Rescue choppers in the UK
 

Is it just me or does anybody else suspect overkill on most occasions when an S61N goes out on a mission to rescue a sole casualty, which seems to happen on most ocxcasions close by or on actual beaches. If these cost £5000 an hour to operate is it not expendive overkill and would not the public andtheir purse be better serves by say 5 ec135's with winches which cost around £1000 an hour to operate effectively giving five capable machines for the price of one?

The problem with most rescues is that the crew never really know what they are going to find once they get on scene. Given the amount of kit "down the back" of the average Seaking/S61/S92 in order to be prepared for most eventualities your average 135 wouldn't get off the ground. Plus, you'd still need to have the larger aircraft for the occassions when the sinking freighter with 12 crew aboard needs assistance - so now you have 6 aircraft/bases/maintenance/crewing to pay for and operate and the money will come from.......?
Unless of course this was a wind up to get Crab going in which case I'll stand well back and watch :)

Bolkow - Have you been in the sun too long? :ugh::ugh:

Either that or me thinks you are simply bored and fishing but please lets not start another SAR slanging match thread. Particularly as a quick look at your previous posts highlight that you know only too well the S61 has been replaced in the UK.

In fact it wasn't all that long ago you posted in another SAR thread (sic)

Please give it a rest.:oh::oh:

bolkow,

Just done some quite complicated maths.... are u suggesting we might have 5 SAR units for one that operates a S61... If your figures add up you have a very good point.

I am not an offshore pilot but I suspect the S61 would be the weapon of choice to anyone in a force X storm trying to rescue 3 of a small boat....

9 tonnes or 4???

MADY

Is there another way of spelling bolkow......................?

Opening gambit by Bolkow :

Yes.

I appreciate the point about having a variety of kit and going prepared for any scenario. I simply wonder if the details were looked into from most call outs, would it support that kind of apparent overkill?
I am not expressing a strong held view by myself either way, honestly, but was open to persuasion either way.

And 5 crews instead of 1, more engineers and support staff for the extra 4 aircraft and 5 times the fuel - a much bigger operating base or 5 smaller ones - the extras required to give a capability which wouldn't get used are rapidly defeating your simple maths.

How often do you think there are 5 incidents needing winching going on at one time??

In the Swansea area it is simple, if it is a land on job the air ambulance will do it - if it needs winching we will do it and although it often is one or two people we retain the capability for many more which you wouldn't have with smaller aircraft.

Australia has been operating small to medium size civilian winch and medical equipped helicopters in a combined SAR/EMS role for 30 years and it has worked very well.

Casualty numbers are usually only one or two and range is rarely an issue. Most city hospital helipads are on the roof and most country hospital pads are very close to the buildings so a large helicopter would not be much use.

Of course we don't have the problem of military SAR 'experts' bleating about how they think it should be done.

Or the problem of bruised Aussie egos when someone differs from their view point:ok:

I don't know where you get your figures from but a knackered old twin Squirrel costs over £1000 + VAT per hour on a charter.

A shiny new EC135 costing X millions plus medical crew & equipment, winch fitting (additional training costs attached) etc will be considerably more.

As there is only one view point Crab - i.e. yours - I assure you that what little ego I have is not in the slightest bruised.

why oh why...every time.....although it certainly wasn't you crab who started it this time is it possible to take the moral high ground and not rise to the bait?:ugh:

SW, my post was not intended to start another slanging match. It was intended to contribute constructively to the thread and to show that Australia has a very good civilian SAR/EMS network that works well, uses smaller machines than UK and is independent from any military SAR involvement.

If Crab choses to believe that I view him as a 'bleating military SAR expert' then that is up to him. Can't think why he should though.

Spanish - you are right I should have been more mature and just ignored it.

Or I could have highlighted that the Military have operational control over SAR helicopters in UK and that 2/3 of the SAR flts in UK are Military or that only 2 SAR flts in UK use smaller helos (and have struggled to match the capability of the larger aircraft).

Maybe then it might be clear that my opinions are not borne from ignorance or lack of experience in the SAR role and that the UK SAR environment requires something more in terms of capability than some other SAR environments might.

Does the SARH contract for the next 25 years in UK include a smaller combined HEMS/winching aircraft? Er ......No

.....now there you go - both of you managed to provide reasoned points for discussion and (almost) without lowering yourselves to the increasingly common my willy is bigger / size isn't everything debate that every other SAR thread seems to have fallen into in recent months.

If we are able to keep this thread away from the above style of rants may I be permitted to ask you, Epiphany, assuming you are in a position to know;

How are your civilian SAR/EMS network of winch equipped helos funded? Govt? charity? private finance?

How/by whom are the civilian crews trained in winch ops and what percentage if any of them are ex military?

and how do they respond to a major incident offshore or would they expect the military to assist?

Simialrly crab a few questions for you;

In your opinion have the 2 SAR flights in the UK at present using smaller helos struggled to match the capability of the larger aircraft significantly due to their size alone or has it been due to the multitude of teething problems that that particular version of the 139 has sufferred from? I appreciate the MIRG response is a size issue but even that is surmountable and not often utilised in any case.

On another thread recently, and occasionally in the media, it has been suggested that the RAF SAR helos are suffering from a lack of manpower in certain areas and therefore less able to provide the cover expected. Whilst we all could (UK MPs apart ;)) do with a bit more cash in these difficult times, is the lack of manpower a funding issue or are numbers of your brethen jumping ship (another nautical phrase for you!) due to problems closer to home/better opportunities elsewhere?

I look forward to reasoned and adult debate....maybe:)

Love your optimism SW:ok:

The figure I was using applied to costs for a fully equipped police ec135 T2+. It costs around £1000 an hour to operate, and frequenlty older aircraft that are more maintainance intensive will cost more not less.

The figure I used of five is a little crude on reflection, but even three units with the extra ancillary equipment would still work for £5000 an hour I would bet for all three.
I appreciate Crabs point that you'd rarely have a call for all three or more to be working at any given time, to my mind it seems to come down to the weight and variety of the equipment it is prudent to carry, and yes, on occasion, range. It was a genuine question on my part and not an attempt to elicit defwensive reactions from any quarter regardless of how entertaining that might be for some. Thanks for the replies thus far.

I odnt think you owuld need five times the fuel crab, comparing a sea king burn rate with an ex135? I appreciate the math was a bit too simplistic but revising the figure to three units of the smaller kind, even an ec145 would just burn 300 kgs an hour, with the ex135 around 200.