|
Ah, the old "Bristow Knows Best" attitude rears its ugly head again! I listened to that bovine fecal matter for too many years. Having been at both the factory and in operations I know the factory tends to draw input from all operators and is able to consider those inputs from a much more impartial perspective than some of the contributors.
Shall we use one small example....that being the wonderful mod to the 212's by Bristow where they removed the torgue limiter (simultaneously removing the torque damping as well) so as to save one of the North Sea Juniors at Eket from taking a swim when he had a Super Puma Flashback on takeoff or landing in a machine that did not have the excess of power they had grown used to while plodding to and fro on the North Sea. How many overtorques did we see as a result of monkeying about with the factory design of the aircraft on what would best be described as a very unthoughtout concept. It was the pilots....not the aircraft that had that problem. A second example would be the walhalla over generator bearings on the 212.....despite the factory being able to identify the exact lot of bad bearings and thus institute a corrective action that cured the ill.....Bristow probably still has their modified procedure in place for the 212.....that is shutting down the engine iat the first indication of a generator problem. Bristow does some things very right....but the attitude that "Mama knows best" doesn't fly. All one had to do was compare the fatal accident rates for ACN and Bristow Nigeria to see the patent disproof to that mindset. As to my being here on Christmas....me dear Mum is having a kip....and when she awakes I will go fix her dinner for her. Until then, I am left to my own devices. Since I just love the sound of hissing hot air....I thought a Christmas visit to Rotorheads would be good fun. |
SASless,
I always thought you were a Man who enjoyed the Macallans, Glenmorangies, Glenlivets,of this World, now you're telling us you drank too many Eggnogs, you must have went off the rails when you left Bristow. Think you should cut HC some slack here though, he just mentioned Bristows along with a lot of other operators, and I think its fair to say that they are the ones that developed each aircraft, if not we would still be flying A models. Look at a Ferrari F1 car, designed by computers/ draughtsmen/engineers, but it's M Schum'r who developed it. You know if it wasn't for the jousts between Nick and HC, Pprune would be pretty boring most of the time, so keep it up gents, but keep it above board, two gentlemen here who love what they do, and will defend it to the end. Slainte, TC. |
Dear Sirs
I wish to formally apologise for having ever asked the question as to why the S92 hovers more nose up in higher wind speeds. It was a moment of reckless and irresponsible madness for which I have no excuse. Had I in any way realised the PoF nightmare that such a question would generate then I would never have lowered myself to ask it in the first place. I have the honour to be Max Contingency Your Obedient Servant Moving on........ I also asked our rearcrew brethren if 10 degrees nose up presents any winching/cabin entry issues? I take it that you are operating with twin hoists that have no bell crank/fleet angle issues? IIRC 10 degrees is a winch limit on hoists on certain well known yellow helicopters. Therefore 10 degrees nose up, theoretically, would allow no trailing of the cable? Moving on again... Was that IR turret not originally on the sponson during production? |
Tynecastle check your pm
|
Does it have a water boiler, or similar hot beverage dispensing facility?
|
HC, just for clarity: I have not personally experienced the greater nose up attitude in winds of 45 kts, it was reported by a Norwegian operator as a problem they encounter when lifting from decks in strong winds. It generates the "Tail too Low" EGPWS warning.
