Low level overwater ops: radar discussion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QTG
The Sea King has the radar that we all know and love. Blind arcs yes (14 deg either side of the nose, 2 1/2 either side of the tail) but with procedures that give a great deal of flexibility and safety for UK SAR ops which no one in their right mind would suggest is equaled by a 120.
Incidently, the 360 offered by AK was chin mounted and had no blind arcs at all.
The Sea King has the radar that we all know and love. Blind arcs yes (14 deg either side of the nose, 2 1/2 either side of the tail) but with procedures that give a great deal of flexibility and safety for UK SAR ops which no one in their right mind would suggest is equaled by a 120.
Incidently, the 360 offered by AK was chin mounted and had no blind arcs at all.
How about that for a substitute?
search bbc Friday 8th August 2003
Camera 'sees through fog'
Dmist removes light reflected from water particles
Scientists in Manchester have invented a video camera that can "see" through fog.
Scared by the wind of change?
Camera 'sees through fog'
Dmist removes light reflected from water particles
Scientists in Manchester have invented a video camera that can "see" through fog.
Scared by the wind of change?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Second star on the left
Posts: 124
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Louise,
To answer your last question, yes I have had to let down to the coast on a number of occasions in those conditions. The west coast of UK is well known for 40 kt fog, Brawdy and St Mawgan suffered from a poor weather factor because of this problem. Strong wind may clear radiation fog but seems to have little effect on sea fog, maybe lifting it a little to very low stratus.
Some people do not seem to understand that if you have to hover into wind and your radar is pointing away from the direction that you are moving, you are possibly going to bump into something. Modern nav kit is great and generally very accurate, but does have glitches where it is a couple of hundred of meters out, that can kill you.
I doubt that there will be any answers for procedures with a 120 degree radar to let down with an onshore wind, as it is not possible in fog. The minimum range on all of the weather radars that I have used have been in the order of a quarter of a mile; so even if they did point backwards, minimum range would be a lot worse than present.
The bottom line is that a finite amount of money is available for toys on the cab, the best radar lost out to other kit that may be better utilised on more occasions. We are asking for a champagne service but only have a lager budget. I think that this discussion will ramble on without an answer until the next percieved lowering of capability is discovered in SAR-H
Heads down, look out for the flack
To answer your last question, yes I have had to let down to the coast on a number of occasions in those conditions. The west coast of UK is well known for 40 kt fog, Brawdy and St Mawgan suffered from a poor weather factor because of this problem. Strong wind may clear radiation fog but seems to have little effect on sea fog, maybe lifting it a little to very low stratus.
Some people do not seem to understand that if you have to hover into wind and your radar is pointing away from the direction that you are moving, you are possibly going to bump into something. Modern nav kit is great and generally very accurate, but does have glitches where it is a couple of hundred of meters out, that can kill you.
I doubt that there will be any answers for procedures with a 120 degree radar to let down with an onshore wind, as it is not possible in fog. The minimum range on all of the weather radars that I have used have been in the order of a quarter of a mile; so even if they did point backwards, minimum range would be a lot worse than present.
The bottom line is that a finite amount of money is available for toys on the cab, the best radar lost out to other kit that may be better utilised on more occasions. We are asking for a champagne service but only have a lager budget. I think that this discussion will ramble on without an answer until the next percieved lowering of capability is discovered in SAR-H
Heads down, look out for the flack
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabe
You got it. A lowering of service. Absolutely right for all the reasons and unanswered questions that I have posted.
The thing is that the SARH winner is mandated to provide a service no less capable etc etc and in this they are in breach of the contract (when it is signed off). I know the radar evaluators involved on the assessment process and what they would have concluded from the scenario solutions and the only conclusion I can come to is that the results were not considered important enough in the final analysis.
Why not? Politics? See my previous.
Cabe is right. there will be a lowering of the service provided in this particular area and we are stuck with it. I just hope that there is not a major national incident offshore in really bad weather where the crews involved feel pressured to continue and a tragedy results. If so, there will be no satisfaction in anyone saying "I told you so" at the subsequent inquiry.
