Calli - I am well aware that the introduction of new aircraft will improve overall capability providing they are specified correctly. However, the S92 came without HF and has a sat tracker that is not compatible with the ARCCK system - I don't know why but a cycnic would say it is the continuing parochial attitude of the MCA to retain direct control of its assets and keep Kinloss out of the loop. I visited MRCC Falmouth in 2001 and the Oic was happy to point out where the military guys would sit when they were embedded in the organisation - they have always sought to have command and control over all SAR assets, hence the drive towards SARH.

We will have to wait and see how the 139 turns out.

I didn't say NVG was a black art but training up crews who have never used them will take a lot of hours which someone will have to pay for - this takes profit out of the contract which will need to be recovered from somewhere else.

I don't know where you were based but there is little underflying on training hours, despite some serviceability issues, so guys do seem to be getting most of their 4 hours a shift.

Northernstar - I do keep trying to reiterate that it is not the crews professionalism that is in doubt in any way shape or form, it is the reality of having a SAR service which needs to make a profit (why else are big businesses bidding for it). When the bottom line is the driving force, where is the incentive for management to make any concessions to improving standards, equipment or training? The only things that will force change after the contract is let will be legislation or, as in the sad case of Billy Deakin, an AAIB report. The military has proved itself wholly inept at contract writing and management in the past assuming that gentlemens agrrements still exist - they do right up to the point where the lawyers and accountants get involved. SARH needs to be as watertight as possible which is one reason I keep banging on about real capability as opposed to assumed or predicted.

hhmm....head above the parapet again,this time on the other side I'm afraid ,Crab!

NVG's intro'd to the RAF Seaking. 92/93. One (2hr) conversion sortie by visiting NVG qual'd QHI.

After that we (the operational crews) just integrated the use of NVG's into all our normal night training.

The NVG SOPS came years later!

Maybe part of the question should be why does the airforce carry out the SAR task anyway as nearly all the rescues are related to civvy incidents.

Purloining info from the Meteor thread on the military forum the following figures are representative of the number of aircraft and lives lost by the airforce since the war in non combat related accidents.

1946....1014 a/c....677 fatalities
1956.....270..........150
1966.....62............33
1976.....33............20
1986.....19............10
1996.....21............2
2000's average 8 aircraft a year

Having a dedicated SAR when the airforce lost more aircraft in accidents than they have on strength today made sense.

However the military justification for a SAR capability in home waters no longer exists.


I would like to see a dedicated combat rescue helicopter purchased for military use.

It might save the marines having to go into action lashed to the sides of Apache's.

This might also get the SH people to take the SAR a little more seriously.

Bertie - do you think the CAA would let that happen now though? They still won't let D&C Police operate into unrecced sites despite their experience levels.

Eric - the rescuing of downed/ejected military crews is our primary task but only counts for about 2% of our rescues which are, as you rightly say otherwise civilian in nature.

The UK Search and Rescue Region is enormous, reaching way out into the Atlantic where, for the moment, only the military crews go because we have better range than the S61. The Government is responsible for providing maritime and aeronautical SAR assets in whichever way it sees fit and has, for many years, taken the option of using the military to provide the majority of this cover. The SRR includes the landmass of the UK which is primarily covered by military SAR as well.

If you want as right, riveting read, have a look at the IAMSAR manual - the bible of modern SAR - and note that in volume 1 it states that military assets provide very effective SAR cover due to manpower and poor weather/night capability.

Rumour has it that a major player in the civvySAR world didn't even know what IAMSAR was:)

Crab.
Only military crews have the range to go out into the Atlantic?? Hmm... down south maybe but not sure Stornoway would agree with you there, even with the S61!
Take your point about the standby hoist but your Wasteland hoist is obviously more reliable than the Goodrich one. We have been more than thankful for the dual fit at least twice. One would have involved a thirty mile hover taxi back to base, with the winchman performing cpr, on a casualty, in a stretcher, on a bloody awful night!! He was well chuffed for the dual hoist, the heave ho would have been impossible!!

Why put him in a stretcher when CPR is required? That must have taken a while. Why not just double strop him and get him to definitive care quicker?

