Crab, a quick off the top of the head response. I think the public will not notice any change when the SAR job is taken off your hands. They are after all the main 'users'. The crews, of whatever former uniform, will do the expert job they have been doing for many years now, even those poor beknighted souls who have been promoted from the LH seat. They are just as experienced as your lads/ladies, get the same training as the RH seat driver etc etc ad nauseam.

I don't care who is driving, as long as the bloke on the wire is safe and gets me up on that hook. :ok:

A GH sortie, a day/night SAR role sortie and an IRT in terms of flying checks and all done, I would suspect, in one visit by the TRE.

No, that is not what I mean.
A Cert of Test encompasses a whole miscellany of emergencies, single engine work, tail rotor failure, all the good things, pretty much what you probably do.
Yes the SAR day night check is probably the same or similar to yours.
The IRT is done alternately ie incorporates the IF base check. The IF base check includes more emergencies than the IRT especially if conducted in the Simulator while off island. Yes I know you hold an IR, but using it every day within a busy zone is another matter entirely, to the blokes working out of Aberdeen and worldwide it isn't a 'get me out of trouble' ticket; the attitude which prevailed about the service instrument rating many years ago. I accept times and attitudes have changed with the advent of better instrumentation and nav aids.

The checks are usually done by an on-site IRE/TRE (Instrument rating examiner/ Type rating examiner), or by a visiting standards examiner or the type chief pilot who will monitor the whole operation for efficiency and quality usually over a period of a week or ten days, he or she will stand in for one of the pilots. Just what you would expect. So the environment is one that should be familiar to you, except there is little if any deference; respect, yes for everybody, because the success of each flight depends on everybody doing their job to the best of their ability. Forelock tugging no. I'd recommend it to anybody. :)

A quick one on working in an IFR environment when Aberdeen was busy. When it's the middle of winter, it's snowing, the cloud base is down and there are helicopters mixing it with stiff wings for both the ILS and the SIDs, with 12 helicopters waiting to line up, some of which have to return to top up their fuel loads; then it's IFR with a vengeance. Fascinating work, not to be derided or sneered at. Some find/found it monotonous, I suppose experience and familiarity does that. Nonetheless it requires knowledge and skill. Just like hurling a small 61 around on the end of a winchop. :ok:

That could explain why certain parties on this forum are so against SAR-H. :sad:

Crab - sounds like you've been had on that as it is unlikely to be a factor with the winning bidder which will no doubt be running a 'new' SARH specific operating company for this unique contract.

Zalt - even if it is CHC just moving from the interim contract to the new one? I remain to be convinced on that one. Plus I suspect that TUPE rights will have an effect for whoever goes from CHC to the new company - maybe it will be new contracts and terms of employment all round but I won't be surprised if it isn't.

Bootneck - you are right, for some areas there will be no discernable change but in the overland SAR environment (which is a big percentage of our rescues) , the experience lies predominantly with the military, especially at night and in multi aircraft ops. Now I know you will argue that the new contract is supposed to provide NVG capability but the interim contract was supposed to provide long range SAR aircraft and it clearly hasn't - the training bill for civvy crews for NVG will be very big and the CAA still don't appear to have sanctioned it anyway.

As for the winchmen - most of them are ex mil and any new contract will have to set up a training system so like the existing RAF one that it seems pointless to replace it.

Mark my words, if SARH goes ahead in its present guise, the uniforms will change and the aircraft will change - the experience level and quantity of training will reduce and the capability will be eroded - it will be glossed over by company and MCA spin doctors but it will happen.

Crab,

They'll be plenty of positions for ex military crews within SAR-H. There are only 4 MCA bases and 8 military ones. Are you expecting all the personnel on the 4 bases to fill all the slots on the military units after SAR-H. This really is scare mongering at its worst. :=

You say "mark my words" but as we all know your "words" frequently change to suit whichever argument you are attempting to win. The MCA has been running SAR units successfully for over 20 years and will continue to do so. Your attempts to continuously rubbish them by making shameful comments like the one above only shows you to be coming more and more out of touch and slightly hysterical. :(

Lost - there will be plenty of positions available for ex mil crews because it is the only way the new contract can be manned successfully.

The maximum number of mil personnel under SAR H will be 66 which includes manning the Falklands det - that leaves about 2 flights worth of mil in UK.

Therefore the contractor will have to find crews for another 6 flights.

Unless there is an exodus from the miltary (unlikely for many reasons, some of which I have mentioned before) there will not be enough fully-trained and SAR experienced crews to maintain the standby.

