|
Crab.
if Bristows (and I'm talking about the management not the crews) were so chuffing good, why did they lose the contract in the first place? Strange that we are in this dire situation after all the advice from this "expert". The first time I believe the MCA have asked for advice because they always had their own, ex- RAF SAR Pilot, to give his opinion. Sadly he left/was pushed to be replaced by some one with minimal SAR experience and without the B$%%$"*s to stand up to the Military presence. Yes, advice is just that. To be listened to and acted on or ignored which ever case suits. But when you are totally out of your depth then you grasp at anything! Hence this mess we are now in!! Any SAR pilot/crewman could have told the MOD/MCA that this equipment was unfit for purpose at the very beginning! Bristow built up , much to your dislike, a very good reputation in civ. SAR over a period of 25 years. It has taken CHC just over a year to set it back nearly as much! At least on the South coast! This is not blind loyalty to Bristow but basic facts.(We all, well some of us, put on new hats in April.):hmm: What I said in my last post still holds good. If you don't ask, you don't get. You get what you pay for.!! What on earth makes you think the 139 is an acceptable SAR aircraft for UK SAR, or even will be? As Send'em quite rightly points out, there is no space in the back to work, it hasn't got the legs, can't pick up multiple casualties, I mean there aren't many people transitting the Channel in Lee and Portlands patch's are there? Sinks up to its axles on soft ground in the summer, if you can call it that, so what winter will bring is anyones guess. The only advantage over anything else is the speed! Plus all the gizmos up front to stop the drivers falling asleep.:D:D 3D |
sorry to keep harping on but the lights have gone off again outside. Does the south coast have full overnight SAR cover yet?
The way I read sappers post at 0735 yesterday... All, please be assured that the 139s at Solent & Portland are now on line and ready for what the South Coast produces. Hilife's Good to hear the South is up and running again whilst those in the know...and maybe those (crab:ok: ) that aren't... can argue til the cows come home whether the 139 is or isn't an all singing all dancing SAR angel of mercy and apportion blame to any TLA they can think of, my main concern is that a significant & busy shipping and maritime leisure area is devoid of nearby helo cover. Am I the only one who has these concerns??? why aren't the local or national media having a field day??? |
that will teach me for slagging off the local media. I must apologise to the Portsmouth Evening News....
New coastguard rescue helicopters have been grounded at night because of safety fears. Two new search-and-rescue aircraft used by the coastguard at Lee-on-the-Solent are not flying after dark. The move, just two months after the state-of-the-art AW139 helicopters were introduced, comes after a crisis meeting between coastguard crews and the firm which supplied the aircraft. Air crews told Canadian company CHC Helicopter Corporation, which has a contract with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, that the helicopters were missing vital safety equipment. The main problem is missing specialist equipment for late-night landings and winching, which has not been delivered by the helicopters' manufacturer, Agusta- Westland. Air crews say it is too risky to carry out night-time operations without the kit. They will resume when the equipment arrives. In the meantime, CHC has supplied older S92 aircraft for night-time rescues. Compared with the AW139s, the S92s are large, slower, and can not fly as far without re-fuelling. Zoe Corsi, spokeswoman for CHC, said: 'We realise that a restriction of certain specialist search-and-rescue technical equipment on the AW139 could pose difficulties during night-time operations so we're working with the manufacturer to address these issues as a matter of urgency. 'As a contingency measure, CHC is deploying other search-and-rescue aircraft from its wider fleet to cover operations until the issue is fully remedied.' Mark Clark, spokesman for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, said he was satisfied that CHC would fulfil its contract while the problem is being resolved. He said: 'It will be at cost to CHC because they have to bring in the additional aircraft. What they are contracted to is providing a full 24-hour service and we do not think they're going to let us down. 'I'm in talks with our advisors but I don't think that we will look to make any financial penalties on CHC because they are still providing aircraft for night-time and day time use.' hey but at least CHC are contracted not to let us down:D:D |
gotta love local media.....
