• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

OP Ed piece on expanding SAR capability using ex-Presidential choppers

RubberTree

Member
Reaction score
4
Points
180
Thank you both for the info. I guess I didn't realize that a) SAR gets a lot of nonsense calls similar (I imagine) to 911 dispatch in a big city and b) they are responsible to respond to said nonsense.

I think I would enjoy the compilation

RT
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
346
Points
910
RubberTree said:
..... I guess I didn't realize that a) SAR gets a lot of nonsense calls ...
A significant percentage aren't "nonsense" per se, but simply 'shit happens + SOP.' 

Joe Cessna-driver lands and goes home but doesn't close out the flight plan; he shows up as missing, but the resultant phone calls to sort it out are still logged as an "incident."  Not a biggie, but still part of someone's "job" -- and for John Cessna, laying in his 180 wreckage somewhere out in the boonies, it's a pretty good thing that someone is doing that job (and someone whose mindset isn't "well, it's 14:30 on a Friday; I'll phone around on Monday.")
 

observor 69

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3
Points
430
Journeyman said:
A significant percentage aren't "nonsense" per se, but simply 'crap happens + SOP.' 

Joe Cessna-driver lands and goes home but doesn't close out the flight plan; he shows up as missing, but the resultant phone calls to sort it out are still logged as an "incident."  Not a biggie, but still part of someone's "job" -- and for John Cessna, laying in his 180 wreckage somewhere out in the boonies, it's a pretty good thing that someone is doing that job (and someone whose mindset isn't "well, it's 14:30 on a Friday; I'll phone around on Monday.")

And as a private pilot I thank all those "someone's" for what they do.  :salute:
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
216
Points
680
Same story for the maritime side of things, when the boaters take the time to file the strongly suggested sail plan recommended by the Coast Guard.

When no distress call is received, first step (because change of mind and weather delays are more frequent - but usually much less fatal for  maritime incidents) used to be for the Coast Guard to call for everyone to keep a lookout for "insert description of late vessel" in the area of expected location of that vessel for the next 12 hours, then if still not traceable, to start a search.

On the East Coast, where we sailed the Gate vessels coastal, we used to keep a white board on the bridge to note the "bolo's" that were current in our area. I suspect most warships had some form of organization for that too, though there is no standard for it.   
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
301
Points
1,130
RubberTree said:
Thank you both for the info.

You are welcome.  :)

RubberTree said:
I guess I didn't realize that a) SAR gets a lot of nonsense calls similar (I imagine) to 911 dispatch in a big city and

Our City Police / Paramedic Marine SAR crews have an operational jurisdiction of approximately 460 square miles of open water extending 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border.

RubberTree said:
b) they are responsible to respond to said nonsense.

b) Surf or turf, when the tones go > you go!  Said nonsense is our bread and butter!  :)
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Journeyman said:
Would new helicopters, based in southern Canada, have made the slightest difference?  No.
Nice way to self-servingly cash in on Sgt. Gilbert's death though.  ::)

He's a politician, it's what they do.  Where I do agree with him is on better equipment for SAR work and that was the spirit in which caught my eye on his proposal.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,136
Points
940
What about a SAR/Utility version of the Cyclone? Basically without the ASW suite and fitted with a winch and some some search tools (FLIR, etc)
 

navig8ur

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
I stood in the hangar on the IMP flight line in Hfx and looked upon these magnificent helos and thought..............we need to find a way to make this work.

9 flight tested helos ranging from 3 to 90 hrs..........we can do this.

Yes, obstacles remain.........we should look at how to overcome.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,616
Points
890
Given IMP's record in on time delivery of Auroras coming through the line, any solution should look for some other company.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
dapaterson said:
Given IMP's record in on time delivery of Auroras coming through the line, any solution should look for some other company.

But they do deliver.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
214
Points
710
Harrigan said:
...

P.S.  I also believe there is a bureaucratic problem with converting them to flying airframes.  IIRC, they were purchased and exported from the US specifically as spare parts, and I believe there are some legal issues to resolve if Canada were to make them fly again.


I am pretty sure that Harrigan is right. I'm too busy, lazy, actually busy (family visiting) to go search, but I do recall that part of the agreement was that the machines could not be flown. So, good idea or not, possible or not, it might be illegal.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
382
Points
910
E.R. Campbell said:
I am pretty sure that Harrigan is right. I'm too busy, lazy, actually busy (family visiting) to go search, but I do recall that part of the agreement was that the machines could not be flown. So, good idea or not, possible or not, it might be illegal.

Buy nine new registration numbers and transfer the parts?
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
484
Points
860
Ummmmmmmmmmm....just thinking here....but wouldn't converting them into flying condition actually make our problem worse in a way?

The Cormorants we operate now are an orphan fleet.  Spare parts were hard to come by, and still are - just ask some of our European allies how many spare parts they have for their fleets of AW-101 and EH-101.  They faced the same challenges for spare parts that we did.

Now we buy these 9 airframes, which are also an orphan fleet.  We buy them purely as spare parts for the aircraft we have.


1.  Where would we get spare parts for the 9 airframes we bought as spare parts?

2.  The 9 helicopters we bought are an orphan fleet, which is slightly different than the orphan fleet we already operate.  Now we would have to secure spare parts for 2 orphan fleets, when we couldn't seem to find enough spare parts when we only had 1 orphan fleet?

Am I complicating this too much in my head, or am I right in thinking the idea might end up being even more of a headache?

