Sapper,

I think you will find this is the second submission so less than 3 is OK. Not ideal, but OK.

Tonka. I believe years ago you would have been correct about the pitch angle. However, I thnk you will find the new long nose - with additional "Mr Burns" added blimp - brings the C of G forward - not by much but enough to make a difference. I talked to the chaps in Spain who have this configuration having watched them perform a series of SAR demos. I am pretty certain this is not the configuration of the machines on the South Coast - but icould be wrong. I believe the point they made was that people order different things. Some are good, some are excellent.

The problem is that the IPT hasn't made the decision, it's been made for them, making the process more likely to end up with the best of a bad lot. More like "This is what you're gonna get", rather than "This is what we want". :*

No Vote Joe

Who cares what you want? Sorry mate, you know the rules....;)

Fair enough, Max, but with the sort of mega bucks being played with you'd want to get your monies worth!

And to be honest, several of the guys studying the bids are quite disillussioned, so maybe the writings on the wall. :uhoh:

So what does the writing say? Or is that classified?

Step one: Apply forehead to wall.
Step two: Remove forehead from wall.
Step three: Go to step one.

?

No Vote, I was having a cheap joke at your handle, no stick=no vote.

In terms of getting what you/we want, that work should have already been done with the writing of the technical specification. A technically compliant bid should therefore provide an technically acceptable solution.

In terms of value for money, competition is the best way but comparison against a 'should cost' model and scrutiny by the National Audit Office are other safeguards in place.

If guys are studying the bids already then they have some pretty good spies!

SAR H
 

Does anyone have any info on the two SAR H bids?

Aircraft types, locations etc?

Has the 139 been included I wonder?

Marty

Lockheed/VT with the super puma possibly a Eurocopter heavy.
CHC/Thales with the S92

There was a bidder offering AW139's allegedly.

So it’s the Nutmeg State verses those with a penchant for bouillabaisse on the platform stakes.

Aside from the merits of each platform, you have a well known Civil Helicopter and SAR operator (Not forgetting Thales) with plenty of experience, verses a Government & Military Support Services Contractor and Systems Integrator with plenty of clout and money, so it will be interesting to see the final outcome as I suspect it’s not as straightforward as one might imagine.

Would that be the same operator that is struggling to provide overnight coverage for the South Coast? And the same one which had to send that cover back to Ireland last night??:rolleyes: Very professional, not!!!:ugh:
3D

I've just read on the MCA news pages that the second S92 from Shetland is going South to Lee, providing 24 Hour cover until the 139 is sorted and that the Mil is providing backup for Shetland.

MCA News
 

They, CHC and the MCA just lurch from crisis to another! So what happens if, and I say if, the 139 trials don't solve the night flying issues? Note the plural!!
How long can crews be expected to man two bases?:confused:
3D

Sorry, what 139 trials?

Who's trialling, what's the aim, who's paying?

Sven

Who wants a SAR crew job in Portland?
 

3D

Rumour on the streets has it that they are placing a great deal of time and expense into providing ongoing solutions to restore service. Are you willing to bring a fairly capable aircraft back into play and move things forward, or are you all too militant to attempt limited night ops. You have had crews in a LIMSAR S61 doing your job. Now the S92's up North and their lipstick drivers are on the way to do your job according to the MCA press office. The embarrassment alone should encourage you into going back to the LIMSAR ops that were in place at night, prior to the Portland crews coming on line and throwing their toys out the cot. Do you all have parties around at Mr Kirby’s house to cry about the good ole days with the 61 and how sh1t the new machine is?? He seems to be on TV every other week doing your bidding with you lot hiding under his coat.:D

No one has ever produced a perfect aircraft and systems tailored to a role, it will take some time to improve a new type in its new role. You are being unrealistic and unfair to your employer and the public. By not using you experience to move forward, develop SOP’s and safe procedures, to balance your aircraft crews remit of Risk Vs Task, you are doing all those working hard to make a success of Civilian SAR – Fail! :ugh:

Even the most committed SAR-H team, (and even if was the MOD run by Crab@ himself) will not get it completely right straight away, if fact that will never happen. Too many variables, the last contract provider used 20+ years and nibbled away with on the S61 handing out improvements to keep the client sweet. Yet those aircraft were far from being as great as they could have! The same is true of the MOD Sea Kings. :rolleyes:

Bitch slapping complete!:ouch:
:O

And what a slap it was too!

Nice!

I concur - a good slapping:ok:

Shows what may/will happen if SAR goes too far down the non-military route - ye gads they will be asking for overtime next;)

2S

Crabette

I am sorry to have to tell you that your assessment of the situation is entertaining but considerably wide of the mark.

