heli1

Correct. It was here to be displayed at the P&J Energy Ball at the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre on 4 October and is now on its way back to Italy.

It was in Aberdeen last year for the same event in Bristow colours.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/...b0926e01_z.jpg

Large

Captioned as EGPD. 2nd Oct 2014.

What's going on with the red paint? It looks like this is a temporary paint wrap that has seen a bit of rain and is starting to peel, but I have a hard time imagining that this is what was delivered. Any insight?

This is PT5 and not a production aircraft. It is rumoured to have recently been fitted with a partial implementation of the SAR long range fuel tank. This appears to be taken at Bristow at Dyce.

Quite a few of coats of paint on I-PTFF in the last two years!

That's one hell of a snout

Isn’t it just.

Flaps, Ziggy and Dizzy come to mind.

'That's one hell of a snout'

I heard that it is designed to bring the CG more forward.

That cabin is tiny. They've got to be kidding.

http://www.centurynovelty.com/catIma...ms/179-047.jpg

Whadd'ya mean "That cabin is tiny", compared to what?

I can't agree that the cabin is tiny. You can get 2 stretchers in either lengthways or across the cabin, with space between them to allow IEC to be delivered. Granted the height is always going to be an issue, but it is worth noting that is both longer and wider than a 139.

Pictures can be deceiving.
 

The cabin looks smaller in this picture than up close.
The 189 has a good size cabin and is noticeably larger than the 139.
Okay so you can't have a game of badminton in the back as some people would expect but after the initial problematic period that will no doubt plague the 189 as in most new types this could be a good aircraft.

It's not a SK and no matter how much you slate it it will never be a SK but it's what will be doing the job for the future so get used to it.

Perhaps you could explain where the first response bag, the second response bag, the casualty monitoring system, the defibrillator, the crew's kit bags, the paediatric bag, the smokes, the hi-lines, the life jackets, the chocks, the NVGs, the aircraft documents, the maps, the camera, the medical gloves, the torches (small and large), the spare oxygen, the entonox, the thermal blankets, the body bags, the winching kit, the restraint equipment, the spare winching kit, the rescue strops, the child rescue valise, the splints, the KED and much more besides are going to be stowed (and immediately accessible) along with those two stretchers on the floor.

In the same place as the SAR 139 perhaps.

Trouble is, there appears to be a bank of 4 seats and a bulkhead in the way. Blind faith will only get you so far. Sooner or later you have to confront the reality that it's too darn small and kit will have to be sacrificed and when that happens, the 'no lesser service' principle falls apart.


By the way, I should have said, all that kit needs to be stowed somewhere where it won't get wet when you bring a casualty on board during wet winching.

I believe that the rear seats in the SAR variant are different - as has already been stated the picture does not show a SAR variant, it is one of the prototypes in CG colours. The bulkhead is not there in the SAR variant and as Jeepys said, it will be very similar to the AW139.

Docs and maps will be in the centre console where the pilots can access them (not visible in the pic above).

I don't believe there would be anything stored on the floor.

I think we get it that you don't like the aircraft.
The photo, as has already been pointed out, is of a prototype it was in the hangar being prepared for a static display, hence no hoist at this point. BTW only took a few minutes to fit.

The cabin is the O&G version mocked up for the SAR, it has the wrong seats, a bulkhead and no sea tray. All will be different in production.

Sadly no has developed a CH47 cabin with the footprint and down wash of a R22 yet. So there will always be a compromise somewhere.

The comments you make are correct about what you see but this is not a SAR AW189.

The reality is that the AW189 rear cabin is identical in volume to the Pavehawk (without the long range tanks that often sit in the back of the Pavehawk cabin). The differences are that the AW189 cabin has a bulkhead behind the pilots (Why?), is a little bit shorter and a little bit wider, and has a storage area with stretchers and med kit to the centre-rear of the main cabin.

There are four seats across the front and four across the rear. There are two rear-crew and the contracted "Standard MRT Load" is six MRT plus their rucksacks and a pile of other gear, even hot, high and fueled-up.

Of course, that is not an equivalent service. If it was an equivalent service then there would be about ten seats and you could only fill three of them when fueled-up at ISA and 3000'. And of course you would need fuel leaks, electrical fires, an HF aerial in the way of the door, rotor brake failures and a single winch as well.

=====================

I have a few concerns about the new service but most of them do not centre on the aircraft specs.

- The customer (DfT/MCA) skill set is not appropriate for a 70+% Land SAR service.
- The award price is 20% less than the low end of the contract notice estimate in spite of the number of aircraft now being specified at over 50% more than that originally envisaged. And of course more than 20% less than an incumbent.
- Rear-crew remuneration is not sufficient to realise the stated aim of harvesting the skills of the practitioners in the current service.
- There are indications that rear-crew regulatory supervision is grossly inadequate.
- The MCA-enforced shutthef3ckup training and rules prevent contractor collaboration with SAR partners and incumbent providers to the extent that it has the potential to restrict the contractor's ability to provide an equivalent service from day one.
- At the time of contract award, the contractor was many months behind its competitor on aircraft procurement and still around four months behind later that year. If trailing on this vital issue, what else?
- SAR version AW189 ground clearance is a potential problem for mountain jobs.
- Clarity on the effect of the changes in performance requirements in CAP 999 Version 2 would be helpful.

Google Images '189 SAR' and you'll see the proposal for role equipment and stretcher stowage. Best of luck with that. You'd have more luck putting four elephants into a mini than getting this lot

in there. That's the bare minimum kit for providing a SAR service in the UK.
The cupboard looks about the size of an armchair and is blocked by two seats. Where do you put those when you need access? Or the people sitting in them?

What, all the 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 for the entire region that you may get scrambled to? That's a big centre console. Perhaps they can store some of the medical kit in it too. :ugh:

Blind faith will only get you so far.

The bank of four seats may get removed, maybe. Don't forget this picture is not a fully kitted out SAR cab.
I am sure you are aware the 139 has a tunnel through to the boot where they stow the stretchers and other kit.
All the kit mentioned to be carried is currently carried and properly stowed in the 139 which is smaller so I cannot see what the problem is.
As far as maps etc to be carried then I am not sure whether a full set (aviation and OS) will be carried but don't forget we must forward in technology and having a full mapping system both in the front and back to OS level will be provided.

Oh Jeepys, you've dropped a bomb there. I can't wait to hear VSFs thoughts on these new fangled 'Digital Cockpits' and 'Electronic Flight Bags'. Will never catch on, a mere fad.