|
Wouldn't seem that hard. Uh-60's go 155Kts and it's 35 years old and the new ones have auto hover. At the end of the day I'm not sure what a SAR aircraft needs apart from any other cargo aircraft other than a winch and some autopilot functions which is pretty basic stuff really that any production aircraft can do.
|
llamaman - the VNE for the S61 is 157 kts! Yes fatigue would be an issue but most of that comes from vibration because the Sea King has no vibration absorbers unlike the carson head which has bifilars.
Those that flew the aircraft in that configuration in the US during tests said it was v smooth at 140 kts. Shenanigans - you are right but the helicopters that are often put forward for SAR are not 'cargo' helicopters they are corporate transport. |
Multo Rapido Sea King ???????
I had the opportunity to fly the AS 61N1 Silver in 1982 and we were scooting along at 144 knots but the collective was under my armpit, the Tq was 86% (max Cont) and the thought of that horrible gearbox would be too much to bear. The CT 58's were sucking up so much fuel you could watch the gauges fall before your very eyes.
G. |
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...tage-2-sar.pdf
"The companies shortlisted to participate in competitive dialogue are: 1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd 2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd 3. CHC Scotia Ltd Each of these companies has submitted bids for each of the three Lots." |
That's a dissapointment. I was hoping NHV might get through for Lot 2 instead of all the usual bunch. This "competition" is looking less like one as each stage seems to go by.:ugh:Didn't the 139 look good last night? Lot 2 SAR by Royal Appointment - well that will suit me!;)
|
Royal AW139
An excellent aircraft for VMC transportation of Royals and business men - pity it's such a c**p SAR aircraft...
|
FT Article
|
Sorry, but I don't know how to quote! However, back in July, Thomas Coupling commented
"......but the juicy bit, the pointy endy bit, the product end is always and will always be decidied by commerce. It is the contractor that will hold the customers hand and lead them into temptation, coax them into buying 'essential' this and future proof that. The customer has no way of outwitting the contractor in this regard as they have no SME in this area. This is why one ends up with a product that is modular/common/has synergies with other areas" Actually, the MCA and DfT have recruited a team of SME's from the RAF and RN who are current operators. So they may not be as green as they are cabbage looking! |
Green cabbages?
Actually, the MCA and DfT have recruited a team of SME's from the RAF and RN who are current operators. So they may not be as green as they are cabbage looking! To keep their fat DFT salaries they will be 'yes' men, in the end it all comes down to money. |
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Mil SAR and Civ SAR were different? Surely picking up some poor chap from the bottom of a cliff is virtually the same whoever does the rescue?
Several of the gents involved are some of the most experienced folks the military have. No, they have little experience of contract law and high finance. However, they do realise when Company A states it can do a job with Aircraft B, and it will be so much cheaper, that in reality the aircraft is not suitable, practically it cannot do the task required and is therefore not Fit for Purpose and will cost shed loads more in the long run, or produce a lower level of service than currently provided. Or is that too simplistic? ps Still no idea how to quote!! |
... Surely picking up some poor chap from the bottom of a cliff is virtually the same whoever does the rescue? ... |
No vote joe - you are right to probe this corner of the universe, but still a little green behind the proverbial. Sqdn Ldr bloggs or Lt Cdr sproggins who leaves to join such outfits is better than nothing, undoubtedly, but when it comes to the juicy bit where they select the "right" aircraft, it's down to the band of lobbying contractors who have been exposed to all this time and time again. Atleast the winning team will have several in their team who have masses of commercial/legal/technical/strategic experience based on what the customer wants but biased to what the supplier needs to sell.
At the end of the day, the customer doesn't really know what they want (without being derogatory), they rely on the supplier 'advising them what is going on outside in the real world, what is good, what is bad, what is coming, what is lapsed, what the enemy have, what the politicians need. A most complex game led by some very charismatic and enabling individuals, who eventually 'hook' the client with the best interests of all concerned....you understand:rolleyes: |
JimF : Are you inferring that if a chap is picked up in Bridlington Bay then it will be paid for by a different body than if he were on the top of Flamborough Head, and hence different pressure/lobbying will be applied to these organisations?
I appreciate the Police control overland rescue and the MCA maritime rescue, but I thought it was all coming under a DfT umbrella? |
TC: Surely the DfT does know what it wants - no less of a service or capability than is provided by the Mil/Civ mix at the moment?
