a proper trial, as does the S92, before it goes into SAR. How long was the current machine,the S61 trialed for with the autohover before it was cleared for operations? I believe it was over a year. However, as you say, good luck to CHC and the crews who will have to make it work. The Sticky Bun is a hard act to follow!!

‘Antiquated Fuel control mechanism’


I am told the current UK SAR 61’s were ‘rushed’ into service with an inadequate Doppler as part of the Auto hover and so to this day they throw a wobbly now and then when it’s not needed (the dark stormy night being just that time). The cockpit was standard 61 and not optimized for low level over water I.F flying. I believe those trialing the aircraft included a couple of ex-army pilots? So Fleet Air Arm experience and lessons learnt was not used, then there was no doubt the cost to change the cockpits…..overheads not needed in a commercial company. So much for the proper trial bunk!

Apathy within the present operator’s management towards proactive development and upgrading of their kit has largely led to the current 61 just hanging in there long enough to be ousted. Let’s face it the S92 & the 139 are helicopters, they aren’t going to be perfect (not designed by pilots with unlimited budgets) Even so, it will be the crews using them that will just get on and get the job done as best they can, as indeed they have for the past couple of decades. Brilliant work by CHC and good luck to the present crews in taking the next steps forward with the next generation cabs. At least they aren’t Eurocrapter machines…. Money for old rope?
Seems to be a few present BHL staff, or SAR crew members crying foul on this forum, bemoaning the aircraft choices to come. Well if you don’t like it then don’t go over to the new exciting jobs (leave them for us), stay with Bristow or go to the S61 fleet in Ireland.

Lets not degenerate into a slanging match again Crabette "At least they aren’t Eurocrapter machines…"

The question asked was could the AB139 have done the job that the S61 did the other night? Unless Agusta have help from Doctor Who and make the AB 139 into a Tardis, then the answer is NO!:*

Dillon

The answer to your question "could the 139 have done the job" is in fact yes - not No. It would have done it a different way but that is the nature of SAROPs. In this case it would have taken some of the crew members off and transferred them to the lifeboat before going back for the rest - a standard SOP for a well trained SAR crew and used many times in the past.

HF

Big Machines Always Beat Little Machine, especially to your bank account
 

I love it when the debate settles on how bad a smaller machine is when compared with a bigger one - to everybody but those who pay for them.

For the record, let's all agree, bigger checks are better than smaller ones, more bullets are better than fewer bullets, and so on.

The question is NOT "is a big cabin S-61/S-92 better than a smaller cabin 412/139?" That answer is obvious. The question is "How can I best spend the limited money I have to save the most people?" In that case, it is quite probable that more people will die if a small fleet of big helicopters is spread around a country, as opposed to a larger mixed fleet where the size of the machines are matched to the missions, but machines are more plentiful, and distributed closer to potential disasters.

As a reminder, the US has NO big cabin rescue machines, at all. We use various models of the Black Hawk/Sea Hawk to do the job, and they work just fine. In one rescue 2 years ago, an HH-60J USCG helo took 26 crewmen off a ship, just stacked then like cordwood. Word was, they didn't complain!

Regarding rescue crewmen with bad backs, that is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Typical socialist attitude, build a mulitmillion dollar helicopter with a basketball lounge in it because the crewman's union wants one. How about we warm up the sea, so those poor guys don't get hypothermia when they jump into the water? How about we make the sea denser so they can walk on it, instead of needing those uncomfortable flotation vests? Give us all a big fat break!

RJ....

Walk on water....why drag the Marines into this?

Also...you forget the mini's running around...called Dolphins (Dough Fiends by the Tea Drinkers). The USCG seems to do quite well with those for some reason and their mission is very similar to that being discussed for the 139 it would appear.

Of course what does the USCG know of rescue flying or the US Navy for that matter. Afterall...they use Rescue Swimmers and Baskets of all things.

I wonder if a concept called "thinking outside the box" has been tried in this discussion?

The crux of the argument as I read it....The SeaKing/S-61....regardless of the cabin size is the SAR bird of choice. Never mind it does not have the Carson blades, Carson Tail rotor,or other performance enhancements.....cannot do AAR (air to air refuel)...but afterall...change is never good.