Roofus, glad to hear it! |
"Tail too Low" EGPWS warning - could that be due to deck edge/structural turbulence rather then due to the wind strength factor alone:confused:
|
Max Contingency,
I would say that more speed gives less attitude....this is the same when hovering in strong winds with a clean airflow, more wind gives less attitude. Over a helideck the aerodynamics are probably different and it will then behave different. But the SAR people flying the 92 will have the correct answer..... |
Faults with new £8m rescue helicopter 'putting lives at risk'
From today's Scottish Daily Mail:
Scots Coastguards have warned that lives are being put at risk by serious faults in their new £8million rescue helicopters. The Sikorsky S92s have suffered a series of technical glitches since their introduction in July last year. Last week Coastguards were even forced to ground the helicopter and use its 47-year-old predecessor to carry out a rescue. The problems mainly lie with the S92's satellite communications system, which a senior source has described as 'unusable'. Other technical issues, such as the helicopter's 'auto-hover' system used during winching, have raised concerns about its suitability for search-and-rescue duties. The new S92s were introduced after helicopter firm CHC Scotia was awarded a £100 million, five-year contract by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for search and rescue operations. The U.S. built helicopters replace the old Sikorsky S61s used by the previous contractor, Bristow. The S61 was introduced in 1961. Two S92s are now based at Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides and two more are set to be deployed at Sumburgh in the Shetlands soon. The helicopters from these two Coastguard stations are used in rescue missions all over Scotland. However, crews were concerned that the S92s did not have short-wave radio sets, which are often used to co-ordinate rescues involving the RAF and Royal Navy. Instead, the Coastguards have to rely on a satellite phone, which sometimes provides a poor signal. Crews have complained that emergency messages are often delayed by problems dialling up the air rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Kinloss in Moray. Matters reached a head on Hogmanay, when the Stornoway team were informed that a crewman aboard an Inverness-registered trawler The Adventurer was suffering severe chest pains. But the S92 had problems contacting RAF Kinloss and controllers scrambled an ageing S61 from Sumburgh - a machine which had been replaced by the S92s - to carry out the rescue mission 95 miles out to sea. A senior Coastguard source said last night: 'It was an embarrassing fiasco. They had to get out the old workhorse which has been flying since the 1960s to do the job properly. 'Yet they (the MCA) refuse to listen when told the satellite system is often unuseable.' Western Isles councillor Donald Macsween said: 'I know that many of the crews are concerned and there has been talk of some quitting because no one is listening to them. It's not good enough in a vital public serivce.' An MCA spokesman admitted there had been glitches during the Hogmanay operation but claimed problems with the S92's communications system were being 'urgently addressed'. He added: 'Crews are still getting to grips with the aircraft and this was a scenario that had not previously been encountered or practised.' |
Good Grief!!
Here we go again!! :mad: The S-92 is going to be a good, if not great, SAR machine!! But.....it's new! So yep.....there's some software problems.....they'll have to adapt a few procedures.....etc etc! & there's my point! Most of the guys are working to adapt, correct & overcome any of the teething problems! They'll tell you the Pro's far outweigh the cons!! & then there are those who just want to be obstructive & highlight only problems. Not only highlight......exaggerate!!! :mad::mad::mad: So......the 92 launched out of Stornoway (LAUNCHED!! Not Grounded!!!). They had comm problems, not unheard of in any aircraft!! They requested top cover, the Nimrod was only available on 120mins notice......so they launched the S-61 out of Sumburgh. The S-92 couldn't get a hi-line to the deck......they asked the S-61 to try.....the S-61 managed. No big deal, no reflection on either crew, good cooperation! My input.....let them walk!! Will save us having to read this tripe in the papers! :rolleyes: |
No reflection on either crew but at the end of the day the crewman was only rescued because the S61 could do it and the S92 could not. Is that not a fact. Communication is vital in these jobs and I find it incredible the systems on the new aircraft were not checked before going live.
|
Roofus
Think you missed the point of the article, it was about the poor communications currently fitted to the S92 to talk to various units when a long way offshore, not the helicopter itself (other than some minor comments). I wouldn't want to be a long way offshore out of VHF contact unless I had a reliable radio or system talk to my controlling authority. The current sat phone also sounds totally unreliable such that if the aircraft has a problem and needs to put out an emergency call, the crew cannot do so as it keeps falling over. If either the MCA or some other authority is not listening, then perhaps an article like this in a daily newspaper is a last resort to get thngs moving at a quicker pace! Who's to say that a bit of politics isn't being played here? After all CHC themselves criticised both Sikorsky and Agusta Westland for their poor backup support on their website last year. I suspect that was after a lot of trying to sort something out without any positive response. |
S92 - Fit for purpose - YES!