Crab
I AM SAR, U R SAR what’s the difference?? :ok:
Calli & Northstar are quite correct in what they say in general
It’s not about making a profit by civilianising UK SAR; true, a PFI will make money but the bottom line is the tax payers will pay less for the privilege of having a first class world leading rescue service. At the same time it will give the tax payer or more importantly the MoD more funds to spend on those areas that really need the funds, not expensive second line jobs and associated costs.

Most civilian SAR crews don’t need to visit the Mil SAR bases because they left them in the first place. Yes we too defended our ‘Own Service’ once, but the path to the dark side is strong (not to mention less boll*ks, more cash). I’m sure the Portland/Lee units would be happy for your ‘bird’ to drip some OX38 on dispersal for a few hours while talking shop and cross pollination. You may even get a West Country visit by a 139 in the New Year to see the next generation medium sized aircraft in full SAR fit. ARCCK can watch real time skytrac info of the S92’s up north on a PC or log onto the AIS system…why use a HF sounding like a Dr Who ‘Dalex’ when you can talk on the ‘phone’. Also the S92 out ranges the Sea King now!
Keep up the good work in the meantime as we love the ones that ‘fight/bite/kick and scream’ to the end. Don’t roll over and go belly up on us yet Chivenor, Pprune Rotorheads would be too quiet.:}
VSF- Have you done SAR or just curious?? I'll let 3D answer that one

VSF
Arrested on the way up!!! (Must have realised it was a nasty white machine, not a yellow peril!!):):)

VSF I will answer your question.

In a normal calm open area scenario, yes I would "double strop".

When I have to get on board a fishing boat in a force 8 and 30ft seas, at night to a crew member below decks in a confined area with no output, who I then have to get back to the upper deck doing CPR as we go, and then get winched to the aircraft, I use a stretcher.

Kind regards

mustfly1

VSF
There you go, from the horses mouth!
Alright sog?

Waves as big as houses, no doubt! :rolleyes:

3D - the most that is stated on the RCS (ask the MCA for a look) for an S61's Radius of Action is 190nm. Ours is 240 nm using very conservative fuel planning that usually gets you back with 1000lbs of fuel so guess who gets to do the long range jobs? Chivenor and Valley regularly refuel in Eire and proceed out to beyond 15 West because the Irish Coastguard also have S61 with limited range. The Navy have a 205nm RoA and regularly refuel in the Scillies on their way out and back. Stornoway is the exception but I believe Lossie still do the longest range ones up there.

The RoA for the S92 isn't on the RCS even though it is claimed to be 290nm or thereabouts - is this a theoretical figure or has it been proved in action?

NRDK - I am not sure how the taxpayer is going to save money by civilianising SAR - it still has to be paid for and, as we have discussed at length, if the equivalent military capability is to be maintained, a lot more training will be required by the civilian crews. Add in the capital costs of all the new aircraft required and the profit margin for the next 30 years and I don't think that SAR provision will get anything other than more expensive - not less.

As for the MoD Budget - a few Sea Kings won't compensate for the ammunition bill for either Iraq or Afghanistan - the crews will still be employed in other areas and the engineers are already being contractorised - where is the saving there then?

You haven't used the HF in a 3A then - it's not perfect but no more daleks. Why should the ARCCK have to use additional kit to track something that was procured for UK SAR? The MCA partitioning machine at work again methinks.

Crab
I yield to your grasp of economics and beg you to petition the politicians and prevent them from spending vast sums of money on SAR-H instead of all those current low cost, value for money Mil SAR units. What are they thinking??:}
The light blue want to play/stay in the game and so will bring over ‘some’ crews (who could/would be better employed in SH now) The whole thing could be ‘civilianised’ albeit using quite a lot of the (‘Ex’) military crews who would be enticed/redundant due to the loss of the UK Mil SAR.
By WE you mean you?? Think you'll find our training is up to the challenge at hand. Besides the extra ex-service crews without the Cranwell lobotomy/chopped at RAF Linton-on-Ouse or Valley ‘SAR god school’ attitude will be welcome additions. Or whatever the present system in the RAF is.
I’ll leave the semantics of who has the ‘biggest one’ out of this for now……that’s ‘range’ I’m talking about! Stornoway can answer that in due course.
Stick to your ‘lightweight’ HF kit, throat mike, WW2 kit if you think it is the way ahead by all means.:ugh:
Every bit extra in terms of ammo & support that can be squeezed into Iraqmanistan will be appreciated by those at the pointy end IMHO.
‘Keep Fighting’:D

