|
Originally Posted by crab
Our normal zero fuel weight is around 15,700 which gives us 5,700 fuel to our max AUM without removing anything
What do you include in that ZFW? Seems quite a lot to an old ASW driver, our APS was about 13700lbs (IIRC), including all the old 195 sonar gear. I thought the earlier SAR Sea Kings (Danish and German) had ~7000lb fuel capacity, do I read that yours are only 6300lb? I agree the Carson blades will be a big improvement; are you getting them? TIA :ok: |
John, about 1200 lbs of SAR role kit and 4 crew @ 200lbs each makes up the 2000lb difference. We use ZFW instead of APS as it includes the crew. Our 6371lb (when gravity refuelled) 6239lbs pressure has always been the same - don't know about the Danish and German SAR SKs, every Mk seems to have a different fuel tank layout and capacity.
There are a number of jungly SKs with Carson blades fitted under a SUR for sandy places and many of us are hoping we can have the whole SK fleet fitted. It deosn't give us more absolute Vmax but makes the same Vmax available throughout most of the flight envelope. |
The commercial 92,s are operating under a gravity refuel only restriction at present post the last fuel tank rupture in the Norwegian sector |
UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcome the AW139 to their fleet, press release:
The first of three brand-new AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters, configured entirely for search and rescue (SAR), were welcomed at the MCAs new state-of-the-art hangar at the Lee-On-The-Solent airfield today. The helicopters will be used primarily on the south coast. http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/helo-7.jpg These helicopters are being provided under a service contract to the MCA by CHC Helicopters who won the interim contract to supply the service to the MCA from 2007 to 2012. The interim contract provides for commercial search and rescue helicopter services from four civilian-operated bases - Sumburgh, Stornoway, Lee-on-the-Solent and Portland - for a five-year period from July 1, 2007. The service will provide 24-hour coverage at Sumburgh, Stornoway and Lee-on-Solent, and will operate on a 12 hour day-time basis at Portland, in line with current cover. Two AW139s will be based at Lee on the Solent and one at Portland. Peter Cardy, Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency said: The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new AgustaWestland aircraft 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. They 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 AW139s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability. The aircraft are also being considered for use in a search and rescue role in Spain, with UAE, Australia, Italian and Japanese authorities also intending to use these aircraft for SAR purposes. Mr. Cardy continued 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. CHCs UK SAR contract manager Ian McLuskie said The introduction of the AW139s represents the latest key phase in our work with the MCA to introduce new technology to civilian helicopter search and rescue work in the UK and provide an effective, efficient service that reflects modern-day needs. Notes to Editors: Technical Data: Role Equipment fitted to both Aircraft types • WINCH – Goodrich dual hoist • SATCOM - SkyTrac ISAT-100 system fitted to all aircraft - which provides SatPhone voice communications, with an additional two-way text messaging facility - and complete position reporting through the automatic flight following functionality. • SEARCHLIGHT - Spectrolab SX-16 Nightsun • FLIR - Wescam MX-15i on each of the proposed Airborne Systems • RADAR - Honeywell Primus 701 full colour weather/search radar • HOMER - Chelton 935-11 Direction Finder • AIS - Saab R4A SAR AIS transponder. o 3 x AW139 o 2 at Lee on Solent, 1 at Portland o increase in Radius of Action o increase in speed (150kts) o 40% increase in winch speed o Secondary winch identical to primary winch o Excellent single engine performance o Extensive safe operating envelope o Fully integrated systems and glass cockpit o Enhanced mission management system with moving map and satcom o Excellent visual search platform o Good accessibility – 2 large doors and low sill height o New technology with anticipated reliability benefits o Fully duplex autopilot; all aircraft configured the same o Size, speed and economy benefits suited to south coast SAR operations o The maximum endurance of the AW139 is 2 hrs 43 minutes at the best cruise speed and 3 hrs 20 minutes at the speed for best endurance. These figures are based on VFR reserves (20 minutes at cruise speed) and maximum auxiliary fuel Posted By: Rosie Tapping |
'These figures are at maximum auxiliary fuel' - so is the same flannel as with the S92 then? Do you have to fit extra tanks to get the headline RoA and endurance?
|
Increased RoA?