The SARH bidders know this and have asked why there can't be more mil involvement.

Btw - you weren't listening last time - the MCA don't run the civsar flights, the contractors do.

Your lack of knowledge and experience of UK SAR means that whatever I try to say, you will take words and phrases out of context and trivialise them. The Military runs 66% of UK SAR and I know how it works and what it is capable of - without the skills and knowledge we bring to the party, UK SAR will be a lesser service in the future. I think I have been pretty consistent in delivering that message:)

Spanish who ever you are

First you come in this forum and and start over looking at my spelling and and engish grammar and also that I know nothing about SAR

So beit I thought the whole point of a forum was free speech and that everyody was entitled to their opinion.

And yes I was using a bit of humour but obvious you and along with 332M and crab have none :{

We have all these SAR experts on here so I find it odd that nobody can answer my post 119:ugh:

Is it because there is a ban on releasing what could be embarrassing information?

So the questions again:

1. Has the S92 a greater radius of action than the Seaking or even the S61

2. Will the S92 ever be able to go as far as the Seaking without compromising cabin space?

2strops

2Strops - I am clearly not an S92 pilot but I believe the answer to both your questions is No!

The Mk 3 and 3A Sea Kings have a RoA of 240nm on an average day which the S92 can't get near (the S61 used to tote approx 195nm RoA).

From the information available, the S92's extra tanks fit is an internal one and therefore at the expense of cabin space. There are various claims on the time required to fit the overload tanks but you can be sure it won't be within the normal RS15. I believe the RoA with them fitted is 300nm but this may be more spin:)

Yes, but does that include the 500kgs worth of role kit.

R1a

Again you're doing that misleading thing again. You're suggesting that the MCA have no direct involvement in the day to day running of a civsar flight. It's simply not true.:(

Crab,

As one of your disciples has already pointed out the skills and knowledge the military have of SAR has been passed to the Civvy SAR in the past and is still coming. Lot's of ex military SAR pilots have joined civy SAR and are quite happy with how it operates and the high level of service it provides. They and the civilian pilots strive to provide a high level of service and look at ways to make it safer and better. Your problem is that you can't accept that anyone in Civvy SAR can develop SAR and make it better. But there is plenty of innovation and development there. You just can't accept that anyone other than the RAF can do that. After SAR-H yes there will be less people coming in from the military but that doesn't mean that ideas and development will stop. There will be a big pool of SAR crew with all the support behind it. You don't have to wear an RAF uniform to have a good idea and improve things you know. :ugh:

It's worth pointing out that one of the biggest developments in SAR, the twin hoist, was developed by Bristow Helicopters. Something that is now fitted as standard on most SAR aircraft. I'm not sure if the Sea Kings have it yet but when/if you do even you will have to admit it makes for a safer environment for the crewmen.:ok:

There you go. Even your Commander in Chief, after all its her airforce, recognises a civilian company and the work its done in SAR. :D:D:D

Lost - I say again - the MCA task the SAR flights, the contractors run them on behalf of the MCA - this is why, when the MCA go on strike, the SAR helicopters keep on going as we may see next weekend.

I think you'll find the hoist manufacturers were actually responsible for creating and introducing the twin hoist.


Where exactly is this big pool of SAR crew going to come from? Where is the NVG experience going to appear from? Where is the multi aircraft ops experience going to come from? 6 flights is 60 pilots and 60 rearcrew plus the existing civ crews that will need extra training to take on the overland night tasking. You glibly gloss over the major problem with this contract - that the devil is in the detail and all the management speak and spin in the world won't make that go away.

Improvement and capability comes from training. Train hard, fight easy. Who does more training?

I'm not doubting the committment to excellence by the civ SAR crews but someone has to pay for innovation.

AW and VT convinced everyone that they could take over the engineering of Mil SAR in the same arrogant fashion that people like you talk about taking over the flying role of mil SAR. They use words like seamless, no reduction in availability, smooth transition etc but it hasn't worked - so badly in fact that a senior engineer resigned this week. They will eventually make it work but it will cost them a lot of money and us a lot of angst.

Just face facts - business is about profit - therefore, whatever promises are made before the event are worthless once the realities of the balance sheet are brought into play and the inevitable weasel-wording of the lawyers will ensure that all sorts of capabilities are eroded in order to protect the profit margin. Training is the single easiest corner to cut because there is no immediate effect - it takes time for the skills to fade and by the time anyone notices it is too late to reverse the situation.

