No. MRT (Comms Offr) plus defence experience (mil and contractor) plus industrial purchaser of helicopter time in remote and craggy places plus several years doing merchant marine procedures (SOLAS, MARPOL, comms).

No again. SAR is a collaborative venture. All of the team need to understand what is going on. See CAP 999, 'Ground/Maritime Emergency Servcie Personnel'. The system, as now, depends on briefing and training BEFORE the event. There are THOUSANDS of volunteers and part-time participants in UK SAR and they all need pre-trained.

At IKAR Air Commission 2012, a Norwegian member encouraged members not to fixate on the helicopter as the only rescue solution.

Gonnae no dae that TC.

Been whisked around the NW Highlands in a number of craft including 350, 365, SK, S-61 and S-92. I did notice a slight difference.

llamaman- I'm not sure what point you are trying to make regarding lifting - you seem to agree that lifting is done with the legs (not possible when you are kneeling down which is how you have to be in the cabin when it is 1.4m high).

If you are suggesting that rear crew live their lives in a 'clean and jerk' style squat and then try to shuffle around the cabin to position the casualty, you are even further off-piste!

The S-92 does fall short on the radar issue but when push comes to shove you have to make SOME compromises but a small cabin is a very poor compromise - a radar is needed on a few rescues - the cabin is used in ALL of them.

TC if I were suitably monied I would travel in a decent sized cabin (EC175 springs to mind and still sleek and fast) not lying on the floor (almost) in a 139 - choices are available;) Ask the pax who had to escape from the 139 that went down in HK Harbour how easy the cramped cabin was to escape from.

Helicopter designers design what they are told to design and try to make the manufacturing process as simple (therefore cheap) as possible - hence the 'family of 1-9s' doesn't make them good helicopters or fit for purpose though.

Unlike car manufacturers who make what their customers want, helicopter companies sell what they are prepared to produce and the customer has to like it or lump it.

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/world-asia-21226178 >

What is so special about 'this country'. The Aussies have been happily using the AW139 in a combined SAR/HEMS role for years. In fact in the past few days EMQ (civilian type chaps and chapesses) have hoisted hundreds of people from rooftops in flooded Bundaberg and elsewhere in Queensland during the worst floods in living memory. Queensland alone is 7 times the size of UK.

Oh I see....it is not quite Boscastle or NVG mountains with 360 degree radar.

Crab,

I'm much closer to the piste than you might imagine. My point was that a tall cabin is not a pre-requisite for an effective SAR cab. Your car analogy is lame; clever marketing and branding ensure that people want their products. They then price and manufacture with profit as a priority.

Are you really convinced that the nature of UK SAROPS warrants a fleet of S92s (or similar)?

LATITUDE

A lot further from the equator than the 45° used in the definition of hostile environment and extending as far north as the most northerly parts of Antartica are south. The most southerly point in Australia, since you use that example, is 39°S, with the northern equivalent latitude being Mallorca or Corfu.

SRR AREA

About 15 times the size of this tiny little country's landmass.

Adroight - our search and rescue region is 1 million square miles - we have 68 Million people and an enormous amount of coastline to look after. Add in varing environments from the North Sea to the mountainous areas of Wales and Scotland and the mobile and ever changing weather systems and the UK, as whole, presents more variations on SAR missions than most other countries.

llamaman - we don't need all S 92s since some locations won't often need the range or carrying capacity but to limit the working area in the cabin short changes both the crews and those they rescue. Someone will have to consider what aircraft they will use for ECMOs and other med transfers that require more space in the cabin - they won't get done by AA (too small) and it might mean diverting a S92 out of area - so that won't happen either.

No lesser capable a service was what was touted at the beginning, but that isn't what we are going to get, despite all the blather about faster helicopters.

Small SAR aircraft in mountain SAR regions
 

:D great idea:ugh: obviously the powers to be picking that one have never had to carry out protracted sarops using large MRT numbers. Moving them all about with limited fuel capacity & ready use dumps, is going to be fun... not!

Loads of power though with the 189, offset by the twitchy AW189 ride in turbulence, bound to give the winch man some wild rides.:ok:

Do tell us more.

I am used to being safer on the wire than in any country on earth. If that is about to change then I'd like to know all the details.

Oh JimF, do back off a bit and relax old chap:

1. You're on an aircrew forum.
2. The majority of SAR jobs don't involve MRT.
3. Even when MRT are involved, they're not part of the operating crew; not even supernumerary. Passengers with good intentions.
4. How do you think we manage to cope winching somebody off a trawler? Pitching seas and, heaven forbid, the little Frenchman hasn't done his Stage 1 drills!

Ahhhhhh, ECMO............... Don't worry about AA being too small, that is about to change in many areas. AC are being requested with a specialist fit. Bigger ac.

Crab
I liked your comment about cabin size and reference to land ambulances, using that logic can you explain why and how the air ambulances cope with their patients? Also how they justify EC135 ?

Pitot

1. OK. (ref recent ''... safer on the wire than in any country on earth" = massive respect.)
2. ACKN. (Seen all the DASA & MCA numbers.)
3. Concerned with justification for exemptions as in CAP 999 and applying to all GMESP.
4. See 3.