Hummingfrog,

So the A139 has to be followed around by a lifeboat so it can do the same job as a S92/S61 - now thats thinking outside the box!:eek:

Dillon
You asserted that the 139 could not do a particular rescue when it could. I was correcting you.:ok: Your profile doesn't mention what SAR job you do so I understand your lack of knowledge of how SAR works.

Like the Wessex was not expected to do the Seaking role the 139 is not expected to do the same role as the S92. As RJS said it would be nice to have an all large SAR helicopter fleet but big is not always better. There were some jobs that were more suited to the more agile Wessex than the Seaking, such as picking a child out of an inflatable "play boat", or getting close to a cliff sticker whose hold was precarious and the Seaking downwash would have been too much.

HF

Hummingfrog,

I stand corrected, the A139 can do the same job as a Sea King/S61/S92/Super Puma L2 IF it has a lifeboat following it around, as in this case. In other cases it definately can't.

I am not against a mixed fleet, providing they are mutally supporting, but to put all your eggs in one basket by using a new small type to cover from Wattisham to Culdrose is a surprising choice. If there was a large type, such as the S92 at Lee and a A139 at Portland I would agree that it was a sensible mix.

I presume you are talking about downwash when you say that smaller types are better for kids on lilos. Well looking at the A139s rotor size and its weight, the downwash will be about the same as a Sea King or S61. In any case, if downwash is a problem, such as on calm days, hovering higher usually solves the problem and gets you out of the spray.

Dillon

The 139 is of similar weight approx 14100lbs as the Wessex 13600Ibs. The Seaking when I flew it had a max weight of 21400lbs.

The problem with hovering higher in calm wind in a Seaking or S61 is that if an engine stops you become, if you're lucky, a boat. The 139 will (allegedly) remain in the hover as would old Walter the Wessex:ok:

The area that the 139 is operating is so busy it will have no problem finding a ship to cross winch to so it won't need its own lifeboat;)

HF

The argument for the 139 seems to be reliant on the fact that other resources will always be there to help out with its poor capacity. Let's hope they are...:rolleyes:

Hummingfrog,

Apart from taking twice as long, ie to winch them onboard and then cross-transfer, you would have to assume that the vessel is not in the final stages of sinking or on fire - otherwise the lifeboat might as well fish them direct from the sea when they abandon the vessel and save all the effort of winching them!

I don't think the SE performance of the 139 is as good as dear old Walter, and thats using the marketing figures from the Agusta website:\ .

Can a 61 or SeaKing always handle whatever "load" might be present...say a cross channel ferry goes down and say....five hundred people go into the water?

We can always provide a scenario that exceeds capability...but at least lets pick something that is commonplace....say like a real event in the past where the proposed change of aircraft would prove the point.

Can anyone point out just such an incident....say...in the past ten years maybe?

SASless
 

How about 20 sailors winched from a ship off the coast of France in one hit and carried out I believe by the Lee On Solent S61 and with in your last 10 years criteria SASless.

There may well be more ...

Potmess
That 20 person rescue hasn't happened yet! Not at Lee at least.;)

Froggie has is right, Dillon is still clutching at straws...with this capacity & cramped working environment drama:}

Ask the question to the current UK S61 operators; how many jobs have they turned down because the trade off between lack of performance and the task (Single engine flyaway V winchman), has not warranted the 'risk'
I would guess a hell of a lot more than 'fill me to the brim with foreign seamen' type rescues anyway. Those are rare events and as correctly mentioned earlier, on SAROPs crews find ways around capacity problems as the whole world and his dog are in the medal queue on those jobs. But the quick dash, one or two casualties on a hot, nil or tailwind day seem to be common and every bit as limiting. Lets see these modern high speed, high performance machines give the old girls a rest. Those old crewies who don't want to leave their comfort blanket can move aside for the next generation, if they so wish.:)


Sorry if the eurowhatsmecallit jibe uspet the plastic fantastic brigade.

Mixed Fleets
 

The Government Flying Service of Hong Kong uses a mixed fleet of EC155s and Super Puma L2s for SAR, doesn't seem to be a problem for them. Look at the initial details of the callout and then jump in the appropriate aircraft. Flexibility, the key to air power etc................

Pot,

I will accept anything....let's get the details and see how it all played out. There may very well be these incidents...but at least we should be arguing about reality and not hypo's. The What If game can be played however one wishes and in almost all cases would ignore the reality.

