Well that is certainly a set of sweeping generalisations Jim.

Granted the Sea King had its problems with serviceability on occasions during the last 30 years but lets see what the new shiny aircraft do when all their flights are up and running and coping with 2 - 300 jobs a year.

You conveniently forget that until a few years ago, the Mil SAR Flights held a full second standby, aircraft and crew, at RS 60 - will we ever see that capability in this contract? Not a chance. Yes, sometimes its availability was limited by aircraft serviceability but the stats will show a very high percentage in its favour.

I don't know which resources you think were 'diverted' to war-fighting but it wasn't aircraft or crews since any deployments of personnel were managed without compromising UKSAR.

If by poor comms you mean HF - that is valid but we seem to have got the job done with it and it is unlikely that the new contract would have Airwave had it not been used and proven extensively on milsar.

Presumably by poor contract specification you are talking purely about civsar - perhaps the introduction of the 139 when it had inadequate lighting and no cleared overwater SAR modes, yet was declared ready for 24-hour ops.

As for absence or late introduction of critical role equipment - do please clarify.

Hang on Crab,

Couple of issues with what you've asserted there.

How will civ flights manage serviceability with 2-300 jobs a year? Well given half are S92 flights and since that types introduction in 2007 the average rate was above 98%, which no mil SAR flight was managing despite often there being more than one spare airframe per asset. Civ SAR managed with only a single spare per base and will continue to do so, also only 2 engineers per duty, the norm for many many years.

UKSAR was definitely compromised in the latter years, flights having only a single rear crew member on board and unavailable for winching due to staff shortage to support the front line. Yes, it happened.

Not having a go, you raise many valid points but those mentioned required clarification.

Fair points Hedski, especially on the short-lived 3 man crew situation which was a result of the OCU being underresourced for a while.

As for the aircraft availability rate - I think 98% is what is in the contract but none of the civsar flights (up to now) have had to deal with the flying rate of Prestwick, Valley or Chivenor, all of which regularly top 300 jobs per year.

Out of interest, I believe the 3A fleet were managing 98%, but maybe that was just Chivenor (the best SAR flight in the UK, but only until the end of next month):ok:

However, as has been highlighted, we won't know how it is going on the front line in the new service because the MCA just don't publish that sort of info and, once the ARRCK closes, I will be surprised if there is a version of the RCS from the new MOCC.

Crab, I think you'll find Lee On Sea gets more than 300. Stornoway about 200 but more hrs due to longer flights.
I must say I would be worry as to how the 189 does, anything with Westland in its name worrys me. They should have stayed with garage doors where they can do little harm.;)

Not meant to be a lecture.

I wanted to list a number of major influences from those of the distant past through to recent problems that take us to where we are now (without writing 3000 words about technical detail).

Meanwhile ...
... but that continued evolution may be where we can have the greatest influence rather than the minutiae of implementation glitches. For instance, I am keen that we leave the DfT and MCA Aviation in no doubt about the effectiveness of existing and previous incarnations of ARCC so that the new ARCC becomes a highly effective tool in the SAR toolbox. Also, the work of DASA/DefenceEconomics in recording the work of milSAR over the years has been outstanding in many ways. There is no equivalent service without equivalent reporting: and anyway, how else would we know whether it is equivalent?


As above: I wanted to list a number of major influences from those of the distant past through to recent problems that take us to where we are now ...


Availability. Covered by others.

Not forgotten about second standby. Flew in 135 and 138 often enough. See "reduced numbers of aircraft in some flights". Rather than some great plan for surge coverage (although it may have served that purpose on some occasions), I expect that second standby was an anachronism with its roots in a time before your day or mine when aircraft fell out of the air quite routinely.

"resources diverted to war-fighting". I have no comment at this time.

Poor comms refers almost entirely to previous incarnations of civSAR: now fixed. (HF, though not what the playstation generation would think of as reliable, has a kind of resilience that other options cannot emulate. Airwave's usefulness varies across the country and is linked to population, infrastructure and topography. Some flights might only use it for ordering a takeaway during the flight home. :oh:)

Poor contract specification refers to the decades of shabby Coastguard/DETR/DfT SAR helicopter contracts with no competent technical specification.

"absence or late introduction of critical role equipment" Where SAR Force led, others sometimes followed, sometimes ridiculously slowly and sometimes not at all.


What has been described to me is as follows. The Coastguard have a computer command and control system called Vision. A new computer command and control system has been in development specially for ARCC Fareham called AeroVision. It takes the essential elements of Vision and adds aviation elements including the essential elements of RCS.

.

Don't hold your breath. It's one thing replacing aviation specialists (the military) with aviation specialists (Bristow). Transferring the ARCC to the MCA is the forgotten last piece of the puzzle, attempting to embed the niche specialisation of the ARCC within the maritime-heavy environs of the MCA is not without it's challenges. You pay peanuts etc....