I am told that the crews had no particular attachment to the previous operator or aircraft.
The simple fact was that there was an enormous pride in being able to carry out any task at any time and in virtually any weather and it was widely recognised by the Coastguards, press and public alike.

I sincerely believe that all the crews have found the affair one in which they would have done anything to avoid.

To the present operator’s credit, over the months they encouraged full and open reporting from the crews on the difficulties being experienced in managing to achieve limited SAR.
Again to their credit, the operator eventually sent in some “grown ups” and decided that even though the aircraft was acceptable for Public Transport the aircraft ticked one too many of the unsafe boxes for SAR.

The CAA independently even placed limits on it during the day.

There has indeed recently been a great deal of work by the operator although there are only a few fixes being presently added due to certification timings.
Whether these fixes are enough to tick the right boxes remains to be seen.

I feel you have been grossly unfair to the crews who may have been tempted just to keep quiet, provide a limited service and hope no one suffers in the mean time.

The crews should be congratulated on putting their heads above the parapet so trying to sort this out sooner rather than later especially as the poorer weather approaches.
Remember these are not the usual problems that most of the crews have seen before when changing aircraft types/equipment fit both in civvy and military street.

I am afraid that the “word on the street” as you put it, was that this was all a bit of an experiment in the run up to SARH.

This affair will hopefully result in a much better service and mitigate to some extent the weakness all along which was that the aircraft/fit was clearly selected by those inexperienced in such matters.

I would be very interested to see if it has been presented as an option by any of the bidders on SARH.

Does anyone know?


Regards

Marty

Yeah, right! It's the way you tell 'em!

Oh Dear...it seems to me that the real culprits here..CHC and MCA are hiding under the duvet covers.The fact is that between them they cocked up the spec for equipping the AW139 or at least were gambling on certification of the AFCS with SAR modes being completed earlier than it has.
Common sense would have made sure external equipment selected would be A) up to the job and B) fitted high enough to be clear of soft ground...after all who hasn't seen an S-61 bog down in muddy field conditions.More critically they must have known Certifiaction of the Primus SAR modes was behind schedule as the nights were drawing in but did nothing until the crews protested.
Let's put the fault where it truly lies ,not with the aircraft which performs well in SAR elsewhere, if the right equipoment is selected by the operator ,and not with the crews who know their job and limitations (thank God......read the US EMS reports for crews who didn't ).

Crabette Slapping
 

Crabette,

When you launch upon a diatribe against Pilots, Crewmen and Ops Staff about whom you know very little please ensure your arguments are authoritative and accurate. A sound knowledge of the AW139 and its equipment fit would be a good place to start. Until then, please keep your uneducated comments to yourself.

From your nom de plume, I understand you to be ex/serving RAF? This wouldn't be a surprise as you spout the same b*ll*cks as Crab@.

crabette slapping
 

Having read prune for many years this is the first time I have felt so incensed that I have needed to post.

As someone who knows a number of the AW139 SAR crews I feel it is necessary to defend them; despite the fact that I may be rising to the bait.
Crabette's comments are extremely offensive. All the crews are, already, highly embarrassed by this state of affairs. It would appear that the post serves no purpose but to fulfil an incomprehensible desire to release a vitriolic attack on the aircrew involved. Why? (See below).

Perhaps it would assist all those reading this to assess the validity of the aforementioned post, if I were to point out just one example (of the many) as to why these crews are so keen to return to night service.

Almost all of them have been resident within the vicinity of their bases for a period of many years. As a result they are a part of the local community. Their friends and families use the local beaches, cliffs and sea, for recreation and work. By their actions they have directly removed a vital level of safety cover from their nearest & dearest. I doubt very much this would have been done unless there was a valid, carefully considered, reason?

Most of the crews have both military and civvy experience and have been in the business of SAR for tens, if not scores, of years. Many hold some form of 'recognition' in the form of awards; and all are used to providing the SAR service in conditions where normal a/c are grounded.

All are making every effort to work with the employer and get back to providing some sort of night service. The question is not; 'why don't the crews go back to work?'; it is:-

How was this state of affairs allowed to come to being in the first place? What is being done to prevent a re-occurrence for SARH?

Any answers?

I can only surmise that the rumour that Crabette was closely involved with the selection of this airframe in the first place, and is currently involved with the CHC SARH bid, is accurate. :=

Are there the spare crews to run a S92 temp at a southern base?