Even in the event you mention....I am sure dispatching mulitiple aircraft was possible....the nice thing about SAR is usually....they only happen in small numbers of incidents at one time thus SAR units can stage to cover "disasters" using more than one aircraft.

Quick Google search found this statement....


According to official records, the Coastguard Sikorsky S61N search-and-rescue helicopter currently based at Lee-on-Solent undertook 188 sorties and rescued 106 people during 1991.

A Jetranger could handle that average sortie retriveal load. Thus it seems the 61 is a bit too much aircraft based on the 1991 numbers....using averages alone which does not tell the whole story.

As this is a rumour and speculation network.....
We know that the MOD had a major say in the aircraft choice for the new MCA contract. By filling in the gap between Wattisham and Culdrose with small MCA types they ensure that the MOD aircraft will get called to any larger incidents. If S92s had gone into Lee and Portland it would have shown up the obsolescent Sea King with their lower speed and payload.
We know that the MOD are fighting a rearguard action to keep a foothold in SAR, so perhaps they have rubber d***ed the MCA to ensure that they get an increased share of the S Coast action running up to 2012!
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you!

Crabette, I quote.

"Ask the question to the current UK S61 operators; how many jobs have they turned down because the trade off between lack of performance and the task (Single engine flyaway V winchman), has not warranted the 'risk' I would guess a hell of a lot more than 'fill me to the brim with foreign seamen' type rescues anyway."

I can assure you that no S61 crew has ever turned down a SAR tasking. Even though your biased 'crab' attitude would like us to believe otherwise.

SASless;

You are quite correct, a jetranger could cope with the average load. But the Coastguard requirement is for a helicopter of 12 pax plus, just in case. Sumburgh picked up 35 from the MV Lunahod.

Crabbette
 

Crabette: With reference to your entry on the 4th Feb.
That 20 person rescue hasn't happened yet! Not at Lee at least.

Crabette: In the time scale mentioned by SASless (Last 10 years) I respectfully point out that 20 survivors in total were indeed winched by the Lee S61 on the rescue I mentioned in my previous thread entry.


Please go ahead and verify this from your own sources? Establish the facts and prove this wrong if you can. I could save you the time though - The fact is “It happened”

Oh, and no medals were dished out or were required I understand, not all rescues have PR tail chasers …

SARowl

.

Must think we were born yesterday? What never ever??:}

Perhaps I hit a professional nerve, I realise that 99% of the time you don’t turn down tasking, however the question was; the turning up and actually doing the ‘job’ bit. I know that there are instance that make the 61’s performance such, that the rescue attempt has had to be left to other agencies, be it MRT members, CRT members, use of a surface vessel or the ‘steam for port’ option. This percentage is higher than the ‘need a big helo’ for a large number of persons scenario….!

Then there is the old, tired kit that is struggling for technical support. Thanks to the complacent SAR manager (is he from a SAR back ground??) and BHL senior wheels, who must have hoped doing nothing would drag them into another half decade plus of contract, despite the obvious hard work and bravery of the crews over all these years to earn the company such a first class civilian SAR name. You boys on the coal face deserved better; well hang about , it’s staring you in the face but it appears some of you old, ‘management will see us right’ types need to wake up and sign up to a new era. Don’t whinge about the good old days when you could stash your old SAR diver kit and stand up to string your hammock in the back of the cab. “Fraid dem days is over!” Your misplaced loyalty to Bristow’s (cause you would do this job come hell or high water anyway) needs to be shelved along with your misty eye memories of a big, tired, under performing aircraft.:{

POTMESS
Guess you are referring to a job other than the recent one a couple of weeks back then (aircraft 12- lifeboat 10) Must check the press and forms ‘R’s of old. Unless you would care to provide a concrete event, time, date and mission?

What would happened if 45 people had been on the Sumburgh incident??:oh:

Granted the 61 could hold more than the 139 will, and the CH53 can hold more than the 61 for those really big disasters mid channel, but where do we stop…?:yuk:

I digress though...the ink is dry on CHC's new contract, the new aircraft will be arriving, the crews will get on and do the job. Whether it's the right aircraft or not for each and every mission is immaterial. As I've said before stop whingeing about it (I know it's what you probably look forward to at work the most) join the party or leave...;)

Crabette
 

Don't you think taking into account the risk assessment side of a sortie is part of a Captain's responsibilities? If some other unit - lifeboat etc - can do the tasking more safely and efficiently then they should be tasked. Are you implying that once a SAR helicopter is tasked it should complete that task regardless of safety implications? If you lose an engine in your Seaking at 80%+ torque, although you brief a flyaway there's only one direction you'll be going - gravity effects us all.