Lost at Sea,

Could you clarify who, exactly, from the MCA is involved with the day to day running of the civ SAR flts and what qualifications they hold that allows them to do that?

Could you also state what duties they perform?

This is a genuine question and not the start point for a slanging match.

Thanks,

HAL

Crab,
When I retired, the Bristow SAR S61N's had two separate hoists one French and the other American (as fitted to the Griffon), they happen to be bolted either side of the hoist frame. Bristow definitely introduced them.

Crab, "I think you'll find the hoist manufacturers were actually responsible for creating and introducing the twin hoist."

dear crab, you are not thinking at all. the dual hoist came about from the Cullen report after the MV Green Lily incident, were a very brave winchman was lost. for you to ignore this fact is an insult to the memory of Bill Deacon and puts you lower in my estimation than you already are.

Don't be so precious rope dope - you really do need to look at what you have written in the context of this thread - just because I didn't specifically mention Billy Deacon in the same sentence as I talked about the hoist is hardly reason to accuse me of not respecting his memory.

The introduction of the twin hoist did, I am sure, come as a direct result of that accident and the report but trying to canonize Bristows as SAR gods just because they were the first to have a twin hoist fitted is faintly pathetic.

Since the twin hoist was an option before the accident, you have to ask why they waited until they lost a winchman to decide to fit them - surely a forward looking company pursuing SAR excellence would have considered the what-ifs of a hoist failure and pre-empted the situation.

As for the MCA - today Swansea CG are broadcasting that they are already taking industrial action - I didn't think it was until next weekend. They are answering emergency calls at the moment but next weekend might be different since you have to have some ops room staff in the building to answer the radios and phones. Who will they get to do the job for them I wonder?

Crab Quote:- "Since the twin hoist was an option before the accident, you have to ask why they waited until they lost a winchman to decide to fit them - surely a forward looking company pursuing SAR excellence would have considered the what-ifs of a hoist failure and pre-empted the situation"

So you know that for a fact "J" do you? if so come on lets see the some proof.

You'll be telling us the RAF need to keep uk Sar so they can keep up their skill's for combat SAR.

If thats the case your 4 hours a day training must make you the ideal pilot to send to Iraq and give us all a break :D

Crab, your arrogance is overwhelming.
Until you have served or even visited an MCA base and discussed the differences between Civil or Mil SAR how can you claim (which you have done on no uncertain terms, on many occasions) to be an authority on UK SAR.
Having already met you, your superciliousness is as self evident as each and every post you make.
I hope you and your family are prepared for 2012 when jobs maybe hard to find.

From a civil aviator

Doc Brown

crab, I mentioned the Cullen report, I am not cannonising anyone. sar gods are your words not mine. you must be singlehandedly responsible for more people leaving pprune/rotorheads than anyone/thing I can imagine. are you talking about the same forward looking sar as the military who did'nt have twin hoists or forward looking infra red at that time. get a life.

Crab, you asked about civilian SAR training. My previous response was historical, but not far off more recent information. This is from Bristow's website circa 2006.



Search & Rescue

Bristow operates four dedicated Search and Rescue (SAR) sites in the UK, on behalf of the Coast Guard Service. The units are located at Portland and Lee-on-Solent on the south coast of England, at Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides, and at Sumburgh in the Shetland Isles.

A significant number of training staff is on duty at each site. Three pilots are current JAA TRI/TRE appointment holders with full UK CAA Authorized Examiner authority. Each unit has a Training Air Crewman who is responsible for all rear crew training and re-currency checking.

In addition, Bristow has a vigorous company standardization system. To cover SAR training, one of the training pilots serves as the Bristow SAR Standards Pilot, and a Senior Winchman fulfills the role of Bristow SAR Aircrewman Standards Examiner.
Bristow’s SAR training commonly includes these topics:

* Pilot training including day/night/IFR Maritime and Mountain operations
* Winch Operator training
* Winchman training
* Training in the use of specialist equipment including: LN450, FLIR, Dual Hoist, EHSI, NVG, GPS
* First Aid training



Crab, I've mentioned it previously, the civilian SAR project, intended originally for use in the 40's field was the creation of a former Crab. This is BD Eyes, prior to being dunked by a very experienced former Crab. (Poor point scoring by me) It was a natural evolution from the 212 project.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...OaM2/BDII1.jpg

The mention of Billy Deacon has a sobering effect within the confines of this conversation. He taught me map reading from the back of a Wessex 5, he then taught me to do as I'm told when being winched on a hook way back in 1974/75. His loss punched the wind out of the SAR teams, it is to their great credit that they continued their work and enhanced their already solid reputation. Since the inception of civilian SAR the teams have acquired and earned a reputation that is second to none. By that I mean they stand alongside, not against their colleagues in military SAR. If you cannot accept that then you really are not the right material for the broader world of aviation outside the services.

