The tanks are inside the cabin, not ferry tanks as such as the are not an easy item to fit or remove. Don't qoute me on that as I was only listening to people discussing them before I left stornoway and I don't fly the 92.

Having just returned to the real world and catching up on the bickering on SAR.
3D Cam, are you telling me that Bristow engineers do extra duties for NO EXTRA PAY!!! This would have never happened in my time:=. Seriously, I have been reliably informed that you do in fact get extra pay for Fire Fighting duties as well as other duties on the base. My informant, well Bristow did have to tell CHC the Terms and Conditions for the TUPE handover.
H

So it will remain with a RoA of only 205nm then? Unless there is time to fit the extra tanks for a long ranger. Looks like the UK will be relying on the Sea King for a while longer. I seem to remember that the S 92 was supposed to bring much vaunted extra capability to UK SAR - another great headline with no factual substance then:)

Hiller.
I do beg your pardon, the Ginger beers do get paid extra for fire fighting duties! Not trying to hide anything, just forgetfullnes creeping up on me. :O
However, that is the only extra payment received, other than Ch.Eng pay. No stores pay, no fuel pay, no ground equipment pay, zilch! Yes indeed, times have changed!
Crab.
If you are impressed with the 92, just you wait till you see the figures for the 139!:E
3D

Before evebody jumps all over the S-92 about range, this occasionally used to happen when the dear old 61 was there (been there, done it), although I am not sure if the range differential was better or worse. I think now the issue has been brought into focus someone will pretty quickly come up with an appropriate approved procedure and the problem will go away.

Looking on the bright side, at least they have the capability to fit long range tanks, if we had had the spare payload it would have been a nice capability to have on the Sea King on several occasions I can think of.

Sorry, but something doesn't add up here? The S92 is a capable old bus and no way has an ROA of 205nms? Unless of course it was shortned by high winds etc, in which case the Sea King shouldn't have been able to get there either. Is this a send 3 and four pence we are going to a dance situation?

ooooo its really difficult to typ ewhen you have had tooo many to drinkQ! My head is going to hurt in the morning!

SRMF

SARREMF,

Definitely no 'send three and fourpence' going on. Sea King ROA approx 240nm, S-92 approx 205nm without aux tanks. Here is an extract from the MCA press release regarding intro of the S-92:

Richard Parkes, Director of Technical Services who represented the MCA at the signing ceremony today said

The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new Sikorsky aircraft today as part of our strategy of utilising differing aircraft specifically for the varying coastline we enjoy in the United Kingdom. These new aircraft will be able to fly more quickly, and will be able to fly farther to people in distress at sea than those currently in use.

These new aircraft have been specifically kitted with various items of advanced technical equipment, including an on board automatic identification system (AIS), specifically designed for the challenges of search and rescue in the 21st Century. The S92s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability, although this is a world first in being configured entirely for search and rescue.


We look forward to working with CHC who are fulfilling this key role and taking search and rescue work into a new era, and can bring their wealth of experience of search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway to the UK.


Notes to Editors

The aircraft are fitted with two internal auxiliary fuel tanks of 210 gallons each.

Fitted SAR options include:

- an improved AFCS with auto-hover capability,

- Forward looking infra red (FLIR)

- dual rescue hoist,

- full sliding-door

- bubble window,

- cargo hook,

- search-light

- loud hailer.

- The cabin can be arranged for installing triple medical litter kit, one or two aux fuel tanks, folding utility seats and ample storage. The designated operator console provides search data including FLIR and enhancing crew coordination on SAR missions.



As ever, the devil is in the detail. The S-92 can go further with aux tanks but this appears to be impractical at short notice ie, the sort of short notice that SAR helos are on. Due you think we will get a press release from the MCA that will clear up the confusion?

HAL
Now that will be a novelty!:D Their press dept. only give out what they are told is good news!:ugh:
3D

So is this what we can expect from civsar post 2012? Lots of new-labour style spin with no substance? I believe the PM had no idea of what was going on with SARH until very recently - let's see what happens now:)

The commercial 92,s are operating under a gravity refuel only restriction at present post the last fuel tank rupture in the Norwegian sector. This limits the fuel capacity of both tanks. Are the SAR machines required to operate with this restriction?:rolleyes:

The commercial 92,s are operating under a gravity refuel only restriction at present post the last fuel tank rupture in the Norwegian sector. This limits the fuel capacity of both tanks. Are the SAR machines required to operate with this restriction

No

Aux tank installation is awaiting certification from EASA

The press release I posted earlier was dated 1st March 2007.