NRDK - you do appear have 'ex-RN' written all over you - at least you seem well balanced with an anti-RAF chip on both shoulders. We haven't had an RN exchange officer yet who hasn't had his eyes opened to the way we do SAR - they generally leave rather than return to their mother service:)

You claim your present training is up to the task in hand and then say you will welcome all the ex-mil crews because they will give you the capability you need - make your mind up.

As for old kit, I would rather have a radar (albeit with a blind arc) that can see a dolphin's c8ck at 10 miles than a cloud and clonk radar that can't see a windfarm at 2.5 miles or see the area you are going to turn into.

On that subject I am still deafened by the silence on the question about how you are allowed to operate below safety alt IMC over water - P.S. approach and landing doesn't count because you are not doing either. Just how do you let down to a radar/PLB/FLIR target safely?

Ah Crab, thank you
 

Of course the Dark side is in Black!:ok:
The poor old RN boys only spend a dog’s watch on SAR and then some ‘dis-appointer’ sends them packing off to a dull front line job so they run off to Civilian Street and the wage of a Group Captain after a short spell. Probably ex 771 NAS SAR crew, who don’t get a lot of eye opening SAR:eek:, unlike the PWK lot. So yes, easily impressed. Especially by the cushiness of the RAF aircrew life and the way everything is geared to look after the aircrew…the RN are poor cousins in that respect.:(

I implied perhaps not clearly enough that the usefulness of obtaining experienced ex-mil crews was an asset (as that’s the area that in the past most Civ SAR crews came from) It saves time and money whilst providing a rapid increase in numbers to fill all the vacancies that would be created by the Mil SAR demise, if the powers to be wanted to axe it completely. There would be a need for many crews that wanted to join, we don't have to have you but it is commercially sensible to use a valuable asset, yes even you my crustacean friend, ahh the banter we could have.

As for the new kit appearing nearby to you/now in use up north. Well, full digital moving nautical charts & Aeronautical maps + OS mapping down to 1:25K scale, AIS display so you can see every AIS registered vessel with all the info, all for front and rear crew. Skytrac, forward facing radar, EGPWS, MX-15i FLIR with slaved Nightsun (FLIR can be presented in the cockpit, TCAS, 4 axis A/P (We would have liked NVG but that’s will be a SAR-H perk) blah blah drool!:}

3D can elaborate on how the front seat crew are able to defied the laws of IMC and get on down to do the job over water (probably with a combination of smoke and mirrors) Some of the ‘Masters’ use the Force:ugh:.

Must dash now but please don’t let the hook go, the fishing is bloody brilliant here.:D

NRDK - I am sure the boys at 771 will love you for that but actually our present incumbent is ex-Gannet and he's not going back in a hurry:)

You make it sound like the only good civsar crews are ex-military which I'm sure will find great favour with many posters here - not!

Frankly AIS sound as much use as ti*ts on a bull for a helicopter - if it's a big boat you will see it using eyes/radar/FLIR and if it's a little boat it won't have AIS. The MCA like it but for SAR use I think it's value is limited.

We have had a 4 axis autopilot for years, nothing new about that and I don't know why you need digital mapping when you rarely venture out of your comfort zone:) Your Skytrac, as we said, isn't compatible with the rest of the SARF (team game remember) and you forward facing radar is still cloud and clunk, not a proper I band (X band for civvies) maritime radar. TCAS and EGPWS is nice but you wouldn't need the nitesun if you had NVG. FLIR in the cockpit is just one more thing to distract the co-pilot when he should be doing mission management, that's why we leave it to the Radop.

Yes the banter would be good and a bit of suck-back uckers might be fun:)

The Force may work but is it legal???