So if a company claims it can be done by a certain airframe, and the DfT's co opted military SMEs say "Be wary, we don't think it can" or "It may be able to technically, but it's very impractical", then the DfT should have some ammunition to fire back at the silver tongued lounge lizards and put the onus on them to prove it? Or am I still green? |
No Vote Joe
Didn't say they couldn't do the SAR job.....said they don't know the outside commercial world and as such may lumber the Nation with some Froggy plastic fantastic promise after a fine trip across the channel lashed up with shiny trinkets and lunch at some EC type place. Not to mention, over burden the commercial operator with the sort of over the top MOD dream plan, that has cost the tax payer so much and drained the coffers.;)
|
Ah, I get it now. So when you say "with the sort of over the top MOD dream plan" and the DfT say "No loss of capability, No lesser service than now", it actually means we'll get what we can afford, we'll get what we pay for, and the deficiencies will be spun away and suddenly become enhancements!
Sounds like the Mil SMEs that have been working hard for this project are really wasting their time :( |
Methinks you might be one of them too:suspect:
They are very low down in the pecking order for such a contract as this as to be almost imperceptable with the naked eye:ouch: Contracts like this incorporate numerous strategic inputs: have the successful incumbents got a good track record in this line of work? Will they deliver? Can they guarantee spares? Are they robust enough in the eyes of the CAA/EASA? Is the airframe futureproof? Will there be work for the british unemployed? Is the deal for 20 x EcSH1392's a good long term deal? Can the public pay for it on favourable lease terms? On and on and on...None of which can be answered by several hairy ex pussers or crabs who know nothing else but to drive them! Look at the previous lesson to show you what I mean: Would the average SME recommend CHC after the SARH debacle. Surely their "advice" to the DfT/MCA would be: "Don't trust these guys". Yet...who is on the short list for a second bite at the cherry??? And who will NOT be persecuted in any shape or form for what happened last time: CHC. It's not what you know old boy...it's WHO YOU KNOW and how they develop that relationship (short of corruption). Look around you - show me a MoD/McA/DfT/government contract that's gone smoothly and I'll show you a contract where the SME's have been listened to!!! Enjoy your SME'ing............................and welcome to the tribe:suspect: |
"Contracts like this incorporate numerous strategic inputs"
Damn right they do; this is someone else (the government) spending my money. If all NHS contracts were decided by a panel of nurses, and all policing contracts were let by plods, and squaddies decided how many regiments there would be, and motorists who drove the most miles in a year made the decisions on where new motorways would be built, who would look after my interests as a taxpayer? No government-funded services should be perfect, they should all be adequate and cost-effective, and insiders don’t vote for either. |
"Methinks you might be one of them too"
Not me, but I know a man who can!! :ok: |
The SMEs have a very limited remit - they have to confirm that the claims made by the contractor about the aircraft's performance and equipment are backed up with appropriate factual documentation (the RFM generally) and that said factual information is included in the bid.
I think there is only one aircraft type actually in the running as it has already proved itself at 2 MCA flts (and I'm not talking about the 139;)) and all the bidders have offered it. At the point where we have to concern ourselves where the casualty is and who will pay before rescuing him will be the point at which UKSAR ceases to be the world-leading organisation it has been for so many years and the point where all the concerns about privatising SAR come true - let us hope it never gets to that! |
Are you inferring that if a chap is picked up in Bridlington Bay then it will be paid for by a different body than if he were on the top of Flamborough Head, and hence different pressure/lobbying will be applied to these organisations? I appreciate the Police control overland rescue and the MCA maritime rescue, but I thought it was all coming under a DfT umbrella? As far as I can tell, the Future Coastguard programme has considered a 2 MOC (Maritime Operations Centre) solution and has moved on to a single MOC solution. At the same time, the DfT documents for the SAR Helicopter Service contract process are written as though the ARCC does not exist and persons not distant from the situation increasingly talk sadly of ARCC closing and being absorbed into the MOC. Many will remember the previous regime of 2 ARCC, north and south. Many will also have a sound grasp of the principal of redundancy in important systems. Rather than grasping the benefits of placing important centres for emergency response in smaller communities full of self-reliant people, and creating redundancy with two main centres, the current path appears to favour pulling everything into a single site between sprawling conurbations near Coastguard HQ. If somebody said to me that we should have combined (Air-Maritime) operations centres in say Peterhead and Falmouth then I'd consider that to be more strategically worthwhile, though for those who think strategic is about gongs and budgets it will make no sense whatsoever. The police are nowhere in all this. It's mainly their problem (50 to 70% of jobs are Land SAR), but unification in Scotland, NPAS and Olympics and relations with News International in England, along with a raft of lesser self-indulgences, mean that they have taken their eye off the ball. They will wake up one day and discover that they are on somebody's front page for all the wrong reasons. A Sheriff or Coroner will have pointed out the error of their ways, and while they were sleeping, someone stole all the tools they need to fix it. All the MOU in the world won't dig them out of the hole they are making for themselves. |
Reshuffle
Looks like there may be 2 ministerial changes at Transport. The old team were all SE-rail-season-ticket-clones aligned to the DfT's role as the successor to British Rail.