Crab.
I've tried to stay out of this latest anti civvy rant but your assertion about the twin hoist fit needs correcting. When was it an option?(Genuine question.) Facts please, not your usual third hand information.
It was designed and developed by Bristow, not the hoist makers. Have you got a same capability, dual hoist fit on your yellow perils? No? Thought not! Going to get one? I doubt it!
Sorry for the willy waving but the mention of Billy(I know not by you) brought back a lot of memories, he was the genuine Mr. Nice Guy! And a good mate!
3D

Bootneck,
Re early SAR, do you remember the Lucas Air Hoist? If I correctly recall they were used in the Forties and were stored on the rigs and fitted when necessary. I did an investigation on a failed cable in the seventies.

Crab,
With respect, I do not believe in slagging people off needlessly, I entered the RAF as a Halton Apprentice (81st) straight from the school and I suspect that you entered from Uni or business but not from civil aviation. The Services rely on recruiting young persons. Your posts remind me of the attitude of the military instructors at Shawbury when DHFS was formed and civilianised, "the military system was the best" without any logical reason or investigation for believing that.
I will ask one question, who has the most experience and the largest overall fleet, excluding combat aircraft, military aviation or civil aviation? Withour rancour, or prejudice you have a lot to learn but I salute you for the job you are presently doing. Were you at or over Fairford today?

Oldlae, sorry that hoist must have pre-dated me. Was that a 212 fit?

Bootneck,
No, S61N's, I'm sure someone will remember it and its faults.

1. Has the S92 a greater radius of action than the Seaking or even the S61

2. Will the S92 ever be able to go as far as the Seaking without compromising cabin space?

Answer to 1: yes if you fit auxiliary tanks (according to the manufacturer's published information).

Answer to 2. no (see 1).

But the third question is: with the aux tanks fitted, is there enough space in the S92 cabin to get the job done?

Anyone able to cast light on that? Remember that a Sea King at 240 nm (the practical limit of its RoA if you are to do anything more than scoop and run once on scene) can lift about 12 survivors max on a good day. Can you get 12 survivors and an aux tank in an S92 cabin - I'm sure the beast will be space not weight limited? Or, worst case, can you jettison the tank once it's empty to make more space?

Sven

3D - I may have gone over the top regarding the twin hoist but most of the criticisms I receive here are as a result of replying to those petty individuals who keep avoiding the bigger argument and instead pick on one word, phrase or sentence I use and focus on tearing that to pieces.

As for all the blah about being supercilious and arrogant, anyone who knows me will know that is not true - I am however, a passionate believer in the quality of military SAR because I know what we can do, and train for, and what others can't. I will reiterate, because someone will ignore the context and actual words I used, I do not have a downer on civvySAR or any of the individual crews' professional capabilities - I don't generate the 'willy waving' except to clarify what capabilites actually exist within milSAR as opposed to the memories of some who haven't done it for many years and don't understand where we have moved on to.

Despite all the protestations, the night overland SAR and multi-aircraft/multi agency Ops scenarios are where the military has all the experience both in operating the aircraft and in command and control. CivSar does not currently have this.

Old lae - since you mention DHFS - how many instructors who are not ex-military are employed there? Somewhere around none I believe. What does that tell you? That for training military pilots, you need current mil pilots and/or ex mil pilots. The DHFS system is not a civilian one, it is the same system as was used by the RAF before at Shawbury only with some instructors wearing 4 bars on their shoulders - all good guys and many excellent beefers. They don't teach a CAA syllabus they teach a military one.

Bootneck - Bristows are hardly likely to show themselves as anything other than exemplary on their own website are they? May I remind you that they lost the interim contract because they thought the MCA would just accept more of the same 20 year old service and were significantly outclassed by the professional bid from CHC.

Doc Brown - you claim to have met me - where and when? I don't claim to be an authority on UKSAR but as an ex-Sqn trg off I do claim to know the capabilities of the military element (2/3s of UK SAR). Perhaps you should ask those in the 1/3 minority what they know of current military capability.

Crab,
As an engineer I would never critcise aircrew training of any sort, I meant the acceptance of the different engineering procedures at DHFS. I know that it is a minor point which you don't seem to like, but perhaps you shouldn't leave yourself open by mentioning points that you may not be sure about.