Crab....I sensed a nibble
 

771 do a great job, much like Wattisham & Lee; but there is a certain difference of ‘difficulty’ upgrade at Gannet, Lossie, Stornoway. Those who have done both know it. :}

Did not say the only good Civ SAR are ex-mil. Many exceptional Civilian only pilots are now in situ. Did infer that market forces Versus time frame will once again mean that you current Mil drivers with a licence, SAR time and a good few hours will be extremely attractive candidates.:rolleyes:

With regards the kit fit; it is what the client was offered and wished to pay for, the SA picture that you can obtain is what you up front can only dream about for now. In truth the SK is on its way out…face it, realise it, accept it. You will have to either embrace it as we will or fly for Virgin.:O

Venture out the comfort zone….Please.:=

We too hope the EASA/CAA and SAR-H don’t get the bits that count regarding Flying limits, restrictions, dispensations/exemptions etc wrong. Or you will be right that the potential to compromise the level of service may be eroded. We are very aware of this, as we are already hampered to some extent with training limits. As mentioned in previous posts; for Civ SAR ops we have very few, if any restrictions, provided the actions are justifiable.:ok:

An Uckers pigmy like yourself would be an 8 piece mixie blob on my doorstep after a few minutes. Never mind, my young apprentice, you too will turn to the dark side in time.:)

NRDK - oh dear, not another 'if you haven't done SAR oop North, you haven't done SAR' snob:) and people call me arrogant;)

I think I was the one who got the nibble re civvy pilots...

Yup, I'd love to have a new helicopter, but preferably one like the Sea King where you have some options if the MRGB loses all it's oil, unlike the S92.

I have been called an uckers pygmy before, but that was by someone who was good at the game:)

Crab.
That'll be the S61 then?:):):) I knew you would see it our way eventually.:)

3D - I did say new - your 61's are even older than our Sea Kings:)

Crab,

North Sea crews are regularly decending below MSA in IMC on rig radar approaches, using radars less capable than the ones fitted to SAR machines. And it's legal.

I remember speaking to someone who was dettached from Navy SAR to RAF SAR and like you say, his eyes were opened. He couldn't believe how difficult the RAF made SAR for themselves.

NRDK,

"8 piece mixy blob on the doorstep" didn't you thrash me that way once (or many times) before :{

Droopystop - it's legal for rig approaches because you are on approach and landing and following an approved procedure - not the case for SAR work so how do they get round it? Possibly because the CAA don't know what they do or understand the dangers of operating below MSA over the sea without proper on-board radar clearances - maybe they just make it up as they go along:)

If making it difficult for yourself means doing it properly and safely then I'll take that everytime over simple and risky. See what I mean about differences in attitude?

Bertie,

Doesn't surprise me that the NVG convex was so brief, but...

Surely at the time, introducing NVG was an improvement to the existing capability, so the fact that it would have taken crews quite some time to get the hang of NVG didn't matter - during that time, little by little, capability was being enhanced. These days, the mil SAR flts have a great deal of NVG experience, and even newcomers, by the time they get captaincy, will have built up a good degree of proficiency at NVG work.

What this means is that, when mil SAR as we know it is scrapped, the time taken for SAR-H crews to get fully used to NVG will be a period of reduced capability as there will be a drop in the standard of what they can achieve compared to what experienced NVG operators can achieve now (whatever training the SAR-H hierarchy provide for their crews cannot instantly create crews fully proficient in NVG use). I would guess (and it's only a guess - please don't hang me!) that it would take longer for civ SAR crews to adapt to overland NVG work than it did mil crews, given that mil crews had done non-NVG overland work before the advent of NVG; a civ crew (through no fault of their own!) will have to learn night mountains and NVG procedures, whereas the RAF crews simply had to integrate NVG into what they already did overland.

No doubt this likely temporary drop in capability will simply be taken on risk...Crab may well be right that there may be a drop in capability for a while, but I don't think think those in charge will get too bothered about it. Oh well!

TOTD

Hi

I would just point out that I first flew a Sea King 3 on NVG in autumn 1982 (circuits to a man with a cigarette in the middle of Chetwynd), in preparation for a det to 51S 58W or thereabouts.

Sven

edit to add

We probably were putting lives at risk - we just hadn't figured all the hazards. I guess we were lucky. Over time you learn (and you get better goggles). The trick is then that others take your experience and move on.