Let's hope Aerovision is a better system than their search box program which often gives ridiculous results in coastal waters since it is only designed for open water.

Does that stop them rigidly applying what the computer says and wasting valuable assets in pointless areas? No, of course not - we are back to that 'pay peanuts' thing again.

...but what the civ flts haven't been doing is 4 hours' training a day as well as all these jobs. Given that Bristow will also be doing less training flying than the mil units, it will not be possible to make a valid comparison of how the new aircraft serviceability compares to the Sea King, even once the Bristow SAR empire is in steady state.

But does any of this really matter? Probably not...

Crab says I had the pleasure of 'liaising with and advising' our CG brethren on far too many occasions, after computers had replaced that misguided and redundant 'local knowledge' from the sector stations.

One case that stands out above all others in my mind was the occasion a 12ft speedboat ran out of fuel 2 miles off Borth (mid Wales) at last light. Because the numerous search assets (Brawdy 1st standby SK, Nimrod, three Lifeboats and a fast fishing boat failed to find it during the night, by dawn the Nimrod (second or even third sortie) was searching off the Isle of Man - a good 90+ miles away. My crew was called in early to replace our 1st S'by (who'd been tasked with a coastal search from St Davids to Anglesey throughout the hours of darkness) and we found the missing craft within the hour, with its three cold but unharmed teenage occupants (no light, no radio, no flares) in the early dawn, 20 miles or so downwind from where it had launched. I had decided to ignore the ridiculously expanded search area that the computer said we should search and which was passed to us by Milford Haven CG. The response from the three ringer in charge at MHCG when I called in to explain the next day was "but surely, how was it missed, Nimrods can find a needle in a haystack"!

Anyone remember that advert? :ugh:

G-CILN and G-CILP (AW139) arrived at St Athan last night just as the sun went down.

One month work-up.

Only one base to start up in this round. Catch-up time?



A thought for Boulmer.

Any news on the 189? I see on another thread a debate over whether it will meet the Falklands contract timeline too. Don't imagine a 139 is ideal in that part of the world but I guess time will tell....

No worry about Tetra either
FeaturesDetails

Spanish Waltzer

1st FI AW189 is on the AW Flight Line for final fit and post production flight tests. Acceptance starts in 30 days.

Belgian Navy NH 90 SAR Cab busy in British Waters.

Belgian NH90 First SAR Mission - Helicopter Database

Only because the Lydd AW139 was conducting a winch of a patient from a yacht at that time. Can't be in two places at once.

No, that's why we used to have 3 flights on the East coast instead of 2 ridiculously far apart! And, not that many years ago, a second standby aircraft and crew.

Progress and faster helicopters make all the difference apparently...........lies, damn lies and statistics!

From the article shame we didn't think of that!

Only three flights?
 

Lossie, Leuchars, Boulmer, Leconfield, Coltishall and Manston I seem to recall - and all with a second standby :ok:

I was just harking back to the good old days - you are talking about the good old, good old days:ok:

Unless you are Crab@ of course....

ah yes, that was prior to the last round of improvements! :E

Flight: Bristow still waiting on AW189 SAR introduction

I/C

Nobody saw that coming.............

Yes it's certainly a problem that mil SAR has never had within living memory - since of course they haven't introduced any new aircraft in the past 40 odd years.

I don't think we ever lost a job through not having full ice protection so it would seem a bit of an over kill - that was up in the frozen north. What limited icing capability does the 189 have? Probably more than enough to achieve the goal.

Yes, 189 with LIPS will be more capable than SK in icing conditions. I expect deiced a/c to be able to enter some mountain locations with considerably more confidence than in the past. Trip to Raigmore across the NW or return to base becomes simpler by just going up and over rather than long trip round Ardnamurchan or Durness or hours of hover taxi in a blizzard.

Time to hospital - tick the box.

Availability for next job - tick the box.

So you'll be able to tell us what the ice accretion limits on the airframe/Torque limits in icing conditions are then.

It's not just the rotor icing up that is the problem and just because you can control the shedding from the rotors doesn't mean you can fly safely in those conditions.

I know of 2 occasions (at least) where a Sea King was only saved by breaking cloud due to airframe ice accumulation - the rotor shedding was a minor irritation compared to doubling the AUM of the aircraft with ice.

Will they be able to fly in freezing rain or drizzle?????????? Don't think so for the same reasons.

doubling the AUM
 

[QUOTE]was a minor irritation compared to doubling the AUM of the aircraft with ice/QUOTE]

WOW, that was a hack of an ice storm, you would have been flying in there for a month!

