-
-
Descent 310 is out now.
....so prepare to see some of the best writing and photography from the caving world
Including: Into the Echo Chamber, Tim Allen reports on another magnificent Yorkshire Dales find by the Space Miners....and: The Great Geoff Yeadon, undoubtedly one of the greats of the caving world. Following his death at the age of 75, Geoff Crossley, Martin Grass and Mick Nunwick pay tribute to him.
helicopter rescue
- Thread starter graham
- Start date
Slug
Active member
They probably won't be charging. In all likelyhood they, (Bristows) will just replace the R.A.F./R.N. S.A.R. Helicopter fleet with thier own, and carry on doing the same job the military did......
However, should they charge, the running costs per hour of a Sea King or a Shithook is about ?5000 to?8000 per hour, as a rough guide.
However, should they charge, the running costs per hour of a Sea King or a Shithook is about ?5000 to?8000 per hour, as a rough guide.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
I have not heard of any indication of charging in discussions in UK Search and Rescue debates. My understanding is that it is a cheaper way of getting more up to date helicopters into action. See https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/search-and-rescue-helicopters--5 for the spin.
paul
Moderator
Scots mountain rescuers welcome new privatised search helicopter scheme : http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2013/04/03/scots-mountain-rescuers-welcome-new-privatised-search-helicopter-scheme
exsumper
New member
?With approximately 60 per cent of all Scottish mountain rescues occurring within a 30-minute flight of Fort William, the new announcement that there will be a base at Inverness airport is particularly good news for all mountain users"
Don't quite follow the logic ? Surely it would be better for the helicopter to be based at Fort William.
They must have the same "other way of knowing!" used by the people who say that scrapping the SAR Helicopter at Portland and having just one at Lee-On-Solent will be an improvement and not cost lives. Despite the fact that both helicopters are commonly active at the same time, and when the new contract comes into force, they will no longer be available for use as air ambulances.
Is there a school of stupidity where these people are educated? :
Don't quite follow the logic ? Surely it would be better for the helicopter to be based at Fort William.
They must have the same "other way of knowing!" used by the people who say that scrapping the SAR Helicopter at Portland and having just one at Lee-On-Solent will be an improvement and not cost lives. Despite the fact that both helicopters are commonly active at the same time, and when the new contract comes into force, they will no longer be available for use as air ambulances.
Is there a school of stupidity where these people are educated? :
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Inverness has to be better than the existing Loussiemouth base which is further to the east of Inverness when looked at from Fort William. Is there an airport in Fort William?
If you read the details two helicopters will provided at each base. But I am slightly concerned that there is only a 10% spare helicopter provision though I have not traced a value for how many spares the RAF have. That looks like a high reliability figure. Though as these new ones are the same helicopters used for off shore work, I guess they do have a proven high reliability.
Showing my age, does anyone recall Hamish MacInnes complaining when they proposed to switch from Wessex to Sea King?
If you read the details two helicopters will provided at each base. But I am slightly concerned that there is only a 10% spare helicopter provision though I have not traced a value for how many spares the RAF have. That looks like a high reliability figure. Though as these new ones are the same helicopters used for off shore work, I guess they do have a proven high reliability.
Showing my age, does anyone recall Hamish MacInnes complaining when they proposed to switch from Wessex to Sea King?
Space Kadet
New member
What will they privatise next? How about the government, they could be replaced by a Indian call centre in Dehli.
exsumper
New member
Lossiemouth? Thought lack of an airport was the whole point of a helicopter?
The one at Portland operates from an area of tarmac and a large shed.
My point was regarding flying times, both transit and on site. When I used to take part in rescues, that was one of the main factors in survival. Not an SAR consideration now apparently.
The Sea King was a vast improvement on the Wessex. Wether the new types are is debatable?
e.g. Sea King flies to ship in distress /school party stuck on mountain , picks up 17 survivors.
New S-92 flies to ship/ mountain can only pick up absolute max of 12 survivors. Hopes ship survivors left behind can tread water, and passes shovels to abandoned school kids, so they can dig snow holes?.
The AW189 can only carry 6 survivors. One can only hope they're never called on.
Although as the more knowledgable SAR committee have said, the new helicopters are much faster.
An improved or equal performance however, would require that the S-92 can fly a minimum of 2x times faster and the AW189 3 times faster than the Sea King? I'm extremely dubious about the SAR committee's claims that the new helicopters can reach the required speeds?
The MCRoS are obiously right then. A great improvement!!!; trebles all round
Sorry, what was I saying about schools of idiocy??
The one at Portland operates from an area of tarmac and a large shed.
My point was regarding flying times, both transit and on site. When I used to take part in rescues, that was one of the main factors in survival. Not an SAR consideration now apparently.
The Sea King was a vast improvement on the Wessex. Wether the new types are is debatable?
e.g. Sea King flies to ship in distress /school party stuck on mountain , picks up 17 survivors.
New S-92 flies to ship/ mountain can only pick up absolute max of 12 survivors. Hopes ship survivors left behind can tread water, and passes shovels to abandoned school kids, so they can dig snow holes?.
The AW189 can only carry 6 survivors. One can only hope they're never called on.
Although as the more knowledgable SAR committee have said, the new helicopters are much faster.
An improved or equal performance however, would require that the S-92 can fly a minimum of 2x times faster and the AW189 3 times faster than the Sea King? I'm extremely dubious about the SAR committee's claims that the new helicopters can reach the required speeds?