t'was a 61 from Ireland. |
Spanish
Dont worry about harping far more interesting when you do. To clarify the 139s will only fly SAR operation between sunrise & sunset and even this is under constant review, this also includes training. Your concern re the busy shipping lanes, is correctly justified, as our AIS is currently showing over 80 merchant targets covering every concevable type of merchant vessel including cruise liners and super tankers. This total does not include those vessels of less than 300gt or pleasure vessels on passage accross the channel. We have cover tonight in the form of an S61 & crew from S Ireland whether the same applies tomorrow evening, who knows. Please be assured that the crews, engineers, support staff DO NOT enjoy for one minute this form of action, nor do those who work in SAR operations at the sharp end As has been said many times, regardless where blame lies, the 139 is not fit for purpose. The south coast should in my opinion have the S92 . Oh just to add spice CGWB (Portlands 139) went of line at 1230 with Several Pitch & Trim Warnings.Unfortunatly the spare 139 CGRD was being used as Solents main a/c, as their prime 139 CGIJ was also off line with avionic problems. IJ came back on line at 1600 so for 3.5 hrs there was only one a/c covering the south coast on a lovely sunny day.:ugh::ugh: |
3D - is the 'expert' you are referring to the MCA's self-employed aviation advisor? He may have once been in the RAF but he never did even vaguely modern SAR in UK. Just because he once worked in light blue does not make any of his advice our fault - if the MCA chose to listen to someone with no credibility or knowledge that is their problem. I believe he was made to look rather inadequate during the SARH process and certainly didn't have a clue about what the rear crew did or wanted.
I do know why Bristows lost the contract but Lost doesn't seem to - the reputation of BHL was created and kept up by its crews not its management. The 139 might be an 'acceptable' SAR aircraft if properly equipped, I didn't say it was an ideal one - the concerns over the limited cabin space have been voiced by many, the full details of its shortcomings are only known by operators like yourself. Surely those who swapped companies like yourself voiced concerns over the choice of aircraft right at the beginning since it was so obviously unsuitable? It may be that the choice of the 139 was the best of a bad bunch since no-one actually designs SAR-specific helicopters, they bodge SAR bits on to executive transport aircraft. Spanish, that press release shows how far CHC and the MCA will spin the story to try and hide their incompetence - the MCAs rather pathetic stance not to apply contract penalties shows the weakness of this system. I do share your concerns about the Channel and the CHC operators like 3D must be very frustrated at what has gone on. It will be interesting to see what the longer term solution is to this problem since some of the 139 issues don't seem to a quick-fixable. |
Crab, as you know and have admitted the technical advice for the 139 came from a then current serving RAF officer. The technical and operational advice for SAR H has come from a succession of current serving RAF officers.
Do I detect the sign of a little bit of a u turn on your position on the 139?:cool: |
Crab.
No is the answer to your question! Two completely differant people. One, very experienced ex RAF SAR driver, left the MCA before this debacle started. He actually knew what he was talking about. The other, who didn't, also ex MCA but RN rear crew, is now employed by CHC on their SARH team. Now that really gives us confidence for the future.:mad: And there was a serving RAF officer advising!!! But I am not blaming the advisors. As I said previously, advice is given! It doesn't have to be taken!! When the first visits to the then still BHL units, after the interim contract was announced, took place, the suitability of the 139 was brought up. Quite forcibly! The answer from the above person, then employed as MCA Aviation chappie, now employed by CHC, said, "Well the RNLI are going to be busy." How right he was!! 3D |
All,
Lets lay the blame for the AW139 shortcomings at the right door shall we, it is not the fault of the MCA or CHC that the AW139 is not currently fitted with the appropriate "kit" to allow it to fully function. AW as always promised it would be on delivery but it aint, nobodies fault but the OEM, you mil types should know all about the promises this company make and dont deliver, SKIOS being the latest. CHC and the MCA could stop all this bad press and lay the blame where it should lay. |
Lost - nice try but you will have to open your eyes at some point and see the truth of this matter.
Oh! Oh! it's the nasty RAF's fault we got the wrongly specced heliocopter for the job. Please Sir, tell them off and draft a press release saying that nothing is wrong - then everyone will see we are the right company to be responsible for UK SAR.:ugh: I believe another ex RAF Officer spotted the aircraft in the hangar before delivery and commented on the lack of lights but was completely ignored - 'there's none as blind as them as doesn't want to see'. |
Crab.