That's all from me on this subject.
You got it. A lowering of service. Absolutely right for all the reasons and unanswered questions that I have posted.
The thing is that the SARH winner is mandated to provide a service no less capable etc etc and in this they are in breach of the contract (when it is signed off). I know the radar evaluators involved on the assessment process and what they would have concluded from the scenario solutions and the only conclusion I can come to is that the results were not considered important enough in the final analysis.
Why not? Politics? See my previous.
Cabe is right. there will be a lowering of the service provided in this particular area and we are stuck with it. I just hope that there is not a major national incident offshore in really bad weather where the crews involved feel pressured to continue and a tragedy results. If so, there will be no satisfaction in anyone saying "I told you so" at the subsequent inquiry.
That's all from me on this subject.
What a load of moaning Brits! You'll moan about anything won't you just to get your name in lights.
For God's sake guys get a life...perleeeeze.
No-one is going to rant on about the benefits of the S92 such as reduced maintenance times (TBO's) or the reaction time launching and getting to the sinking vessel due to its superior speed, or the reduced running costs or the superior HUMS fit, blah blah blah because its NOT (bad) news.
Next you'll moan about the colour because it doesnt match the pilots flying suit. Or because it can't fly in supercooled water droplets on the third Thursday in every month.
Look and listen eh:
Its coming to a place near you and 97.5349782% of the time it'll get the job done, effectively, quickly and more safely than EVER before. It's called progress and its also called FATE.
120 radar - less than 1% of ALL rescues maybe
Move on...............................................
For God's sake guys get a life...perleeeeze.
No-one is going to rant on about the benefits of the S92 such as reduced maintenance times (TBO's) or the reaction time launching and getting to the sinking vessel due to its superior speed, or the reduced running costs or the superior HUMS fit, blah blah blah because its NOT (bad) news.
Next you'll moan about the colour because it doesnt match the pilots flying suit. Or because it can't fly in supercooled water droplets on the third Thursday in every month.
Look and listen eh:
Its coming to a place near you and 97.5349782% of the time it'll get the job done, effectively, quickly and more safely than EVER before. It's called progress and its also called FATE.
120 radar - less than 1% of ALL rescues maybe
Move on...............................................
And??
Well said T.C.
l.h. stick to plan "A" and keep your promise.
b.t.w. 3x 120 = 360 (without blindspots)
Cheer up guys the year is still young.
the hun in the sun!(not yet)
l.h. stick to plan "A" and keep your promise.
b.t.w. 3x 120 = 360 (without blindspots)
Cheer up guys the year is still young.
the hun in the sun!(not yet)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having sifted the wheat from the chaff, it would appear that the IMC, strong onshore wind, letdown described previously cannot be done with a 120 degree radar.
Thanks to all those who responded.
CD
Thanks to all those who responded.
CD
It's funny how it was those annoying "strong onshore winds" that always seemed to blow unlucky yachts and fishing boats with lost power, to the base of rocky cliffs and often at night or crap vis. (We needed a modified letdown about twice a year with the south coast white cliffs and prevalent S or SW winds.)
Good luck guys!
Good luck guys!
TC - let us just hope it is no-one you know needing saving in the 2.5% of remaining rescues that will need a 360 radar to do the job.
You have a vested interest in this contract and so are not likely to be as impartial as you otherwise might.
I am apparently a laughing stock in the Soteria camp because I keep raising questions about performance and capability - I will keep asking questions until the answers are forthcoming so it should at least keep you amused for a while longer.
You have a vested interest in this contract and so are not likely to be as impartial as you otherwise might.