The MCRoS are obiously right then. A great improvement!!!; trebles all round
Sorry, what was I saying about schools of idiocy??
shortscotsman
New member
Inverness strikes me as a pretty reasonable base - it isn't just the fort wiliam/glencoe areas but the cairngorms and the northwest
which it covers.
which it covers.
Slug
Active member
paul said:Bob Mehew said:
I'm sure he complained when they phased out the Whirlwinds for the Wessex.
The Wessex had to be replaced, once Thatcher had shut down the mines...... it ran on COAL you know.......but Ahh..... the Whirlwind H.A.R.10, a cantankerous bitch sometimes, but I still love them dearly.....second best flying machine ever built.....after the Huey.
The same argument about most efficient location was used when Coltishall closed and the S.A.R. cover was moved to Whatashame, at the same time other S.A.R. units were moved or closed down, the Sea King may have been faster and larger than the good ole "Steam Ship", but a call out in East Anglia, and another in say Kent did stretch the coverage very thinly.
Ed W
Member
The "Tarmac and Large Shed" at Portland are part of the old naval air station of HMS Osprey. A helicopter does not need much real estate to land / take off (I could bore you with details) but in order to provide an operating base (as opposed to merely touch down area) is a bit more problematic, not to say down right expensive. In order to provide an available aircraft, that operating base must provide fuel, maintenance, ground power, air traffic control, landing and approach aids yadda yadda yadda. As such the "tarmac and shed" at Portland came with most of this infrastructure when the navy left (1990ish if memory serves). I would hazard a guess that unless HM Coastguard have replaced the old nay infrastructure that one of the reasons the SAR flight is being relocated will be the cost of replacing much of that equipment as it must be well past its sell by now, and this is a significant cost to support a single aircraft. From experience the infrastructure to support two or three helicopters is not much different to that for a singleton.
The military SAR flights (RN/RAF) are provided primarily for military SAR - specifically to recover downed aircrew. Civilian SAR is carried out only when the aircraft are not tasked on military operations, thus the aircraft are not always available. Added to this the good old Sea King/S61 is now a 50 year old aircraft and suffers poor airframe availability as maintainers have to work harder to keep obsolete equipment and systems in working order. I would not be in the least surprised if airframe availability for the S-92 will be twice that of the current fleet. Anyone who doubts this should do a little research into the terrible loss rate of Sea Kings in Canadian service in the early 2000s.
I know none of us are keen on change, but I for one will be much happier knowing that when rescue arrives it will be in a shiny modern helicopter rather than a clapped out old Sea King. I can see the logic of concentrating aircraft together for far more efficient support.
The military SAR flights (RN/RAF) are provided primarily for military SAR - specifically to recover downed aircrew. Civilian SAR is carried out only when the aircraft are not tasked on military operations, thus the aircraft are not always available. Added to this the good old Sea King/S61 is now a 50 year old aircraft and suffers poor airframe availability as maintainers have to work harder to keep obsolete equipment and systems in working order. I would not be in the least surprised if airframe availability for the S-92 will be twice that of the current fleet. Anyone who doubts this should do a little research into the terrible loss rate of Sea Kings in Canadian service in the early 2000s.
I know none of us are keen on change, but I for one will be much happier knowing that when rescue arrives it will be in a shiny modern helicopter rather than a clapped out old Sea King. I can see the logic of concentrating aircraft together for far more efficient support.
exsumper
New member
Thats a lot of waffle to not address the point I was making.
Ed W said:The "Tarmac and Large Shed" at Portland are part of the old naval air station of HMS Osprey.
No they aren't I helped build a new one when I lived there.
"A helicopter does not need much real estate to land / take off (I could bore you with details)"I'd always thought it was because they took off and landed fairly vertically??? Do tell!
Sea King??? My point was: Public statements that the changes to the service, and the operational performance of the new helicopters are an improvement, are dishonest.
" I can see the logic of concentrating aircraft together for far more efficient support"
Response time is and should be the critical parameter.
exsumper
New member
The following excerpts from this report. and the report itself, shows how little thought has gone into the re-organisation of SAR services.
http://www.richarddrax.com/content/save-portland-helicopter
5. In November 2011, Transport Secretary Justine Greening announced that the Portland SAR helicopter would close in 2018. In her letter to South Dorset MP Richard Drax, confirming the decision, she wrote: ?I did not undertake any consultations before announcing the new basing arrangements since I am improving the service.?
This is just one of the impacts that smaller helicopters and service closures at Portland and Boulmer will have on perfomance.
"14. Air ambulance. In addition to no night flying, the air ambulance frequently cannot access the casualty because it is not fitted with a winch. Neither is it large enough to carry intensive care teams for hospital transfers between, for example, Dorchester and John Radcliffe in Oxford. Consequently, the Portland helicopter is regularly tasked for air-ambulance-style work"
Still can't see why Rescue Organisations think its so bloody wonderful???
http://www.richarddrax.com/content/save-portland-helicopter
5. In November 2011, Transport Secretary Justine Greening announced that the Portland SAR helicopter would close in 2018. In her letter to South Dorset MP Richard Drax, confirming the decision, she wrote: ?I did not undertake any consultations before announcing the new basing arrangements since I am improving the service.?
This is just one of the impacts that smaller helicopters and service closures at Portland and Boulmer will have on perfomance.
"14. Air ambulance. In addition to no night flying, the air ambulance frequently cannot access the casualty because it is not fitted with a winch. Neither is it large enough to carry intensive care teams for hospital transfers between, for example, Dorchester and John Radcliffe in Oxford. Consequently, the Portland helicopter is regularly tasked for air-ambulance-style work"
Still can't see why Rescue Organisations think its so bloody wonderful???
Similar threads
