Hi again Crab. Put it this way - I know the gent who was responsible for seeking the original CAA S61 clearance when it was first used for SAROps. The risk assessment as we would call it today was perhaps not of the same focus or procedure but nonetheless allowed transitions in "poor" visbility with appropriate modifications to the cockpit and obviously a fully functional radar. The exceptions to the ANO do not permit let downs in a cluttered environment or to the same weather limits as available to the mil ac so cleared (SK, RN Merlin & Lynx). Amendments and reviews were made following the accident off the west coast when a S61 flew backwards into the water during slow speed maneouvering in the coastal domain (over 20 years ago now?). When the original UK SAR exemptions were sought the CAA was rightly appraised that this technique would be a strictly overwater technique well clear of land. From my own earlier discussions with the CAA (a few years ago) it was apparent that this was their consistent view given their then knowledge of what a civ registred SAR helo was doing (and my view of that was I was suprised what a narrow view the CAA had of what a modern SAR helo actually gets up to). They would expect any divergence or extension of their then understanding to be sought via an approriate AOC submisson by the company requiring it....ie. I would expect Soteria to do this as a matter of course - what limits emerge (and when!) is of course a point of real interest for SAR-H watchers like ourselves no doubt. As you know, the UK military perspective in effectively operating outside the ANO by descending IMC below 3000ft SA on internal aids only in the maritme domain was also assessed (even all those years ago) against the need for fully serviceable equipment (radar/AFCS) and appropriate instrumentation to allow 2 pilot monitoring/workload, malfunction scenarios and radar operation by a dedicated operator. I would assume the CAA will assess any SAR-H ACO application from a similar (but no doubt not identical) perspective. I share your concerns if this is not rigourous enough and there be a future AAIB investigation, which over a 30 year contract is sadly statistically possible!

Oh for God's sake you lot! 40 years ago the Sea King was state of the art. Now it isn't. Deal with it!

Not much progress in 40 years then!

QTG - that is exactly the point, 40 years on the replacement doesn't actually have the same (essential in my view) capability as the aged Sea King.

I know that modern autopilots allow the HP to monitor the aircraft rather than the NHP monitoring the HP but that is only valid until some parts of the system fail and you are back to square one.

Tallsar, we keep coming back to the 2 issues we knew a long time ago would be the crucial ones - radar letdowns and NVG:)

I think OTG you might follow the lead of your own acronym.....and trip yourself off given your rather unneccessary overspeed :D...perhaps the point has been missed on you --- it has little to do with the good old SK (and in that regard you might consider the recent US contract to fully Carson mod over 100 S61s!!) and more to do with achieving the best available UK SAR service.....sorry if that grinds but there it is...some of us do really care about the detail of delivering the best to UK SAR:)

Can't argue with that one Crab....:ugh: ..but the dye is cast........I feel sure that much more will emerge once the contract is signed off...and the commissioning demos begin...I am keeping my fingers crossed ( a lot!);)

Cheers