Apologies to Crab sorry M8:O

R1

Rescue 1

For goodness sake read the post before slagging Crab off - he was talking about Shawbury and the instructors there - nothing to do with SAR units:ugh:

If you are civilian SAR - can you answer the question - what is the ROA of the S92 at the moment without cabin aux fuel tanks.

The way I read the graphs is that to pick up 10 people it has a ROA of 150nms - is that correct?

2strops

Upgrade Seaking HAR3
 

Crab

Can you answer this, I have just read the March/April issue of Defence helicopter there is an article about the Seakings deployed to Aghanistan.

The 3 HC4's have been upgraded to HC4+ and have Carson main blades new AW tail rotor blades and upgraded Gnomes all in all the article suggests the Seakings with these upgrades can perform 20% better with better fuel ecomonomy.

Can you shead light on this and and tell us what you know and can the HAR3/3a's be upgraded?

PB

Sven

When did the rescue services last need to rescue 12 soles from 240nms?

Thats a good idea.

Something fishy here?
 

Sven


When did the rescue services last need to rescue 12 soles from 240nms?

Since Dover is pretty close I guess they must be lemon? Or is it all a bunch of cobblers?

far enough?
 

http://www.pprune.org/forums/rotorhe...uard-crew.html


I believe the survivors may have left their boots to save weight? (no soles saved!) :ok:

That was funny. You know what I meant though.

OldLAE - your post just referred to DHFS and the subject we were talking about was pilot training - why do you now say it was specifically the new engineering practises you were lauding when your post says nothing of the sort? I am confused - but that happens easily:) The serviceability at DHFS is excellent but they have new aircraft and experienced engineers.

Pumaboy - the Carson blades modification was procured under a UOR for those few Mk 4s, I believe, so getting the same upgrade for all SeaKings would have to be justified another way. The blades massively improve all areas of the Sea King performance such that the normal FE limit of 127kts is available at MAUM and at high altitude whereas on a standard Sea King the performance drops off very quickly with either AUM or DA.

The PTIT measuring on the 1T engines has been accurately fudged so that whilst the guage indicated limit is still the same (795 degC PTIT) the actual PTIT is higher allowing more power to be pulled. The only difference I believe is that whilst the Max con on a normal engine is not cumulative, on the 1T it is and after amassing 2.5 mins the engine is rejected.

The combination of the two mods gives a large increase in hot and high performance which is exactly as claimed by Mr Carson - the Sea King fleet could be given a 'late-life' update that would give immediate performance benefits and probably save a lot of money in the mid to long term - so it probably won't happen. If they carried out these mods and an avionics upgrade on the Mk 3s we wouldn't need shiny S92s or 139s to do UK SAR:)

Rescue1 did I miss a post somewhere?

Bugs to 40 - I seem to remember that Lossie did a longranger for a lot of souls and had to exceed the MAUM in the process - sometime within the last 5 years I think.

The PTIT measuring on the 1T engines has been accurately fudged so that whilst the guage indicated limit is still the same (795 degC PTIT) the actual PTIT is higher allowing more power to be pulled. The only difference I believe is that whilst the Max con on a normal engine is not cumulative, on the 1T it is and after amassing 2.5 mins the engine is rejected.

The combination of the two mods gives a large increase in hot and high performance which is exactly as claimed by Mr Carson - the Sea King fleet could be given a 'late-life' update that would give immediate performance benefits and probably save a lot of money in the mid to long term - so it probably won't happen. If they carried out these mods and an avionics upgrade on the Mk 3s we wouldn't need shiny S92s or 139s to do UK SAR

Two problems with the above.

-1T engines do nothing at all for you until the temperature gets above about +30. So for most of the time in the UK they are not worth having (bloody marvellous in the sandpits though).

Whatever you do to a Sea King, and I agree Crab's analysis that with Carson blades and modern avionics the machine would be transformed, in the last analysis its still a Sea King and needs something like 30 maintenance manhours per flying hour. Modern helicopters are an order of magnitude better than that. New aircraft are at least highly desirable, probably essential.

Sven

The whole point of this questioning was and if the SAR-H is delayed or even canx it would probably make sence to make a late life upgrade to fill the gap if the project is canx.

But Crab is right where would the money come fro for a mid-life upgrade as the MoD are cash Strapped

Crab thanks for yor input

PB

Crab,
Another minor point, sorry, to put the record straight I was referring to the interface between the Instructors and Engineering re the difference between the F700 and the civil Technical Log when accepting an aircraft as serviceable to fly.