Crab,
I also smell a rat. The max speed is quoted as 150kt and the endurances are quoted as at best cruise (2h43m) and best endurance (3h20m) both of which will be <150kts. Even assuming 150kt throughout, and still air, that gives RoA of 250nm at best endurance and 204nm at best cruise. The optimistic top end of 250nm is hardly a massive improvement on the Sea King Mk3. Could somebody in the know confirm our suspicions and provide real numbers as opposed to MCA hype? HAL |
Crab.
I said you would be impressed!:rolleyes: This press release is CHC/MCA 'spin' at its best. The rumour is that only one aircraft, presumably one at Lee, will have the aux. tank fitted. Therefore be prepared for a lot more tasking to Portlands patch. They will be busy running into somewhere for fuel 60 minutes after arriving on scene. But they will have got there pretty quickly.:ok: 3D |
I can think of something like this...
AW139 with 4500kg EW 1450kg fuel (due to MTOW 6450kg, this summer 6800?) cruise 5000' 6ºC Tas 152 (no wind) back to base at 1000' 16ºC Tas 138 (no wind) RoA with 30 minutes on station and 30' reserve = +-203Nm Or like the other day... 80Nm to the search area and 2 hours at 60-70knots (short hover while boat pickup the dead body :( ) and lading with just 20' of reserve. But more than 200nm... :rolleyes: Regards Aser |
Strange that there are no photographs attached to the press release?:hmm:
|
Quote:- "'These figures are at maximum auxiliary fuel' - so is the same flannel as with the S92 then? Do you have to fit extra tanks to get the headline RoA and endurance?"
SARD arrived in Lee yesterday with AUX fuel tank FITTED :) |
Originally Posted by Wiretensioner
(Post 3993363)
Strange that there are no photographs attached to the press release?:hmm:
http://cdn-www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photos.../8/1337886.jpg :ok: |
Nice Cab.................:ok:
|
I notice no mention of survivor capacity in the press release, which worries me, I know that statistically Portland and Solent have at best 1-2 survivors per sortie but there doesn't seem to be much capacity if it is required in the Channel etc
Crab, looks like you will get more shouts my friend!! (Paint it black and it looks very Airwolf esque!) |
Question for those at Lee and Portland. Why, if you have FLIR and a nitesun are you limited to 12 hour ops? It seems such an anomaly.
Ref survivor capacity of the 139, out of curiosity what is the maximum number of survivors lifted from a ship by a Seaking or S61? I notice this line from the blurb, Size, speed and economy benefits suited to south coast SAR operations so presume a larger aircraft is deemed unnecessary by those who make the decisions. |
I suggest it would be fair to say, if you used all three 139s you would come up short on the S-61 for casualty lift. Perhaps when it comes to the refuel the MCA's Islander can trundle round from kent and lob a dinghy at whoever is left in the water before the 139s come back!
|
Maximum number of survivors
Bootneck asks the maximum number of survivors lifted. I believe that 35 were lifted from the fishing vessel Green Lily by a S61.
TD |
Portland aircraft lifted 12 off "Ice Prince" in January before having to go back for fuel. Then returned to lift a further 8 but not needed. They were taken off by lifeboat in horrendous conditions, some of the survivors jumping straight to the lifeboat and being very lucky to be pulled on board! The lifeboat cox is up for an award for this job.
BTW this was all after 2100hrs. No matter what the MCA are saying, the 139 would not have been able to do the job but they are hoping it just does not happen again.:= |
3D
When you transfer over to CHC in a few days time, will you still be wagging that finger? It is the aircraft that has been chosen, right or wrong it is what you and the rest at Lee & Portland will have to work with and continue to do your best. No one is forcing you to transfer, so you can stay on a S61 or whatever else they have at Bristow doing line flying...perhaps its time you took your negative, anti change attitude away from front line SAR.