WOW
 

Chaps what a thread! And to think I almost missed it!

Ok, here we go. Now you all know that I don't normally side with Crabb. Its OK I'm not going to yet. However, a couple of pages ago Speechless said a few things about Crabb that were simply not true.

Firstly, I am an ex mil SAR QHI. I flew both Mk3 and 3a Sea Kings. I know Crabb but rarely agree with his posts. However, to say he is arrogant and lacks CRM etc etc is simply not true. Actually, he is a nice bloke who it is a pleasure to know. He also has a cracking sense of humour and I think some of his tongue-in-cheek remarks and irony he uses are being taken too seriously. He also posts stuff that is in the heat of the moment and perhaps goes a little too far.

Crabb. You have just read the above. Now get yourself to an MCA flight and go see how they do it. No invite, poor excuse! Why don't you call the new SAR-H requirements manager and get her to arrange the visit? Then when you have seen the facts and spoken to the people your posts will take on a different tone. Lets bring some harmony back.

Chaps and Chappesses. Once Crabb has done that, its up to the rest of the civ SAR guys/girls to go visit a mil SAR flight.

I am not making excuses for him, or really defending him .. well OK I am a bit. However, I think he really is trying to rant at the 'System' not the individuals - he does say this a lot. Sadly, when ranting at the system it is easy to get sucked in to generalising every one together and insulting the masses.

A couple of other points. Crabb, you are recounting stories of times past about civ SAR. Similar horrendous stories abound for pretty much all the mil SAR flights - Chivenor..... wheels up landing. That covers both services!

All SAR flights change be they military or civil. People move on and places change atmosphere. What was once nothing better than a flying club becomes very professional and a highly regarded place under new leadership. Change the leadership and your back to demotivated people just turning up for work. Example? Being where you are, you know WHO I mean - not your present flight or Sqn OC!

lets just talk about cost and mil vs civ?

Is it cheaper? Or is mil more? Well, I don't actually think there is a great deal in it now - and boy have I been studying this! In an ideal world Crabb you would get new aircraft and carry on. But, your missing one vital point. Its not all about money, its about people. You see there are a lot of you in SAR, and there could be less military a similar service for very similar costs. The surplus people? Well its back off to SH with you all where you are very much needed.

Its not the civvies who undermined mil SAR, its the MOD. You see your lords and masters decided they only wanted a few to gain these cracking skills - and they are cracking skills. The rest need to be in the thick of the fighting. The concept is that the rotation from SAR will spread the experience throughout [I have my own views on if this will work]. Overall, in the end, the stable community will be the civ SAR people. The turn over will be of mil personnel to and from the SH world [and I include the RN in that [sorry RN!]].


So, how to sum up this last paragraph? The MOD thinks you are a Military helicopter pilot that is miss employed in SAR. Sadly, and I mean that, the writing isn't on the wall, its engraved in 2ft high letters and not much is going to stop it!

NVG
 

Oh, and I got given a set of NVG on an East Coast flight and told to crack on! After 2 months I did the 2hr course!
Still, its what the best dressed man is wearing at night!

SARREMF - ...almost brought a tear to my eye...at least someone actually reads my posts - if I knew who you were I'd buy you a pint:ok:

The only problem is people will think it's me supporting myself under a different login:)

You're right that we have been short-changed by the MoD but sending us SH will take years as the OCU's don't have enough aircraft to get us trained up!

Northernstar - the reason I think this issue is important is because it is another of those capability issues; we do have the capability and the authority to do it legally - do the MCA crews? If they don't then something will need to be sorted pronto as there is supposed to be 'no lesser capability' under SARH.

We do clearing turns to check it is OK ahead and you do turns to check it is clear to manoeuvre - 6 and two 3s really until you have to manoeuvre into the coast from the hover in a strong onshore wind, when suddenly a rearward facing radar becomes rather superior.

Out of interest, is the S92 radar x-band and therefore SART compatible and able to see mil Sea Kings with I (x-band) transponders - rather important in multi aircraft ops.