Guys
As any of you who have operated this patch of sea will know: Channel 0 and Aberdeen Information are available most of the way from Sumburgh to Stornoway in addition to Scottish Information as an alternative. Trust me - speak to Aberdeen Info if you do not beleive!!! And indeed on this very mission the S61 was in comms with Aberdeen Info until the final 40 miles to vessel and in contact witht the Coastguard on Channel 0 throughout the whole mission!!!!! Depending on your view of what you want HF for - I would much prefer the SKYTRACK real time display of location (GPS & sat link) together with the sat phone link. ie if the worst should happen then the RCC, Coastguard and indeed anyone with access to the internet and the appropriate password can see the precise location of the aircraft etc etc. Indeedd although no-one (including the S61) could talk to the S92 the Coastguard passed an accurate Lat and Long of the S92 from their Skytrack display which allowed the S61 to track direct to the vessel. The S92 was eventually raised by the S61 on channel 67 with 15 miles to run and it subsequently transpired that the S92 wasn't listening on any other channel despite many incoming calls on the sat link phone (HF replacement) from the coastguard!! so where is the failure of the kit!!! Imagine the worst - S61 140 miles out - major emergency - whats the chance that someone would get out a Lat and Long on HF prior to ditching??? The previous few posts hit the nail on the head - the S92 were not able to get a highline on the boat (for whatever reason - certainly not radios!!)and were big enough to give the S61 crew a go before the S61 needed to depart for fuel - the S61 captain happened to be an extremely experienced Ex RN SAR Captain who was familiar and comfortable with his machine and a bloody nice bloke as well! Lets not knock the S92, the kit or indeed CHC! chances are the S92 may have also got the hi-line down on the next go but they WERE professional enough to pull away, have a rest and let another crew have a go!!! Thats the point of SAR and experienced SAR operators at that - get the job done - egos later! To the Luddites amongst you - ask what you want HF for and ask what can't be done by the currently fitted Skytrack system!!!! Oh and for the dis-believers amongst you - Aberdeen information stayed open to oversee the return of the S61 back to Sumburgh in the early hours and were spoken to all th eway home!!! Long Live the S61!!!!!! And for Crab - be very careful if you are even thinking of slagging off civvy SAR - the particular details of the personnel in this episode may just bite you in the arse mate! Regards |
Far more eloquently put than I could ever hope to manage NavyTorque :D:D:D
|
Media
Why do we so much listen to what the media have to write they only write half a story and even then 9 times out 10 it is not correct what they write.:ugh::ugh:
They only thing they do do brilliantly and that is F... people in the Arse. The S92 is a great helicopter with some teething problems and which new helicopter has not got teething problems It takes time and then I'm sure it will be fantastic machine Bloody hell guy's give the people involved a chance to make it work and stop listening to what media people have write at the end of the day what do they know?????? . Media shut the hell up!!!!!! :ok::ok::ok: |
Why do we so much listen to what the media have to write they only write half a story and even then 9 times out 10 it is NOT correct what they write. skadi |
NavyTorque - couldn't have put it better myself, times and technology are changing and we as SAR Operators have to go with the flow :D:D
Regards |
I wonder if anyone knows the MMSI and IMO numbers of the various new Coastguard helicopters as used on AIS?
The two at Stornoway seem to be MMSI IMO 111232500 9255139 111232501 7310868 And one of the Sumburgh ones (headed North earlier in the week as COASTGUARD 102) 111232502 It would be good to be able to link these to the aircraft registration rather than callsigns which presumably can change. MB |
MMSI's
111232502 - G-cgoc
111232503 - G-csar |
Some overly sensitive souls on here:) What's the problem, the job got done didn't it? Comms faffs are not exactly exclusive to aircraft type or role.
|
Crab.
Is that really you???:) |
Yes, it's my New Year's resolution to be more cuddly and 'civilian-friendly':)
Might not last though:ok: |
couldn't have put it better myself, times and technology are changing and we as SAR Operators have to go with the flow But to go with the flow because its new and therefore must be better is totally wrong. The Coastguard should have checked the system worked before risking the SAR crews who do the job. |
As I understand it, the MCA were offered the satphone option and jumped at it since it was new and, in theory, improved technology. However, the compatability with what presently exists at the ARRCK was either assumed or ignored.
Yes HF is old hat but it is the primary source of comms between the tasking authority and the helicopters - in hindsight it does seem foolish not to have included it in the S92 spec. A modern HF set can still provide very good comms with the ARCC - just a shame only our Mk3As have one. |
PumaBoy -
Media shut the hell up!!!!!! I could turn around and bag ALL puma drivers with the same brush because one was a dick, but we dont. So DONT tar all media with the same brush. Ned |
Media
Ned
My apologies Ok their is one journalist who knows what he is speaking about. But in general whan you pick up a news paper and some thing small has happend to an a/c the media pick up the incident and write what ever they want and it turns to be a whole different incident to what really happend and this can damage the industry and loose contracts. It is peoples jobs and lively hoods that are affected. I don't mind them writting about our industry but please make the story as it happend and listen to the experts who know what they are speaking about instead of making up things that are exaggerated. Once again many apologies to you Ned |
Hands up all those would have failed on more than one occasion has failed to speak to Kinloss on HF,:ugh:
Skytrac might not be the answer it might have a few shortcomings. But please do not say that HF is the be all and end all its's NOT. Justintime80 We do NOT allow outing of PPRuNer's real names, or hints thereof := Senior Pilot Rotorheads Moderator |
Lost at Sea
The Coastguard have never been able to speak to their helicopters once out of VHF range as they dont have HF in their MRCCs. Now they can speak to them using the Satphone. So for them it's a welcome addition. |
Pumaboy - No problem, just would be nice for us not to be stuck in the same catergory as the mainstream media, who I agree, have very limited, if any, knowledge of the industry.