If the aux tanks have not been certified yet, does that mean that the MCA were telling fibs about the ability to fly further? At no point does the press release say that the new S-92 will be able to fly further pending certification of the aux tanks.

As the MCA has no real aviation expertise within the organisation this should all come as no surprise.

Crab, your last post was a bit cryptic, do elaborate old chap.

Crab.
Do you mean he now realises that a great proportion of the RAF is not doing its bit on the frontline?:D Look out, your movement orders are in the post! Next stop, Helmand SAR.:)
Seriously, do you really think Gordon gives a stuff about any of this? He is not the first PM to hear about SARH, trust me! Someone even higher had knowledge of it a long time ago.:E
HAL
The MCA lost any Aviation expertise with the departure of Geoff Roberts. His replacement, C T, now employed by CHC:hmm::hmm::hmm:, had next to no SAR experience,mil or civ, and that is beginning to show in the problems associated with introducing a new type to the MCA contract! Teething problems are not confined to one company. They come with the aircraft, as we all know.
3D

SARH is likely to become a little more political in the near future as some MPs are asking quite pertinent questions like 'Why were Portland and Lee given special protected status from the 'blue sky thinking'?" and "Why do we need to spend £3 -5Bn in the private sector on something the military already do 66% of within the current defence budget"

Gordon apparently wants to be briefed in full about the project and with the economy in tatters I would think he is likely to favour a cheap military solution (ie not £3-5Bn) rather than a private one.

3D the SARF is already providing people for OOA dets in sandy places so no change there.

As for the lack of aviation expertise in the MCA - they are going to call the shots on the 2012 contract which doesn't bode too well. The same lack of expertise is why they had to come to the military for advice for SARH.

£3-5Bn..
Is that not the cost over 25 years?

In which case your question is why should "Why do we need to spend £120-200mn pa in the private sector to get new aircraft to do something the military already do 66% of within the current defence budget with old aircraft"

cheap military solution


Would that be the latest oxymoron? (Yes I know there are three words, but humour me) ;)

Crab

Quote:- Gordon apparently wants to be briefed in full about the project and with the economy in tatters I would think he is likely to favour a cheap military solution (ie not £3-5Bn) rather than a private one.

Didn't know you had the ear of Brown Crab next you will be telling us u voted for him:ugh:

the other thing that springs to mind is that you keep banging on about the fact that the Seakings are in your words "Knackered" and I know that you have real problems keeping one serviceable never mind two :( his "Cheap Military Solution" might just be to let you carry on with the same Knackered machines for another 10 years.

Oh and can you confirm that on very long jobs you have to reduce the weight of Seaking to squeeze in the fuel

Something the S92 with the extra tanks fitted will never have to do.:)

The Carson mod and a 'mid-life' upgrade to the avionics would keep the Sea King going for many years with increased performance and range, there are S61s out there with 30,000 hours on and our cabs have less than 10,000. The cost would be significantly cheaper than the SARH project and retain the healthy military presence (and the UK homeland security element it provides) in UK SAR.

The role kit can be removed very quickly to get the weight down in order to get the full 6300 lbs in - certainly much quicker than fitting extra tanks to S92 which don't seem to have been certified yet and without reducing cabin space. Our normal zero fuel weight is around 15,700 which gives us 5,700 fuel to our max AUM without removing anything and this will still give us a RoA comfortably above the S92's paltry 205nm.

As for GB - I didn't vote for him but then nor did anyone else:)

BTW - it's 'knackered' not 'nackered' - is English not your first language?:)

Quote "BTW - it's 'knackered' not 'nackered' - is English not your first language?"

Your right J it was late and think it must have been the wine:)

To quote Rescue 1,

"Oh and can you confirm that on very long jobs you have to reduce the weight of Seaking to squeeze in the fuel

Something the S92 with the extra tanks fitted will never have to do.:)"

This smugness is rather baffling because, as has been shown, there are no extra tanks that can currently be fitted to CHC's S-92s.