'there's none as blind as them as doesn't want to see'. 3D |
Crab,
Sarcasm is usually the sign of a weak argument and it’s difficult to know what the truth is from you because of your constantly changing position. So as long as you continue to gloat over the current situation I will continue to point out the RAF’s involvement in the interim bid and the SAR H bid. You also have to accept the fact that sometimes people will give an opposing argument to your own, this forum isn’t your own personal transmission you know! |
Lost at Sea
For God's sake, change the record. You'd probably blame all the ills of the world on the RAF if you could. |
Vie sans frontieres,
Crab is constantly repeating the same argument about civy SAR being inadequate. He continually blames the MCA and all I am doing is pointing out the RAF involvement in the process which has lead us to this situation. He blames the MCA and I say fine but what about the RAF's role in this? Why shouldn't we discuss this? You will also note that I am replying to yet another attack on civy SAR by Crab. So I'll stop if he does but I will not allow Crab to continue to get away with posting inaccurate and damaging posts about Civy SAR. He has to be made accountable for what he is saying. Otherwise we may as rename 'Rotorheads' as 'Crab's Spin Forum'! LAS.:) |
Lost, Crab, et al: this is all getting very tedious :hmm:
I have no wish to moderate what is essentially a very valuable thread: but I will if this "he said/she said/I said" circular argument keeps going any longer :rolleyes: |
Well that's shut everyone up! The only remaining question is, what did Lost at Sea edit from his last post 4 minutes after Senior Pilot told him to go and stand in the corner?:confused:
|
Vie sans frontieres,
(Sorry Mr Moderator just a quick reply). :ok: I was already editing my post when Mr Moderator posted his. Simple as that - sorry no scandal! :) LAS |
BBC NEWS | England | Dorset | Winch fails in helicopter rescue (last updated at 15:14 GMT, Monday, 20 October 2008)
"An inquiry has begun after a winch failed on Portland Coastguard's new rescue helicopter during an emergency call-out in which a man later died. The new AgustaWestland AW139 helicopter was scrambled on Sunday when a diver surfaced unconscious off Weymouth. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said the primary winch got stuck while the victim and a winchman were being hoisted up... ...The MCA said he continued to receive resuscitation treatment from the winchman throughout the rescue, and that the winch failure did not contribute to his death. " |
BBC NEWS | England | Dorset | Winch fails in helicopter rescue
BBC report is slightly misleading. As I understand it - but I am happy to be corrected; Helo (AW139) goes to dive job, as it has in the past and as it will in the future. Helo lifts cas and winchman from the dive boat. Winch jams with the two of them still some feet from helo. Helo flies short distance to flat land, with cas and winchman dangling. Helo lets down and they then take the crewman and cas on-board. Continue flight to hospital. One must applaud the crewman who continued resuscitation action in "dangling mode". Normally this would be a non-event, a minor glitch with a winch, but given the current situation with the AW139 it will given more attention than it might deserve. It has happened before on a training lift. Or you could say that it was a critical failure of an essential system during a rescue. Your choice according to the point you are trying to prove. |
Winches
Well, **** happens and I would not try to defend the record of the military winch - specially as we don't seem to have enough to fit them in all required machines in Afg.
Sven |
Sven;
"Well, **** happens and I would not try to defend the record of the military winch - specially as we don't seem to have enough to fit them in all required machines in Afg." I wish you hadn't said that. We were trying to move this thread back to hard fact and not the "Vicky Pollard" style of debate. (This is not an attack on you but a comment that in your innocence you have have re-opened a wound with your remark; a remark that I think is considered and unprovocative. However I fear someone might "bite".) Someone is now going to say; "The military winch is perfect because it was designed by a pilot with 120 years experience of military SAR flying." "The military winch is flawed because the SAR pilot had no knowledge of SAR winching because he had been flying up front and had not operated a winch for 120 years." "The military winch was chosen for the helicopter by a civilian engineer who had only 120 years experience of civilian winching and had no grasp of winching military casualties." "The casualties had only been winched regularly for 120 years by civilian crews and had no understanding of the requirements of military winching." "Advice given by military winchers should not be applied to winching in a civilian context unless they have been offered lucrative employment with the civilian winch manufacturer." "Advice given by military winchers should be or not be applied to winching in any context despite them having been offered lucrative employment with the civilian winch manufacturer." "Although the military advisers were not actually winchers their advice should have been taken except where it should not." "While civilian winchers were alleged to be advised by military winchers the military winchers gave their advice on the understanding that it did not specicifically apply except where it was specified in retrospect to apply." "The civilian winch adviser should not be listened to in case he is right and other parties are proved wrong." I hope he doesn't pick his line from the above, but I fear he will. Now back to the point of this little interlude in the thread. There was a winch glitch. Normally no one would notice or care but it comes on top of a number of other minor problems which accumulate to destroy a reputation. That is the point. |
Is the 139 not equipped with the dual winch that was fitted to the Bristow aircraft to cover just this sort of event?