So you never had to fly on PNGs? What a revelation NVGs were after those evil devices. Probably more likely to crash wearing them and unable to wear a helmet, only a cloth inner. One tube had to be focused on the instruments and one tube outside due to no peripheral vision whatsoever; and the tubes used to mist up....

And we had to go back to using throat mikes while using the goggles, which didn't help. :eek:

I got funny eyes now... :8

S92 radar
 

Crab - yes to your question (Honeywell Primus 701).

Crab,
Can also see all aircraft with transponders, not just I Band, with TCAS I.
RI

Even the S61s have a SART compatible radar.

Crab, It would help if you read the posts.

Now, leave the gate barrier alone for a while and listen.

You said ;
"Sendem - as soon as you are tasked, ARCC are informed and it appears on the RCS, "

I am not tasked. I do the tasking . I SEND THEM. Clues as to the user name ?
The ARCC are informed When I get round to it. When I feel like it. I try to be prompt but sometimes it is after landing. What pisses me off that our helicopters fly a SAR mission, I tell the ARCC after the helo has landed and the ARCC puts another a pin in its map for a job that they "coordinated".



Crab Said;
"Have you ever been to Kinloss to see what your tasking authority does - your oversimplified statement would suggest not."

I was there 1-2 November 2006. As an ex-cavalry officer; your officer's Mess would be unacceptable to the Lance Corporals in my regiment. Grow-bags in the dining room ! And the food !

Crab said;
"As for your last post, you well know what I was commenting on regarding second standby - you don't have a seconds crew and we do, is that simple enough for you."

Our pilots/crew can jump into the spare helo and fly it ; without an erck having to paint their name on the side and waiting 8 hours for it to dry.

You may have a second crew but when I call the ARCC every morning I discover there is not a second helo for them to fly.

Send'em - you seem proud of the fact that you are often tardy in informing the tasking authority for ALL UK SAR helicopters that you have launched one of their assets - that sounds very professional - not!

You seem to typify the MCA protectionist/partitionist attitude - are you the guy who only as a last resort calls the ARRCK to get Chivenor or Culdrose in, especially when Portland are at home overnight and your only asset is Lee?

I have met and worked with many cavalry officers and generally they are good (if slightly pompous) chaps but it is an interesting change of direction from Army to MCA - perhaps your underlying attitude to RAF aircrew is given away by your comments about the Offs Mess at Kinloss and erks painting our aircraft:)

No seconds every morning? Now you are being fatuous - even during our worst periods the availability is still over 80% - can you read the RCS through your tainted glasses?

Droopy and Steve, thanks for the info.

Running In - don't confuse ATC transponders with I-band transponders - TCAS won't alert to an I band one. The I band ones show up on an I band radar so that in multi-aircraft ops, everyone with compatible kit can see all the others, esp at night or in poor wx. So the S61 and S92 radars will only see aircraft ahead of them - our blind arc is only 30 degrees, theirs is 240 degrees (assuming 60 degree sweep either side of nose). Knowing exactly where the aircraft is means not having to take TCAS avoiding action when it detects the ATC transponder - that would be a pain in the backside when you are trying to conduct a search.

Crab,

It is you who seem confused. TCAS gives you 360 degree coverage and it displayed on the pilots' screens so that they can see traffic at all times - it is not linked to the radar it is a separate system. With the Sea King's current arrangement you can only see I Bands when someone is in the "shack", so no cover when winching etc. TCAS also shows you when non SAR aircraft get in the way!

The world has moved on since the Sea King, wake up and smell the coffee.

RI

Crab
Now that is a bit rich. You are not the only one who is keeping a list of taskings from ARCCK, and their positions to the most suitable,available asset !?:hmm:

Running In - I think you are over-egging the capability of TCAS somewhat - it will tell what quadrant another aicraft is and issue a TA if the altitudes conflict but it is not much use when conducting a multi-aircraft search at low level in poor vis/night when you need to know exactly where the other aircraft are - TCAS doesn't have that level of accuracy.

Frankly having the TCAS alerting all the time during such an op would be very distracting. And since I am talking about searching, the Radop would always be in the radshack. In fact the TV screen with the radar plot on is easily visible from the cabin door when winching - maybe you haven't seen what the latest fit looks like.