Is it too late to influence SAR? The worst that could happen now is more rail obsessives, followed by a set of Heathrow obsessives. Please Prime Minister, can we have some people who understand real life across the whole country? David Laws? Whoa! No, not looking likely right now. |
Private finance?
|
Leopold can you paste the detail for those of us too tight to subscribe to the website?:ok:
|
Extract
Here it is:
AgustaWestland is in talks with the Department of Business for financial support that would see the British defence division of the Anglo-Italian aerospace group transformed into one of the world’s foremost civil helicopter design and manufacturing centres. It is understood that the Yeovil-based contractor is close to a deal worth tens of millions of pounds from the Regional Growth Fund. That money would help to set up a production line for the AW189, which AgustaWestland hopes will be chosen by the Department for Transport for Britain’s search and rescue fleet to replace the Sea King — and then become a significant export product to the global oil and gas industry. The funding will also help Yeovil to become a centre for state-of-the-art fly-by-wire helicopter avionics and for the sprawling south Somerset facility to become the global centre for the development of its AW609 “tilt-rotor” aircraft, which can take off and land like a helicopter but fly faster and further as a fixed-wing aeroplane. Such technologies in time would be likely to make Yeovil a centre for the future development of helicopter drones, unmanned air vehicles that the Ministry of Defence will be ordering in the next decade. Such developments would not only sustain 3,500 jobs at Yeovil but also potentially create a further 1,500 directly employed or in the supply chain, including at AgustaWestland’s new hub in Newquay. “The next six months could change things dramatically for us,” Graham Cole, AgustaWestland’s UK chairman, said. “They are absolutely critical.” AgustaWestland in the UK is having to migrate its traditional defence business — Merlin, Sea King, Apache and Lynx helicopters — because it has been told by the MoD that it will not be ordering any helicopters for the next ten years. AgustaWestland will have delivered its final order for 62 Wildcats to the UK Armed Forces by 2016. The mountain and sea search and rescue order for up to 24 helicopters — the Department for Transport’s decision is expected in the next six months — will pitch the AW189 against America’s Sikorsky. For AgustaWestland, however, the contract is seen as a springboard for a potentially huge export market. The separate decision on financial support from the Regional Growth Fund is expected by the end of this month. Support from the fund would offer some historical irony. The chairman of the body overseeing the regional growth initiative is Lord Heseltine, who caused a schism in the Conservative Party over the future of Westland in the Eighties. The developments at AgustaWestland, which is owned by Finmeccanica, of Italy, are being watched amid the biggest shake-up of the British defence and aerospace industry in years — BAE Systems is attempting to merge with EADS, the owner of Eurocopter, a competitor to AgustaWestland. Publicly, AgustaWestland is declining to comment on the merger. Privately, it was irked by comments made by Liam Fox, the former defence secretary, who asserted last week that AgustaWestland “has always been at the margins for Finmeccanica” and that it should consider whether it, too, joins a merged EADS-BAE. A company spokesman said: “AgustaWestland is the jewel in the crown of Finmeccanica. It is absolutely not at the margins.” Joe Conway, trade union convenor for Unite at AgustaWestland, told The Times that new orders and funding would be “make or break” for Yeovil. “It will be the difference between this place being a global centre in helicopters or becoming just an overhaul and repair business,” he said. |
Ive heard the first of Bristow's new SAR S-92's has rolled off the production line and is now undergoing Flight tests. :cool:
|
|
On the face of it, the TUPE regulations look like they should apply to military personnel at the existing SAR bases as well as the civilians at the 4 CG bases.
|
Nice one Crab you put a smile on my face on this cold wet Monday Morning :D
|
Optimistic Crab strikes...