You will find that most of the time they wont listen to the experts and include their explanations, because that would make sense, would make that "life theatening situation" into a broken fuse on the overhead panel, and hence they wouldnt sell any papers. And for mainstream media thats the purpose, sell papers and dont let the truth get in the way of a good story. Just my two cents worth. Ned |
Blimp22
The Coastguard have never been able to speak to their helicopters once out of VHF range as they dont have HF in their MRCCs. Now they can speak to them using the Satphone. So for them it's a welcome addition. |
Lost at sea
Whoa there. I'm with you, lets have HF as well. It is a welcome addition as the situation has now gone from having no means of communication to having one, thats got to be a good thing, but HF in addition would also be very welcome. |
Lost at Sea.
This whole interim contract is a trial!! Aircraft, equipment, CHC, people, etc.etc.:( Hadn't you realised that!:) |
To correct a point the MF equipped MRCC's in the UK do have full HF capability and some MRCC's use it including Stornoway, Shetland and Aberdeen although I believe Shetland use the MF freqs I am aware Aberdeen have used HF in the past on more than several occasions, and yes the ARCC / MRCC staff may sit warm and cosy in their ops rooms but they do a hell of a lot of work in preparation for the job to be carried out...it doesn't just happen. :ugh:
|
It is a welcome addition as the situation has now gone from having no means of communication to having one, thats got to be a good thing |
Justintime - I didn't see it but I presume it was my name you were taking in vain. I didn't say the HF was the be all and end all - I said that in the 3A it is a much more user friendly system than the 3. Even so HF works a lot more often than it doesn't.
However, in the next year or so all RAF SAR Sea Kings should be fitted with satphone/sat tracker providing the trials are OK and the funding doesn't disappear. So then we will have Satphone AND HF!! The big difference is that our satphone/tracker will be compatible with the ARCCK system:) |
Ok....
Comms appear to be an issue, but something i am sure will not be left unresolved considering the hostile conditions in which these guys can work in. I believe the Sumburgh 92's officially go 'on line' this week, and from what i've heard the crews are very happy with the helicopter. Yes there are some bugs to be worked around, same as there were probably bugs to be worked around when the S61's were introduced. What about the good points? most noticeable for me has been the ability of the S92 being able to keep a good speed on approaches if they are in a sequence, and no doubt this increased speed can only be of a benefit to response times?? Whats the endurance like compared to the S61's? More space down the back so more people can be winched and taken to safety? Just a few questions to perhaps focus the convo down another avenue from the usual S92 bashing.... enjoy ;) |
Comms
Just as a point of interest, all of the coastguards fixed wing assetts had there HF comms removed and sold off some years ago. There was no replacement in terms of sat comms.
I rather feel that some people at the MCA are going to get there collars felt by either the NAO ( ie; 'wheres the money going?') or the EU ('are you actively trying to get people killed?') in the not too distant future.:* |
Hogmany
Just been catching up on things having been on holiday since just after Hogmany....Navytorque's post on 9th Jan is interesting about the rescue west of shetland on Hogmany....I was the controller along with my watch manager plugged in on Aberdeen Information that evening....good to read about what happened but I must say that ARCC worked very hard ....they were sorting that rescue out along with a casevac from the Forties that had us all working till way gone 0300hrs!! Everyone kept the evening very pleasant!!
|
St. Kilda trawler rescue
Quote from BBC News website; "Operators CHC said an operation by Stornoway's S92 to save 14 crew of a trawler on St Kilda had been the machine's biggest challenge so far". Given the tasty conditions at the time in question, will this be enough to silence those who critisised CHC's decision to select the S-92 for Stornoway?
|
...and those who were prepared to slag off the pilot when she was unable to complete a previous job in the 92. The public slagging didn't happen but I was sent a gypsies warning that if I criticised the crew it would backfire since the pilot was ex-RAF. I wouldn't have critcised the crew anyway but it seemed like there were some queueing up to try and throw some mud.
Another good job completed by a professional crew. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:38. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.