I'm not saying TCAS wouldn't be nice for general ops but in specific situations the I band radar wins.

3D - I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - if you mean the ARRCK might task a military asset instead of a civ one then it is possible but only for good operational reasons. The advantage of having the RCS is that you can see at a glance what the other flights are doing and whether they are closer to a job because they are airborne on training. You can also see how the serviceability affects the UK cover as a whole and choose not to send the obvious flight because it would leave half the UK with no SAR cover.


Still waiting re IMC below MSA:)

Crab,

There could be several reason why no-one has replied to your question on descent below MSA (although I did several months ago - probably on a PM) and that is because the regulation establishes that it can be done but does not spell out the method of compliance. It is left to the operator to submit a proposal. Any reply could therefore reveal the company of the poster.

Firstly bear in mind that the MSA (LSALT) over the sea is 1,300ft (usually rounded to 1,500).

Apart its obvious use for an en-route descent - e.g. to avoid an instrument approach to a complex environment (where the approach and go-around directions are not clear of obstacles); it can be used as a fall back procedure in Coastal Aerodromes procedures; and a descent in compliance with Limited Icing clearances. Here is the content of the rule:
Any applicant would have to submit a safety case establishing the extent and limits of the procedure together with requirements for equipment; accuracy of height would require the RADALT and obstacle clearance in the descent sector, the airborne RADAR.

The more specific of any application would be that submitted by a SAR operator for whom limits would be directly associated with their operational constraints and the demands of the task.

Such a procedure would be in the Operations Manual (or, for the SAR unit, the SAR Appendix).


Jim

Jim, I see where you get 1300' from but not 1500' - we use 1000' and don't overfly any radar contacts below that.

The normal Non Representative Allowance added to terrain overland is 300' and the Maximum Elevation Figures on our maps reflect the maximum terrain plus the NRA. Over the sea with no other structures, this figure becomes 300' and does not need to be rounded up further so the MSA over open water would be 1300'. But we base our safety altitude on the highest terrain we are likely to fly over, not the MEF so ours is 1000' over open water. The advantage of a good radar is that it will see any vessel or structure (especially those nasty windfarms) and we just avoid them below 1000'.

All that one of the SAR operators needs to do is post here outlining what they do when letting down IMC to a radar contact or GPS position to effect a rescue or carry out a search -the exemption for approach and landing is not valid in this case.

We have a specific exemption in JSP 550 to operate IMC below MSA over water because we have clearly laid down procedures using Rad Alt and on-board radar for vertical and horizontal clearances - this is why we carry a Radar Operator and have a large radar swept arc 330 degrees.
I know this all seems like semantics but this is a capability that is not matched by the S92 or S61 and needs to be addressed before 2012.

Crab

I thought we had covered this ages ago. The CAA give an exemption to the 500' rule and authority to carry out SAROps and training to lower heights both in VMC and IMC. The civilian operators have laid down SOPs for let-downs to radar contacts/let downs over the sea which have been demonstrated to a CAA Ops Inspector and approved. In some cases they use the same radar that the North Sea operators use routinely to do en-route let-downs to 500' during the day and deck height + 50' for ARAs with a minimum of 200' (day) in IMC down to .75nm

This same radar is more than capable of holding targets to .25nm quite safely for SAR and this is authorised as part of the exemption by the CAA. I know, I have used it in anger to do this. You don't need a dedicated radar operator if the aircraft is capable of reducing the pilots' workload to such an extent that operating the radar is a minor part of the NFP's capacity. Please bear in mind that ops in IMC over the sea, admittedly only to 200', are a common occurrence with a crew of only two pilots over the North Sea.

Cyclic, thanks for the information -I don't think we had covered this before. The radar may be acceptable for holding large contacts ie rigs and supertankers down to .25nm but what about smaller vessels and structures like winds farms and masts? To successfully let down to a target IMC within a limited area, you need to manoeuvre well below 500', we use 200', so that the Trans down doesn't take too much room. We have more flexibility because we can clear turns during our TD, whereas with a forward only looking radar you would be turning into an uncleared area.

Frankly in IMC over the water I would take a well trained Radop over a co-pilot anyday.

Is it possible to get sight of the Ops manual/SOPs?