I think you will find that 80% in a Sea Queen is committed unless there is enough height to judge otherwise - that's certainly the way it used to be!

SARowl
You are missing the point....get an aircraft that has performance and the constant S61 'risk assessment' of NOT enough power in hand to safely winch/land etc, is removed from the equation. Otherwise you will risk assess yourselves back into bed and leave the others to do all the jobs. Anything more than 67.5% Tq in the 61/Sea King and you can ‘risk assess’ til the cows come home, it won’t get the job done. Have the confidence in your aircraft to accept the fact that it is extremely unlikely to let you down at the vinegar stroke. Hey, if it does then that’s why you get paid big civilian wages for doing the job, it’s a risk you know is always present in life. :hmm:

The reason for the helicopter is quick response to aid a casualty, not fly about or land on somewhere and wait for others to get the casualty ready for you because performance is too risky! Granted at times even the best performing machine may meet it's match and conditions require another means of rescue, but the more capable the aircraft the less frequent those scenarios become. :ok:

Perhaps you have been doing this job too long now and have lost sight of the role you are attempting to re-invent in the Tardis that is a 61. We all want to collect our pensions but it doesn’t mean don’t embrace life and the job at hand, the challenges and new ideas that change with the times. Think back to your old SAR diver, gung ho Whirlwind days…get some drive back into yourself man. (please don’t tell me you are an old fart pilot otherwise I’ll cry having got you pegged as a old, use to be bold ex-RN crewie):}

From what we hear most of you can’t wait to get into CHC and embrace a new aircraft, your moth eaten security blanket that was Bristow's and the 61 is History. :{

If you and a couple of other old timers don’t want to leave, then I know several young keen SAR capable persons who are after and applying to replace you. I’m sure your SAR contracts manager (if he is still in a job) can find some ad-hoc work for the 61 abroad with the need for you. Good Luck.;)

Crabbette.
You really do have a problem don't you? But at least you are evenly balanced with regard to chips on shoulders!
No one on this forum has said that the sticky bun is not past it's sell by date, nor the Sea King come to that. Has your bright yellow publicity machine got FLIR fitted yet?? The MCA 61's had this over 20years ago. And it has been upgraded! What is being questioned is the suitability of their replacements. So far there is absolutely no positive info. about the 139 so naturally people are suspicious.
You are so obviously after a job that you should really refrain from slagging off people you do not know, have probably never met and definitely never worked with! You never know, it may be one them old wrinklies who carries out your interview. Or on the switch!!!
Running In.
You are 100% correct. ARCC cannot believe their luck. The MCA having to ask them whether they can use their own contracted aircraft. Watch the statistics for last year and see the change. No prizes for guessing which uinits increases.

We'd all like a bit more speed/legs/room of course. The dear old 'King is ideal for most jobs as it covers all the bases inc plenty of room in the back for the boys to treat the trauma plus stack a few more bods.

I think specification creep sometimes gets in the way. Joe Public would rather have 2 older, average choppers than one gucci one. No matter how flash the cab it can only be in one place at once. Is anyone in Govt listening?! Looking forward to seeing how the mil/civ mixed crews of the future get on. Hopefully as long as the feds will pick up the bill then the crunchier jobs will still get done. Hard to see a civvy contractor allowing their most expensive mechanical asset to grub about the hills in the middle of the night.

A mixed fleet is the probably the way ahead but when you look at the stats, literally 98% of jobs are well within the capability (range/payload) of a 139 or Griffin/412 type cab.

Doubt anyone's flown away from the casualty just because they weren't SSE. Those figures are well out anyway, all based on a Mk1 Gnome with a 96 PPI, you'd almost certainly do better in the real event.

It never ceases to amaze me how poorly informed our wonderful armed forces are about the world outwith their cozy cuccoon.

Crabette,
If you were lucky enough (and with the attitude you display here, luck will have a lot to do with your success in civvy street SAR) to get a job, then you will look back on the words you have posted here and realise how much 'ollocks you have spouted.