I am apparently a laughing stock in the Soteria camp because I keep raising questions about performance and capability - I will keep asking questions until the answers are forthcoming so it should at least keep you amused for a while longer.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who has operated a mil SK with the "360" capability of the radar particularly the latest digital display versions know well how much situational awareness and safety is enhanced in the low level operating environment whether in poor viz or a beautiful starlit night - and that means on most of those type of operations and training not just the 2.5% of occasions - or whatever the appalling weather statistics say. There are just too many bumpy bits out there for it to be anything otherwise - including its use over land in certain circumstances - ask any one who has had to transit in potential icing conditions (and usually on NVG these days) at high level at night!!. Indeed lets not forget that several SAR SK operators were so concerned about this and the need for weather and collision avoidance in the forward arc they had both types of radar installed - the Norwegian SAR force led the way before the RAF even got hold of their 1st SK. Any operational and CRM analyses support this. I agree totally with the view that both the arc of view and the actual discriminatory (target/range) performance of the usual forward facing radars fitted to commercial helos while offering some benefits simply do not replace all the operational situational awareness and safety capabilities presently on board UK mil SAR SKs. Try approaching (AFCS or otherwise) a small unlit yacht/ejectee dinghy at night in poor visibility with other obstructions in close proximity - and thats before its windy!
Unfortunately the Civ registered approach means some degree of compromise with the CAA - and if anyone asks in detail how the present CG helo force operates particularly their visibility and height limits -they will see a difference in approach dictated by the differing radar/AFCS combination as well as the CRM issues associated with 2 pilot use of those systems. Let no one say of course that this type of installation does not offer the same all weather capability as the mil SK's - it is the elephant in the SAR-H room that dare not speak its name - particularly at the DfT and HMCG!! The extra points scored in the competiton for a 360 installation were probably of insufficent weight to count that much - so sad if it was really the intention to maintain the full capability offered in the UK SRR. One might better ask how much "weighted operational judgement" features in such competitions.
Clearly the "Customer" thought that the needed capability could be achieved with just a modern forward facing radar as to be fitted to the S92 - I totally disagree - however thats not to say they will not do a good job with what they will have - if not in the optimum way had they had a better radar/crew combination.
Unfortunately the Civ registered approach means some degree of compromise with the CAA - and if anyone asks in detail how the present CG helo force operates particularly their visibility and height limits -they will see a difference in approach dictated by the differing radar/AFCS combination as well as the CRM issues associated with 2 pilot use of those systems. Let no one say of course that this type of installation does not offer the same all weather capability as the mil SK's - it is the elephant in the SAR-H room that dare not speak its name - particularly at the DfT and HMCG!! The extra points scored in the competiton for a 360 installation were probably of insufficent weight to count that much - so sad if it was really the intention to maintain the full capability offered in the UK SRR. One might better ask how much "weighted operational judgement" features in such competitions.
Clearly the "Customer" thought that the needed capability could be achieved with just a modern forward facing radar as to be fitted to the S92 - I totally disagree - however thats not to say they will not do a good job with what they will have - if not in the optimum way had they had a better radar/crew combination.
Last edited by Tallsar; 20th Feb 2010 at 12:54.
Good post Tallsar
Vested Interest
Crab says
You very obviously have not, are not.
You've got to be the better choice then.
You have a vested interest in this contract and so are not likely to be as impartial as you otherwise might.
You've got to be the better choice then.
Crab -you've known who I am for some time. My comments before and after down select have and always will be unbiased, as you can see.
The real issue here, isn't who has won, it's about - time for change.
The 'customer' has spoken, several contestants stepped up to the plate, two were chosen to go forward. NEITHER has the perfect model. Why? Because there isn't one available. But they provided the best solution given the very strict caveats. Don't blame the solution. Look to what has been asked of them - this is where any weaknesses (if any) lie.
The MoD want SAR out of the RAF's future plans (if there is an RAF in future plans!).
You can question performance and capabilities 'till you are blue in the face. You're asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Your fate is sealed. Your lords and masters have seen to that. Lambast them
See you Monday!
The real issue here, isn't who has won, it's about - time for change.
The 'customer' has spoken, several contestants stepped up to the plate, two were chosen to go forward. NEITHER has the perfect model. Why? Because there isn't one available. But they provided the best solution given the very strict caveats. Don't blame the solution. Look to what has been asked of them - this is where any weaknesses (if any) lie.
The MoD want SAR out of the RAF's future plans (if there is an RAF in future plans!).