Don't drag down the attempts by those individuals currently trying to make the team and new cabs work. You may well be right that it is not the 'correct type' for UK SAR but the professionals working on the units will do their best regardless....will you do them a favour and get onboard with them? I'm sure BHL will be happy to keep you if not. Your mission should you decide to accept is to ‘shut up and get on with it’:ok: |
Crabette
Clearly you hoping their are only sail boats in distress in the Channel and that no one rocks the distressed boat by point out the inevitable. |
Size matters
The flaw in the "it's not big enough" logic is where do you draw the line? If, for example, a ferry with 200 people on board is sinking then a Sea King or S61 isn't big enough either. If the majority of rescues involve lifting 1 or 2 survivors,and I don't know what the stats are but I would guess it's in the 90 - 97% range, then surely an aircraft optimised for that role is the best use of limited resources?:confused:
|
Crabette.
Wow, that's me told! Are you going to have a go at Crab as well? However, you are right, we will get on with it and make the best of a bad deal! But I will still say things as I see them, no matter who I work for! For the record, I actually think the 139 is a nice aircraft. Just not for SAR in the UK. We had no say in the choice, but then you already know that. I am not anti change, in fact I have been saying for a long time that the good old 61 should be put out to grass. But only if the right aircraft was taking its place. (Has the 139 or 92 got 360 degree radar?) Leo. Stats can tell you anything you wish. But surely it is better to go for an aircraft with a larger carrying capability and not have to use that capacity very often, than have one that will have to keep going back to shore for fuel every 2hrs? 3D |
leopold bloom
In your scenrio there would need to be several aircraft. But if the two nearest bases have mediums rather than heavies the whole thing becomes far more fraught. |
Just to add, you've all seen CGIJ, but SARD is also in town...
Could anyone tell me a little history on S-61 'India Juliet' and her status, will she be gone now these have arrived, does anyone know about her future? http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tonyosborne2/MCA01.jpg http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tonyosborne2/MCA02.jpg |
What is a most likely 'worst case scenario'. We tend to take a cargo ship, Napoli or Ice Prince for example. This is most certainly more than two.
Whilst it is wonderful to have all this new 'kit' it will not serve the purpose. May I suggest that there has clearly been a total lack of understanding or sense of reality displayed by civil servants in this 'change' decision. As coal face operators you will all have to be accountable now for the decisions made by a faceless civil servant in the MCA or whereever else they may be who has already forced you all into making the decision of who will live and who will not. When you make the wrong decision, or take the one that does not sit well with them on that particular day, then, speaking from experience, you will be hung out to dry. Its very lonely out there blowing in the breeze! A few years ago, I was told to my face by about the most senior person you could have got in this business that at the very worst, Solent would be an S-92 and Portland a 139. I'm glad the rotary family are getting new kit, I'm unconvinced though that the 139 is the right kit. Sadly I think this will be most felt by the casualty left to a forlorn hope as it dissappears into the distance without them. Can those of us that stand up to the plate for this role, not form some type of 'stakeholders' group to influence such decisions as this one which has been made for us? |
Size matters
But surely it is better to go for an aircraft with a larger carrying capability and not have to use that capacity very often, than have one that will have to keep going back to shore for fuel every 2hrs? In your scenario there would need to be several aircraft. Zalt, again the same problem, no helicopter is big enough all the time, so how big is big enough? |
Leo.
S92 all round the bases! I didn't mean to be confused, it just comes with age.:O Tony. G-BDIJ is the on call machine at Portland at this time. WB & MU are at Lee. IJ is rumoured to be going to the SAR unit at Den Helder once Portland transitions. As for WB & MU the future is uncertain at this time. 3D |
Newspeak
The operators at the coal face will make it work, and make it work very well, be they military or civilian.
The point is that the S92 and AW139 were announced with trumpets blaring and various announcements of being able to fly faster (true), further (false) and with greater endurance (also false). Replacing the S-61 with 139s also reduces the number of survivors that can be carried in one lift (the argument that increased TAS negates that is also false given the sort of distances travelled in south coast rescues). Therefore, the MCA are talking in 'Newspeak' as the improvements claimed are actually reductions in overall capability. Or have I missed something? HAL |
Unfortunately, the phrase 'no lesser capability' which is supposed to be the saviour of SARH, was not applied to the interim contract - let us hope more sensible decisions are made for 2012. Most people, I believe, would have put a 92 at Lee and a 139 at Portland to cover most eventualities but someone somewhere obviously knows better.
|
I thought they were all RAF specialists that stitched up the interim contract!