P.S. Freezing rain or drizzle are not covered by any certification rule, there are no rotorcraft capable of that in the entire world.

No, really????:rolleyes:

Doubling the AUM was just an indication that there wasn't enough power to keep the aircraft airborne with all the ice - it wasn't meant to be literal.

It seems that the 189 will not be flying SAR for sometime.

HeliHub Bristow UK to import four more SAR S92s in place of AW189s

Margins - I see that you are relatively new to this thread. The rules is that when someone posts something positive about Bristow UK SAR Crab counters it with a negative. When his negative post is questioned by someone with accurate or more factual information Crab posts lots of smilies and condescendingly explains that he was merely being sarcastic or ironic and that it was not meant to be literal.

Stick around for a while - you'll get the drift.

Same again - so you really think I didn't know that freezing rain and drizzle isn't included in the icing certification?

If I post something negative it is usually to counter a false or over-inflated positive. Jim doesn't understand that popping up into and dropping back out of cloud overland isn't that simple, especially in the mountains.

The fact is that the extra icing clearance above what the Sea King had will make a very small difference - if you are trying to get to a hospital IFR you still have to find some way of getting down - that takes time and then you still have to grope around underneath to get from the ILS/letdown point to the hospital.

Perhaps you would like to put some positive spin on how the 189 is so late for SAR service and the contract spec isn't being made.

Or are you too busy sniping at me to offer any real contribution?

Oh Crab... you disappoint me - I was merely being humorous :ok:;):}:8

He is right of course, the let down will always be challenging unless the hospital/landing site is adjacent to an airport. Even Raigmore and ARI with relatively close airports will provide quite a challenge and then what do you do when you don't get visual at DA on the ILS? Go out to sea and let down? May have been better to come all the way at 100' on goggles...

You must have caught me in a shy and sensitive moment:)

I think I might frame that comment from this august thread - and no I don't mean the month:ok:

I am certain that the SAR Dep Ch Pilot who I recently discussed this with has a good grasp of this subject Crab. Anyway, Raigmore ~100' ASL and minutes from large sea area. Several other Scottish hosp similar.

Then he will doubtless have told you that an IMC overwater letdown isn't a rapid process. You then have to deal with the conditions underneath as you coast back in which may be very different to what you left in the hills, possibly much worse.

Yes, a better icing clearance is welcome but it isn't a panacea for dealing with poor weather in the hills (or anywhere else). You still have to get to the job in the first place and I don't see them doing IMC letdowns into the mountains no matter how clever the aircraft is.

Will they be flying if there is a triggered lightning risk declared?

No. That's why we get paid lots of money. To make the right decisions.

In less than a week the last UK RAF SAR flights are due to close and an enormous gap in coverage opens up on the east coast. At the start of this process the DfT were gullible enough to be taken in by the ruse that Prestwick’s new aircraft and its ability to charge west to east across the country through icing conditions would compensate for the loss of Boulmer’s SAR cab. Yet for the next three months Prestwick won’t have a new SAR cab and when they do, questions still remain about airframe icing and its potential impact on an aircraft attempting such a transit. Were large super-cooled droplets not part of the discussion some time ago? As I recall the icing clearance was based upon the aircraft not flying through large super-cooled droplets. How one judges that whilst airborne is beyond me. Now we have this lightning risk threat thrown in to the equation. Notwithstanding the distance involved, it sounds to me as though Prestwick’s ability to cover Boulmer’s patch is not what was advertised. Sadly it is going to take an unspeakable tragedy of some sort for the DfT to realise the folly of this decision. When Humberside go u/s, which they will at some point, east coast SAR coverage is non-existent. Who in their right minds thinks that this is a good idea?

everyone except you and me it would seem :ugh:

that depends if you think triggered lightning is a real risk inland or not - are you going to make your go/no go decision based on an unproven forecast? It is certainly not predicted with as good a certainty as frezzing rain/drizzle and SAROPS have been conducted many times in conditions which 'theoretically' could have induced triggered lightning.

Nobody is suggesting IMC letdowns over mountains.

The distances involved in many of the alternatives in a Highland context make the time and care required for a safe letdown over the Moray Firth a reasonable approach.

Regarding the Inverness to Humberside gap, I do agree that it is a potential problem. I do not think that means that the 10 base solution is deeply flawed. I think that the 10 base solution is generally a good element of the first entirely plan SAR helicopter service for the UK.

The Inverness solution is good for me and very good for my team. However, particularly with my marine/offshore hat on, this part of the Bristow version of the 10 base solution may be stretching the concept a little too far.

Crab. I know you know and have worked with many of the guys and girls who are now out there doing it in CG-Bristow aircraft. Why don't you give them a ring and get the proper gen? Are they not speaking to you?