I am pretty sure that registraion along with I-RAIQ are temporary registrations issued to newly produced AW aircraft.

Both registrations feature on numerous airframes.

Presumably, this tip is from the post by Vermeer on scramble.nl, dated 27th October 2014. (I-EASS is definitely an AW temporary that has appeared on other 139s.)

Vermeer also lists three AW189 in his spotting report which, unfortunately, is an indicator for him knowing the difference and I-EASS indeed being a 139.

So, if we therefore assume that it is a correct type identification, what possible reasons could there be for new production of such a 139 other than Plan B2 (B1 = S-92) being in operation to accommodate AW189 lateness on the MAIN contract for the UK SAR Helicopter Service?

- Incorrect identification of the colour scheme and branding by Vermeer
-
-
-
-

Please fill in the blanks.

That SAR Chap - thank you:ok:

Bristow had previously said in its financial briefings on SAR-H that if the AW189 was not ready, AW139s could stand in temporarily.

Where are they going to magic a bunch of UKSAR spec 139s from though?

see post 1213 ^^^^^^!

Well they are going to need up to 8 to cover Inverness, Manston, St Athan and Prestwick next year - any spotters seen that many??

I can't say that I have seen any 139's... But I have seen another Coastguard 189 at Norwich :ok:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7544/...48da28_c_d.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5606/...0c5399_c_d.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7582/...40c332_c_d.jpg

Nice work MATE! :ok:

I note with considerable interest the detailed working items fitted on this aircraft and not on PT5 (I-PTFF). Also that it carries a registration that is a known AW temporary pre-delivery reg. The first aircraft production is known to be an Italian build.





Anyone seen certification?

So the Italians have built one SAR Cab, it is now down to AW's UK plant to build the rest!

Has it been decided what the colour scheme will be for the civil SAR? Will it just be the Coastguard one? It is pretty important that the public can recognise it quickly when they might otherwise expect a yellow one!
mmitch.

O & W,
I think that it's the W in the AW that might be the problem. I hope they have changed there ways from the days when the MoD fed them royaly. Not only in producing the goods but also the spares backup. Fingers crossed on that one.
MMitch,
I don't think the colour will matter much if you wanting help. It didn't seem to be a problem at Lee or Portland. I guess in Scotland there was plenty of news items when the 'new' coastguard service started many years ago.
Also there have been a number of programs on TV where the colours of all the services have been well aired. I would say not a problem.

A Question....Considering that the new helicopters are going to be carrying out rescues in the mountains, seas, disasters overland. Is the new service still going to be known as Coastguard Rescue Helicopters or something else?

I might have missed this answer way back in this thread..

The photos at the top of this page offer a bit of a clue.

Or grey and red.

Even we Antipodeans know that UK SAR has had colours other than yellow for many, many decades :hmm:

Just nowhere near as many aircraft as the yellow ones;);)

Careful, crab@. We had lots more than you, once upon a time....

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/1...d+Fly+Navy.jpg

Nice one John.:D:D
3D

'FLYNAV'

I don'geddit... :rolleyes:

I wasn't asking about colour, and the Coastguard is an organisation which does what it says on the box. Guards the coast, are they going to still hold the title of coastguard helicopters even though less than half of all rescues will be over sea!

it's back to the days when we had a Navigator in the LHS and used to let them have a clutch now and again;)

HMCG is the new owner of all UK SAR helicopters with Bristow being the contracted operator on their behalf. The scheme you see on the AW189 above will be standard (as is already the case at Stornoway, Sumburgh, Lee and Portland) on the AW189 and S92 aircraft across all 10 UK SAR bases. Any logic to do with over water or land operations is not applicable.

I think you are getting the picture. I do not find it to be a pretty picture. Some assure me that it's OK because currently the old sailor's home is run by a carrier guy. I shall need some convincing.

Thanks jimf671, I was just curious.

Does that mean the Coastguard will be co-coordinating the helicopters instead of the ARCC?

No, all SAR helo call outs remain with the ARCC as is the case today.

NO.

ARCC maintain their current role.

What the future physical and organisational location of the ARCC will be is another question. Since it is currently in the hands of those who understand aeronautics, rescue and control, and is located in a community where the issues are widely understood, I am not a fan of change. If we were changing to the Norwegian JRCC model then change might be worthwhile but I don't think that's on the table or even within the intellectual range of those influencing this.

The Coastguard control the brand and are the customer. They are currently controlling information about the implementation of the new service. The level of control tends to be a matter for concern for SAR partner agencies who require reassurance about capability and the manner of collaborative working.

And, worryingly, these are the same guys who think less CG stations with a big centralised blob of a comms centre is the way forward - that didn't work very well for the Fire Service did it?

In response to the above the ARCC will continue to serve its purpose with the RAF, however the plans are for the MCA, specifically HM Coastguard, to take over this function for civil search and rescue. The RAF will continue to coordinate the response into military search and rescue.

Therefor, the MCA will be responsible for tasking their own helicopters.

They have always been able to task their own helicopters locally but nationally it has been co-ordinated by the ARCCK - having one do civil and the other military is a complete nonsense.

Cost effectiveness?
 

Roughly how many military search and rescue incidents occur each year? Can't be many, is it really a cost-effective proposal to retain all of the facilities and personnel of the ARCC at Kinloss if that is the case?:confused:

That WAS the case however the S92's under Bristow in the North of Scotland take their tastings from the ARCC. (Coastguard request scramble of a/c from ARCC)

Likewise with the CHC fir on the south coast, they take their taskings from ARCC now.

Ops normals are conducted through the ARCC on HF or Airwaves.

The CG assets were (for about the last 10 years) supposed to be tasked through the ARCCK but could self task within 30 nm of their CG MRCC and then advise the ARCCK.

The same happens with many mil units, the local CG give you a heads-up and then phone the ARCCK to get them to officially task you.

As Leopold says, there are so few military SAR jobs nowadays, it makes no sense to have separate tasking authorities.

Correct, but this is no longer the case. This stopped from a about the time that Bristows took over the S92's at Sumburgh and Stornoway.

They will only accept a tasking from ARCC. The scramble lines that the CG used to use stopped and was taken over by the ARCC.

My recollection, having been at ARCC on that day, is that CG independent tasking of their SAR aircraft, and Nimrod ops, ended on the same day. 31st March 2010.

AW189 delays mean Bristow will fly AW139 on UK Coastguard contract | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source :ugh:

189 Delay
 

A new type late into service, what a surprise.:ugh:

Does anyone know when the CHC machines wrap up their operations?

2 x Bristow AW189 to take over at Lee 1st April 2017.

Portland end service 30th June 2017.

Strange how TUPE seems to apply to those guys but not the military................

ARCC
 

Back to the point, can someone confirm, or not, that ARCC will task and coordinate the new service?:\