LIMSAR cover down South
 

Crabette,

You talk about how great the Irish were, providing LIMSAR with their S61 to cover for the AW-139. That's all fine and very brave, but remember that Lee went 'Live" as of April. As a reminder, in the summer it gets dark too! This means they have been providing LIMSAR for 6 months and I agree with them that enough is enough!

Especially bearing in mind that they are THE units to be called out first and expected to do the job safe and effective, in all weather. LIMSAR doesn't fit in this equision:=

Crab, oops sorry, Crabette.

I hope you feel better for that. Unfortunately all you have done is show just how little you know or understand about the current situation. Or are you hiding behind someones coat??? CHC emblazoned perhaps!!

We are all deeply embarrassed by the way this has panned out. We are more than six months down the road since the 139 was introduced to service, at Lee, and we are only now getting towards making this machine safe for night ops in the U.K. Agreed a lot of work has been done in the last 2 weeks, and is still being done but the question is.. why has it taken so long and why did it take direct action to get things moving??

In a previous post, I said that the previous contractor was complacent in the bid for this interim contract!! CHC are now equally complacent in just assuming that the crews will " just get on with it!" Recognise those words?? You should do, you used them in a previous post when I had the temerity to suggest that the 139 was not up to the job. Who's right now?? And by the way, I have no say in whether this aircraft is fit to fly at night or not!

We are here to provide a service to the public as you so rightly point out, but we need the correct equipment to do that safely! Give us that equipment and we will "get on with it!" And I don't mean a Bristow S61!!!
There is no point in a shiny new 139 whizzing out at warp speed into the middle of the Channel and then not being able to do the job through lack of safety margins/equipment that should have been fitted from new build!! "Crab" would be the first one on the bandwagon saying they could/should have done the job in the first place.

The whole idea of this interim contract was to go forward, well let's do just that!!

3D

P.S.

I missed your post before it was got at by the mods. Hope you enjoyed it.

3D Cam

It's obviously been a difficult time for the crews, and it seems to me from reading this thread that the aircraft as put into service was not appropriately equipped for the task. Three questions occur to me:

Did the aircraft as delivered meet the MCA requirement spec?
Who did the acceptance testing, and who did they report to?
Are you in a position to give details of what the shortcomings actually are?

There are other agencies looking at this aircraft for various tasks, and knowing where the deficiencies are, and what it might take to rectify them, would be useful to many people. But I can see that posting such might be frowned on by CHC or MCA or both.

Sven

crabette slapping
 

Having 'broken my duck', so to speak, I can't resist adding that my better half commented, on reading crabette's post; 'Is there going to be a similarly irrational post this time next month'!! :)

Crabette Bitch slapping????????????????
 

"Bitch slapping" could be right, but from your username I conclude you have it the wrong way round. Its not the bitch that is BEING slapped, more the ....................... well I dont want to get edited by the mods.


NUFF SAID, all the south coast crews have my 100% support even if I don't fly with them anymore. And I know the SUMSAR crews will do a sterling job whilst on detatchement. Just don't have TOO much fun wazzing the beaches boys, I know what you're like when you have an adoring public to wave at :ok:

Si

please help a lowly fixie wing get a proper job
 

sorry I cant contribute on a level with your discussions but I need help.
I am very keen to get into SAR. Currently a fixed wing guy with quite alot of experience and a background of air ambulance I have found myself in a very unrewarding job in a Scottish airline. My dream is to convert my licence to atplh but at present I only have a ppl h .
With a young family on the make and a tight budget I am keen to exploit any assistance I can toward my cplH in return for a long term commitment.
Who should I approach?
Thanks and keep up the good work.

Red, red whine......
 

Maybe the red flag to a bull was waved….?
Sorry to 3D for getting ‘personally’ close to home. :oh:

On the ‘professional’ home front however;

With this Interim contract, new equipment was introduced. So, it turns out that not all your bells & whistles were going to be provided on time or indeed necessarily the ones that you would want. So a LIMSAR cab was introduced, I’m sure no party, neither MCA, nor CHC were overly happy, but it was the beginning of an ‘Interim phase’ and a LIMSAR period with the move towards AWSAR the goal. Not going to happen overnight. Perhaps it was felt the HK and Meridian could speed up the process? Only undoes the years of hard work and excellent service by the crews who have always made good of the limited equipment at their disposal-IMHO

Could not agree more that safety is the number one aim in aviation, albeit you SAR crews are required to risk assess yourselves into dangerous territory to do the job. As a LIMSAR cab with proposed improvements to AWSAR level, was the aircraft given a fair chance in the LIMSAR role? Only you and the crews can answer that. You all spent time online in the past with backup LIMSAR S61 cabs and managed a service. If you had spent the last 10 – 20 years on you ‘current AW139’ and then been given a ‘backup LIMSAR’ S61 as you new cab for example, what would you think to that? No a lot I’m sure….well size does matter, couldn’t agree more!:ok:

With new technology, in a short time frame and with limited financial resources, it won’t work to your every wish list! Suffice to say that will always be the case no matter who is running the show, or specifying the fit. Can’t please everyone obviously, I should know as you have to be bloody hard to please me! ;)

New aircraft and ‘old’ crew came on line after a quick honeymoon together. (It was an arranged marriage and you guys don’t want your bride), sorry but Miss S92 was already engaged, a ‘high maintenance’ model and not without her snags either! You know it’s a women thing.:O

The manufacturer and CHC, obviously both under very tight schedules have commenced the LIMSAR service with outstanding deficiencies to be addressed. You knew this, yet it appears to all outside that you have ‘forced’ a show down in public without allowing time for the belated modifications and upgrades needed for the AWSAR ability. This is the reason for the slapping!:=

Not a professional move airing dirty laundry in public. But since you have brought it outside for all to see, I’m not surprised that all the crews want to get back to some sort of normality. SAR is a demanding role, in a demanding environment. Yes you don’t want a demanding aircraft. Is the current 139 too demanding for highly trained crews to provide a safe LIMSAR service?? What are the other SAR 139 operators working with? What are they capable of? What is on their wish lists? Since we don’t hear them complaining in public maybe they are getting on with the job, doing the best they can with the tools they have and quietly adding the improvements and procedures needed to provide a SAR service. They probably want your current cabs on their wish list!:}

ASER: can you help out please???

MOST IMPORTANTLY
To all crews concerned; fly safe and lots of love, you do a fantastic job.

Lastly; the rumour that I'm expecting Crab@'s baby is ~#*^:mad:

Anyone see the program Top Trumps, Rescue Rigs, on five recently?
You could view it through the internet on Five on Demand.
What a machine!:rolleyes:

As a quick reminder, here is what was said in only March this year:

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 slated to be used 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.

CHC's 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."

All of the above must be true because it is two highly experienced "SAR to the core" people that have been quoted.

Isn't it just a load of meaningless management b*ll!!!! ?:ugh:

Regards,

CD

PS. Haven't heard much from the two clowns quoted above since the debacle became public.

No way! :E
I've been reading with interest this thread , but I'll never comment about the U.K. actions, it isn't my war.

I can only say that I support 100% the U.K. crews
I know we share the wish list ;) .

As I always write on internet with my real name... I hope you all understand.

Regards
Aser

Aser..understand you don't want to enter politics but can you comment on the Primus Epic...and its EASA certification status as this semms to be play a part in the UK situation.
I believe the mods for the SAR mode have yet to be cleared ??

Limsar
 

Crabette,

The point I want to get across is that there are two units on the South Coast, which are responsible for UK Primairy SAR, with a LIMSAR aircraft. For more than 6 months already.......

There is no doubt in my mind that the crews are able to perform their missions safe in the LIMSAR 139, however they will be faced with restrictions operating a Limited SAR aircraft.

The previous operator had a LIMSAR as a back-up aircraft and crews were online with this cab every now and then. But it is a BIG difference knowing that you have an AWSAR aircraft at your disposal soon (when it is repaired) or that management keeps saying that your AWSAR aircraft is expected anytime (for 6 months!!).

Especially with the horrendous autumn/winter weather approaching I could not agree more with the crews for what they did.

Try saving people in distress, floating in the Channel at Night, no horizon, howling winds and rain, without autohover!! Good Luck :sad:

Sven.

I have no idea what the original MCA spec. was. I worked for the "enemy", Bristow, when that was brought into being. Perhaps "Crabette" could enlighten us? :E

We have done the range and survivor claims and actuality thing to death so I will not revisit those!

Acceptance testing is what is going on now and has been for the last eight months.

Shortcomings??

Sorry I am not party to those,:ok: and even if I were, would not post them on here. Previous posters have pretty much hit the nail on the head however.

I may not be happy with the way things are going, understatement of the year, but Mrs 3D still needs to be kept in the manner to which she has become accustomed.:)

3D

Outrage in the North. Don't you know who I am???? :eek:

MP fumes over chopper withdrawal

Another interesting question: Why did they use the Sumburgh spare aircraft to help out down south?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that there is another (albeit privately owned) SAR aircraft on the airfield which could be called upon in case of need (for free)?

But zee germans from sumburgh will now be invading the south of England:p