You can question performance and capabilities 'till you are blue in the face. You're asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Your fate is sealed. Your lords and masters have seen to that. Lambast them
See you Monday!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pertinent words TC - and sadly so on the mark. History will show of opportunites lost, weak and unchampioned policy and lost ethos all of which has been part of the overall management of decline we have all been part of, unknowingly or otherwise......Per Ardua Ad Astra
Cheers
Cheers
Sadly TC, there is a better model but it would mean combining the best parts of both bidders to achieve.
Another poster crticised the make-up of the IPT, which may be valid, since they were the ones who set the rules and arbitrated the decision - unfortunately at the point where 'as capable' became weasel-worded into 'as effective' they handed control to the bidders regarding future capability.
I am well aware I won't get any answers but unless the questions are out in the public domain, no-one will question future press-releases where the dilution of capability is stage-managed and glossed over.
As Tallsar said - it is difficult to stress strongly enough what a superior CRM model the crew with a radop provides in high workload scenarios - dumping all the load on the co-pilot is a risky option by comparison and not conducive to conducting SAROPs as safely and efficiently as possible.
Maybe at some point in the future, a generation of senior RAF officers will realise what they dismantled, part by design, part by neglect - maybe
Another poster crticised the make-up of the IPT, which may be valid, since they were the ones who set the rules and arbitrated the decision - unfortunately at the point where 'as capable' became weasel-worded into 'as effective' they handed control to the bidders regarding future capability.
I am well aware I won't get any answers but unless the questions are out in the public domain, no-one will question future press-releases where the dilution of capability is stage-managed and glossed over.
As Tallsar said - it is difficult to stress strongly enough what a superior CRM model the crew with a radop provides in high workload scenarios - dumping all the load on the co-pilot is a risky option by comparison and not conducive to conducting SAROPs as safely and efficiently as possible.
Maybe at some point in the future, a generation of senior RAF officers will realise what they dismantled, part by design, part by neglect - maybe
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always held the view that the consitution of the IPT was too commercially focussed (a DE&S policy decision given that it was just a PFI!!) and that the representation was not adequate enough given the complexity, politics and ultimate signifcance of the programme. Could you envisage any other MoD IPT for a £6Bn programme having just a sqn ldr or 2 in its IPT - not likely.
The higher level joint Working groups were where the real decisions were taken and people undoubtedly trod carefully to maintain political compromise between the MoD and the DfT. Both Departments of State have very different risk thresholds and politics, and as usual in UK politics - little day to day alignment - throw in ministerial ambition - and no chance of such a joint project producing a detailed requirement that truely reflected operational experience and need. It is amazing (and to be fair a testament to the IPT) that what emerged was as good (but imperfect) as it is.
As for the struggle for UK mil ownership - we all know that was lost some years ago......not surprising given the other issues their airships etc have had to deal with. SAR helos have been caught between the hard rocks of an air force suffering almost terminal decline in its fast jet and maritme capability since 1990, and those air marshals with helo experience fighting for JHC capability (with some having no truck for the SARF at a personal level) and sadly no one at senior enough mil or political level to realise how mil owned SAR helos could be integrated within a focussed strategy for UK mainland protection and defence - integrated with other departmental responsibilities of course - such as the Police & CG (Maritime surveillance etc). Despite it being government policy for instance to coordinate inter-departmental policy on counter terrorism plans and resources - it was just assumed that appropriate helo capability would be available - nobody has yet considered the detail into the future. Thus When the Aligators (ie the ingnorant and self serving politicians) are attacking your precious parts you have insufficent energy or effort to think straight enough in all areas for the future. We had no Champion in any domain - Thus the RAF SARF has died (though I have every confidence the RN FAA will find at least 1 sqn that somehow retains the SAR role within its roles
).
I like to think Trenchard amongst all the other tears he would be shedding at the moment (or certainly will be soon) would shed one or two for the RAFSARF. The capability and ethos has been hard won over several generations - it is world class - and although SAR-H will deliver UK SAR capability (but not truely all weather) - it will never (in my view|) match what might have been retained under military ownership into the next generation.