The truth is out there! |
Wasn't it an RAF dominated committee who basically chose the aircraft and the contractor and the MCA had little to do with it apart from that bloke who left them after the contract was awarded to CHC and joined CHC.
The same committee is now chosing the bidder for SAR-H. If I were you Crab I'd go and have a chat with them! You never know they may listen! |
G-BDIJ is the on call machine at Portland at this time. WB & MU are at Lee. IJ is rumoured to be going to the SAR unit at Den Helder once Portland transitions. As for WB & MU the future is uncertain at this time. 3D Are there any plans to change the type at Den helder? Or just keep the 61. |
"Wasn't it an RAF dominated committee who basically chose the aircraft and the contractor and the MCA had little to do with it apart from that bloke who left them after the contract was awarded to CHC and joined CHC. The same committee is now chosing the bidder for SAR-H. If I were you Crab I'd go and have a chat with them! You never know they may listen!" |
Whilst the RAF will have offered opinion on the aircraft for the contract (because they were asked to by MCA), I don't believe the basing decisions were made by anyone in the military - that would have been a job for CHC and MCA.
The SAR experts have been asked to vet and score the SARH bids and it is now up to the committee who I think are mainly civil servants and MCA, not RAF, to make the decisions. Sadly there seem to be some members of the committee who think they know more about SAR than the SAR experts (the inevitable intellectual arrogance that comes with elevated position and rank) so they may well f**k the whole contract up anyway. |
Crab,
No doubt you will get the usual barrage of abuse from the uninformed and those with an agenda but what you say is spot on. Perhaps Lost at Sea could provide a breakdown of the composition of the SAR-H IPT so that we can see whether his accusations carry any weight. HAL |
Some slight amusement available if one looks at the 'table of contents' of the downloadable copy of "Review of UK Search & Rescue (SAR) Helicopter Provision and Coverage Criteria Report - June 2001"!
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/2001_co...t-contents.pdf |
2006 IPT team here; (page 8)
|
shut up and get on with it |
Originally Posted by HAL9000
Perhaps Lost at Sea could provide a breakdown of the composition of the SAR-H IPT so that we can see whether his accusations carry any weight.
He said in Feb 2006..
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I hope that the CHC provision of SAR will be far better than Bristows, and if so could well be due to the amount of involvement the RAF had in the process.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=15
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Wait and see if the contract under CHC really is the same as Bristow - I don't believe so, thanks to the involvement of the MoD the service provided will be superior whoever crews it.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=17 Although now things aren’t going quite so well he and others seem to be distancing themselves from this and now CHC are the evil civilian SAR operators! And in March 2008 he sarcastically remarks.... Surely not - the super-duper all singing and dancing SAR helicopter with less capability than the old one - so much for a seamless transition then:) http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=308111&page=9
Originally Posted by Night Watchman
PS Note for your (crab’s) diary - Jul 07 I must stop hating Bristow and start hating CHC. They're all civilians doing SAR and not as perfect as me.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=15 |
Well said Lost at Sea :D
Crab has a small problem his memory:) it's the first stage of Age and Alzheimer's kicking in, Will he last till 2012 not sure :hmm: it's a tough call. R1 |
Lost at sea - I don't think I mentioned the composition of the SARH IPT in any of those quotes - I am afraid your mental competence is the problem here, not mine:)
All I said was that due to the fact the MCA couldn't get unbiased advice from industry (Bristows, CHC or others) because they all had vested interests, the MoD were asked for guidance and expertise in examining the interim contract. That led to the formation of SARH which as you are now aware, is not comprised of light blue but is MCA and civil servants with one Sqn Ldr trying to keep some semblance of order. As for CHC - they are providing a good service - it's just that some of the claims made regarding the platform's capability have not been substantiated - this is probably because the MCA do the press releases and don't quite understand the issues:) Now what was the question again.......??????? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:52. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.