Train hard, fight easy.

I’m informed that originally the DofT would have preferred the single fleet of S-92s but since changed their minds on the basis of cost. The country needs to tackle the deficit and it has to come from somewhere.......perhaps too much reality for some to cope with? The bonus of a dual fleet has already been pointed out several times and is indisputable.
Crab suggested the EC175 over the AW189 after whingeing about/observing the lack cabin space in the AW189. The S-92 has a wonderful cabin but it’s not perfect either.......anyone over 6ft will not be able to stretch - in accordance with modern company health and safety policy - prior to conducting the stretcher entry. The company can’t fix this problem by merely employing folk shorter than 6ft (with properly fitted personal issue Alpha helmets) as this would be deemed positive discrimination. So we find ourselves in a less than perfect world and I like Crab feel a growing need to get hysterical!!!!!.......I just cannie take it anymore.......Oik! Oik!:}

Below are a couple of links to provide info on internal dimensions for the EC175 and AW189. The suggestion of the EC175 over the AW189 due to cabin space looks slightly flawed. I personally don’t know of a small type in existence that will allow average dimensioned people to “walk about” inside.
My main concern is that the DofT have the detail of their contracts really pinned down as they will get exactly what they pay for and that the OEMs be held properly accountable for any shortfall in spec/perf. You would also have to consider that locating a smaller aircraft near locations in the UK where there is a greater likelihood of interaction with an MRT is less than ideal. I wonder if this was even considered.
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainon...pdfs/ec175.pdf
AW189 | AgustaWestland

P.s. Anyone with close links to current civvie SAR north of the border might recognise someone in the EC175 link. The boys done good!!! Well done.:ok:

Don't Diss the Lynx
 

Crab, just because it's not an RAF type?

If you're going to land a helo on the back of a Frigate/destroyer at night, in shi**y weather, you want to be flying a Lynx - no other will do the job as well...

SARowl - the Lynx/Wildcat is the de facto choice for frigate ops - it is its usefulness in the land based role that is very limited - it is a specialised platform and the RN have only got it (Wildcat) because the Army have agreed to order so many more (with no real role other than to justify the AAC as a Corps) - the limited production run for either Lynx or Wildcat just for RN use wouldn't have been viable.

IFR piglet - if you read what I wrote, you would see I was comparing the 175/139 cabins in a VIP/corporate role in terms of headroom, not the SAR role:ugh:

I was the one who made the point about the validity of 2 fleets on this thread some time ago so I don't need reminding of it - it is a good solution providing BOTH fleets are fit for purpose.

pitotprobe - nice try at a wind-up but no-one could be that ignorant.

Cabin Height
 

IFR - Thanks for the links.

I now find myself agreeing with Crab. AW189 cabin height only 4 ft 07 in!

It's OK for HEMS but too low for SAR. Maybe AW will provide a chiropractor with each aircraft?

Cabin Dimensions:

Width 2.4 m / 7 ft 10 in
Height 1.4 m / 4 ft 07 in
Length 3.4 m / 11 ft 02 in

Re the cabin height discussion,

Has anyone asked the CHC boys at lee and portland exactly how many back injuries they have had in the last 5 years due to cabin height? As the 139 is the same 1.4m high as the 189. I would love to hear if anyone has the answer?

Too low for SAR! what information do you base that on when the 139 is being successfully used in this country by the MCA. Broad sweeping statements that are clearly utter rubbish do not justify any argument.

Based on the conversation I had about this, I get the impression that, in the 139, concerns about cabin height are somewhat overshadowed by the floor space issue.

Cabin height etc
 

Snakepit: I think maybe you and others are missing the point. It seems to me as a humble observer that crab and jimf671 both regard this stage of the SAR-H process as a vital opportunity to campaign for excellence in the service provided, rather than accepting a merely adequate solution. Once this window is closed and the new contracts are up and running the chance will have gone to change anything, and we'll all be stuck with what we get (and serve us right if it turns out to be less than ideal!)

Mr Whirly,

Thanks but I understand entirely whats at stake and the point of some peoples thoughts. I only partake to correct a few bits of blatant missinformation and gossip where I can which is fun and passes a few moments.
I haven't missed the point of crabs and others attempts to change the future or hold on to the past. Both pursuits have merit in that they demonstrate the depth of feeling and passion and I share both. However, I am a realist too and whilst it would be nice to believe that the members on this forum can alter the process because we had some magical answer that no one else can see, it just simply isn't the case.
The powers that be in the MOD as I have already said don't have the money or the will to be involved in SAR anymore and nothing will change that. As nice as it may be to believe the Seaking could solider on ad infinitum it just isn't going to happen and nor would it be cost effective. So an alternative has been sought that will provide new equipment across the board, something that the current military system cannot do and thats just a fact as much as it may be unpalatable.

Is it the best process delivering the best solution? Before you answer that I suppose you have to define "best process" and "best solution". But again though we can all banter about it all day long the process is a government one and I sure they don't give 1 hoot for our opinion and the solution they will get is the one they (the DofT) are asking for. The fact is the final bids are in already so we cannot change either the process or the outcome. So there are only 2 options left, get busy living or get busy dying.