Cheers
The higher level joint Working groups were where the real decisions were taken and people undoubtedly trod carefully to maintain political compromise between the MoD and the DfT. Both Departments of State have very different risk thresholds and politics, and as usual in UK politics - little day to day alignment - throw in ministerial ambition - and no chance of such a joint project producing a detailed requirement that truely reflected operational experience and need. It is amazing (and to be fair a testament to the IPT) that what emerged was as good (but imperfect) as it is.
As for the struggle for UK mil ownership - we all know that was lost some years ago......not surprising given the other issues their airships etc have had to deal with. SAR helos have been caught between the hard rocks of an air force suffering almost terminal decline in its fast jet and maritme capability since 1990, and those air marshals with helo experience fighting for JHC capability (with some having no truck for the SARF at a personal level) and sadly no one at senior enough mil or political level to realise how mil owned SAR helos could be integrated within a focussed strategy for UK mainland protection and defence - integrated with other departmental responsibilities of course - such as the Police & CG (Maritime surveillance etc). Despite it being government policy for instance to coordinate inter-departmental policy on counter terrorism plans and resources - it was just assumed that appropriate helo capability would be available - nobody has yet considered the detail into the future. Thus When the Aligators (ie the ingnorant and self serving politicians) are attacking your precious parts you have insufficent energy or effort to think straight enough in all areas for the future. We had no Champion in any domain - Thus the RAF SARF has died (though I have every confidence the RN FAA will find at least 1 sqn that somehow retains the SAR role within its roles
).I like to think Trenchard amongst all the other tears he would be shedding at the moment (or certainly will be soon) would shed one or two for the RAFSARF. The capability and ethos has been hard won over several generations - it is world class - and although SAR-H will deliver UK SAR capability (but not truely all weather) - it will never (in my view|) match what might have been retained under military ownership into the next generation.
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 22nd Feb 2010 at 08:59.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In The Trap, trapped.....
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallsar, Crab et al, Let me get this correct, what you are really saying is that the demise of your (the country's) Military SAR Force is the fault and blame of the your Lords and Masters at the RAF? The poor solution with which to replace it is the fault of the IPT (RAF again?). Incidentally didn't both bidders have "high level" exRAF personnel within their makeup as the SMEs???? 
Do not wish to make any assumptions, but there seems to be a common thread here.......the RAF have screwed the SARF. End of!
So you have all spent months moaning about everything and sundry because your teacher is taking your ball away and not letting you play any more.
As for the loss of an All Weather service? Is that why a yellow SK was u/s in GLA, because it got some snow in the cockpit??????
I'm sure the four man crew of the HMCG aircraft use CRM to provide a safe and efficient conclusion to any tasking. They may not be called Winchop Radop P2 and Capt. But in essence the names surely don't matter? Who knows what will come out in the next few weeks and months, I'm sure the SDR will be a interesting beast when it arrives.
It's a shame that continued prejudice seems to get in the way of generating the perfect integrated solution to SAR in the UK for the future. As I have said before, this was the chance to take all the best parts of RAF, RN and CG SAR and produce a service far more capable than anything in place now.
Good luck to all involved now (and in the future).
Pas.
Do not wish to make any assumptions, but there seems to be a common thread here.......the RAF have screwed the SARF. End of!
So you have all spent months moaning about everything and sundry because your teacher is taking your ball away and not letting you play any more.
As for the loss of an All Weather service? Is that why a yellow SK was u/s in GLA, because it got some snow in the cockpit??????
I'm sure the four man crew of the HMCG aircraft use CRM to provide a safe and efficient conclusion to any tasking. They may not be called Winchop Radop P2 and Capt. But in essence the names surely don't matter? Who knows what will come out in the next few weeks and months, I'm sure the SDR will be a interesting beast when it arrives.
It's a shame that continued prejudice seems to get in the way of generating the perfect integrated solution to SAR in the UK for the future. As I have said before, this was the chance to take all the best parts of RAF, RN and CG SAR and produce a service far more capable than anything in place now.
Good luck to all involved now (and in the future).
Pas.