Ha ha, I also LMAO at that one. Sounds like he is going over to the dark side...civilian? Hope he takes his boarding school allowance and golden military pension scheme.:D
|
TUPE is a two way street remember. It might afford you a shot at the 'new' position but you'd lose your private school allowances for starters. You'd probably be taken on at your current salaries too :=
|
True and since no employer would take on the golden military pension it is very very unlikely to occur, however - don't ask don't get.
If we got taken on at our present salaries it would still be better than what is likely to be offered given the minimum experience requirements for co-pilots, winch ops and winchmen: 750 hours (no twin time required) for co-pilots; 1 year SAR experience for winch ops and 3 months (yes 3 months) SAR experience for winchmen!!! It certainly won't be a seamless transition with those pitiful levels of experience but it will be a cheap one. One can only wonder how a minimum experience crew would cope with the sort of job that a Valley crew had last weekend - NVG hover in a deep gorge with all 245 feet of cable out winching through the tree canopy - either stuff like that just won't get done or crews will get injured trying because they don't have the experience or training. DfT need to put pressure on the contractor to take a large proportion of those mil crews that want to come across in the locations they are currently based. That way you get local knowledge and lots of experience and ability. |
Experience
Crab...none of the current Civ crews would disagree with you on those pitiful experience levels. Driven by management bean counters and those weak minded Government types(easily swayed by the wave of the 'force hand'), in an attempt to allow low time experience an hence 'cheaper' crew members.:ugh:
Pensions... don't ask, you won't get anything like that. With the amount of lights on the modern SAR cabs, having to hover on the goggles is not an issue. Good transit aid though. |
Quote: 1 year SAR experience for winch ops and 3 months (yes 3 months) SAR experience for winchmen!!!
Enlighten me. How much SAR experience to military winch ops and winchmen have when they first go on operations? |
How much SAR experience to [sic] military winch ops and winchmen have when they first go on operations? |
... and obviously civilian operators will try to crew all the inexperienced guys together and give them less than average training. Come on.
|
The difference is that a first tourist winchman or winch op will have completed at least 3 months at SARTU and then another 9 months on the OCU before completing squadron acceptance and then going on shift.
Additionally, our percentage of 1st tourists is about 10 per cent of the front line since the OCU only puts out a maximum of 2 courses per year. Many of our recent 1st tourists are ex SH with lots of helicopter experience. The DfT matrix doesn't specify any previous helicopter experience requirements for the winch ops or winchmen. The training allowance is to be 50 hours per month for the whole flight - we would give 30 to 40 hours just to the new boy out of the 120 hours per month we are allocated. Someone in DfT doesn't understand how important the co-pilot is on a SAROP if they are willing to accept no twin time and no SAR time - that is ridiculous. The best option is still to take the experienced mil crews and give them a type rating. NRDK - sometimes the only option is an NVG hover - no matter how good your lights are (and ours are pretty good) - it is sweeping statements like yours that show lack of understanding of modern night SAROps. If you saw the tight valley, surrounded by big wires that they had to operate in you might think better of dismissing NVG as a 'good transit aid'. And btw it was an LCR radop on that job. |
The difference is that a first tourist winchman or winch op will have completed at least 3 months at SARTU and then another 9 months on the OCU Additionally, our percentage of 1st tourists is about 10 per cent. |
Manchester - your lack of understanding of the role of the winchman is stunning, and also very worrying. The are an integral part of the crew, aid in navigation, clearances (he is the PRIMARY safety guy going into CA's), as well as his primary role. That you display such a blinkered and naiive view is frightening, and another reason why those in the military who do this most demanding job day in and day out need to be worried. If people with your uninformed and incorrect view are in a position to dictate policy or recruitment requirements, then lives will be lost.
I do not expect a reasoned reply, but would be absolutely delighted if you could prove me wrong. By the way, I am not a winchman, but have had my life and my aircraft saved by them on many occasions. I am so glad I don't live in your world. baldeep (7000+ hrs, 1000+ rescues) |
... and did you have 7000 hours before you were allowed to go operational , or did you have decent training, no experience and get crewed with experienced people who taught you on the job?
The key question is what is the minimum experience for a winchman? Crab and I agree that 1 year is fair for winch ops. My contention is that 3 months is adequate for a winchman given decent training, a "mentor" crew and a highly experienced crewroom. Neither of us can prove the other wrong. All we can do is to apply experience and make a best guess. I've given you mine, now show me yours! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.