|
As someone said earlier, if they're within spitting distance of land, why bother? K-I-S-S
|
sorry if this has been asked loads of time before. but who are the companys still in the running for the contract? sorry of being off topic:rolleyes:
|
Hmmm! I think i've missed something here, Isn't that what the 'Dual Hoist' thing is all about or is Crab right again?:uhoh:
|
To the seasoned observer, the most entertaining thing about Rotorheads is that Crab usually is right! And oh, how the others don't like it. He doesn't get much back-up from his RAF buddies because he doesn't need it. :ok:
|
Ooh no he's not! (well, it is the panto season coming soon) :D
|
Whether to Use Reserve Winch or Otherwise
The Captain used his very proffesional and expert judgement and deceided against using the reserve winch as indicated below. On arrival at vessel CPR being carried out by crew on boat. Lowered winchman to RIB and he elected for immediate Double Lift of casualty. As winchman and casualty were winched clear of vessel we haad a hoist failure on the aft hoist. (hoist will winch out but not in) Recycled hoist switch and winched in a further 5ft and hoist failed again. Due to winchman and unconcious casualty being 10ft below the aircraft and winchman having difficulty keeping casualty in the two strops, we elected to transit 1/2mile to an outcrop of land on Portland Island where we winched out the casualty and winchman to the deck. We landed on 10ft to the right of casualty and winchman. Winch op got out the a/c and winchman and winch op recovered casualty into the back of the a/c. We were then able to recover the winch cable as per normal as there was no weight on the wire. Flown direct to Dorchester A&E Hospital LS The above operation took 3 minutes far less than trying to employ the reserve winch,. a decision the Captain & crew need commending for. :D |
Agreed Sapper - exactly the right thing to do.
Sounds like a nightmare with an unconscious casualty in a double strop lift with a winch failure - even our SAR standards wouldn't pull that on someone!! Seriously - a good job by all the crew:ok: |
Good gutsy call. Just 'cause its there doesn't mean it over rules common sense, and this was practical common sense, crew co-operation and Captaincy in spades. Well done.
|
Oops! Didn't know all the facts before posting! Common sense is still around then
|
I agree.
Good job, well done. :ok: |
This thread has gone quiet, is Crab on holiday?
|
This thread has gone quiet, is Crab on holiday?
A working holiday down south. I hear that the present RAF SAR commander is leaving to join SARH. Time for us all to bale out?:*
|
SAR99
Thats a good April fool in October :D |
A Brief extract from this evenings Dorset Echo
Safety fears on new rescue helicopter 8:50amFriday 24th October 2008 South Dorset MP Jim Knight said: “I have been encouraging Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick to ensure the MCA and its contractors are urgently dealing with this so the new aircraft are working to their full potential.” A spokesman for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency said night cover was being provided by other aircraft supplied by the contractor ‘until such time issues with the new aircraft are resolved’. He added the contract with the company providing the helicopter service ends in 2012 and there were no plans to end it, but he stressed: “There is a scheme in place which allows deductions to be made for non-performance which will be used in this respect. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures which allows a last resort of termination of the contract.” Gulp!! Where may we get aircraft, crews, engineers should such a thing happen?:rolleyes: |
I have asked before and got no response to the suggestion/question. The 92 has issues, the 139 has issues. Where is the EC225 in all this and even maybe still not build but a future prospect the EC175????
|
Victor Papa
I have asked before and got no response to the suggestion/question. The 92 has issues, the 139 has issues. Where is the EC225 in all this and even maybe still not build but a future prospect the EC175???? |
OK, I might buy the crashworthiness bit with the "old" design to a point. Let us look at it from a different point of view. The 225 has done a extroadinary number of hours since it's introduction-how many problems/rejected missions/emergency landings? The range and especially payload is extremely impressive. In offshore they battle to use the full payload so fitting a ferry in the rear or 2 should be no problem on payload for SAR. Yes, the cabin is lower, but where I operate and the average hoist operator is 6 ft the 92 has no specific advantage. I could not stand in the S61 doing hoisting so may just as well do it in a modern ability exceeds payload aircraft. Cabin is big other than height. Why is the 225 not considered? If I look at the problems with the 92 and 139, the 225 will be a compromise in cabn height and crashworthiness under extreme conditions only, but I will take my chances in this ultra reliable and comfortable product. Just my 2 cents I do not have
|
225
Yes it is a very capable helo and I think that you may find that the 225 is in the mix for SARH. Time will tell.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.