*Not to mention, if converted to flying condition, modifications would have to be made to the airframe to make it effective for SAR.  Which means we are literally begging for delays & headaches. 
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,641
Points
1,160
CBH99 said:
...Am I complicating this too much in my head, or am I right in thinking the idea might end up being even more of a headache?

*Not to mention, if converted to flying condition, modifications would have to be made to the airframe to make it effective for SAR.  Which means we are literally begging for delays & headaches.

No...it would likely be quite a headache, even if one worked out the reversal of the Government's likely conditions place on procuring the un-registered airframes and spares.

CBH99, you weren't perhaps referring to the VH-71's lack of rear ramp, or complete lack of sliding door on the starboard side of the aircraft, were you?    ???

Regards
G2G
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Other than spare parts, the only use I can see for the 'bodies' is as training aids at the Schools for Mat Techs and various other aircraft Techs for patching Battle Damage, engine repairs/installation, or for Firefighters.  Well within the 'legalities' by which they were purchased. 
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,136
Points
940
Good2Golf said:
No...it would likely be quite a headache, even if one worked out the reversal of the Government's likely conditions place on procuring the un-registered airframes and spares.

CBH99, you weren't perhaps referring to the VH-71's lack of rear ramp, or complete lack of sliding door on the starboard side of the aircraft, were you?    ???

Regards
G2G

I thought these had a rear ramp?
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
37
Points
530
Article from a March 2015 article in Vertical Mag about the Cormorant program and also the feasibility of making some of the VH-71s flyable.

RCAF considers putting VH-71s into service to cover mid-life Cormorant update

Posted on March 10, 2015 by Vertical Mag
   
Facing a mid-life update of its AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorants and the prospect of having one or two out of service at any given time to accommodate it, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is considering putting some of the erstwhile U.S. presidential Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel variants it acquired in 2011 into service.

In 2005, the U.S. Navy chose the VH-71s as replacements for the Sikorsky VH-3D Sea Kings and VH-60N White Hawks operated by Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1). Four years later, the new Obama administration pulled the plug when program costs for the 23 aircraft had doubled to US$13 billion. Nine, including two heavily-instrumented for certification, had been delivered to the Navy by a Lockheed Martin-led team in partnership with AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter — and it was those aircraft that Canada purchased for a fire-sale C$164 million in 2011.

The official RCAF line from the outset was that the Kestrels would be strictly for spares. “This package is considered an excellent one-time opportunity for the . . . Canadian Forces to address long-standing CH-149 Cormorant fleet availability issues related to the availability of spare parts,” the Department of National Defence (DND) said in a statement at the time.

“We bought them for spares and that was the intent,” BGen Phil Garbutt, Director of Air Force Development, acknowledged in a recent Vertical interview. “We bought them specifically to ensure that we had sufficient life-blood of spares for the fleet and with the intended purpose of bringing up the reliability and serviceability numbers for the Cormorant. And it has served that purpose.”

The original contract for 15 search-and-rescue (SAR) CH-149s was based on the DND’s ability to afford an appropriate number of aircraft being ready to fly at any one time. Despite improvements by AgustaWestland and IMP Aerospace (the Cormorants’ in-service support provider), Garbutt said, “We’ve never seen that level of serviceability and therefore we’ve had to make some pretty tough decisions.”

The key decision was to withdraw Cormorants from 8 Wing Trenton, Ont., and redeploy them to 9 Wing Gander, Nfld. and 14 Wing Greenwood, N.S. The balance of the current fleet of 14 (one was lost to a crash during a night training exercise with a Canadian Coast Guard ship off Nova Scotia in July 2006) is at 19 Wing Comox, B.C.

That left Trenton, at the heart of a vast region which includes swaths of the Great Lakes and the North, with a SAR mix of Bell CH-146 Griffons and older Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules. Garbutt said the Griffons have been doing “great work” but have “challenges” operating at night and over water as well as limited mission endurance. “It is a tactical aviation helicopter; it was not designed to be a search-and-rescue helicopter,” he pointed out. “Had it competed in the Canadian SAR helicopter [CSH] competition back in the late ‘90s, it would not have been a compliant helicopter. But it is what it is. We do want to return to an environment where we have a CSH-compliant helicopter operating at all four bases.”

Garbutt noted that the withdrawal of Cormorants from Trenton had demonstrated that 15 were not enough to cover the country’s requirements — hence the prospect of pulling at least some of the VH-71s out of the spares inventory. “Can you strike a nice balance between that cache of spares and possibly converting a few of those aircraft over into flying assets?” Garbutt asked theoretically. “It’s an option that we are examining as part of the analysis for the Cormorant mid-life update.”

The update, which should enable the RCAF to keep flying its mainstay SAR platform until about 2025, includes an electro-optics package which can be critical to successful SAR missions in degraded weather, as well as navigation and communications improvements and modifications to the patient-treatment area to maximize space and improve efficiency. Supplemental oxygen systems are also part of the package for operations above 10,000 feet, and while the allowable maximum gross weight is being increased to 15,000 kilograms (33,070 pounds), no engine enhancements are being contemplated. Not included in the mid-life update is a possible Cormorant simulator.

Asked whether the work would be done in Canada or at AgustaWestland facilities in England or Italy, Garbutt said that while a lot of it depends on what the solution would be, the government’s procurement strategy, and a follow-on “value proposition” guide argues for the work being done domestically. Jeremy Tracy, Ottawa-based head of region-Canada for AgustaWestland, told Vertical that the company’s “exclusive arrangement” with IMP for the update and conversion meant that work “would be completed in Canada” in accordance with the government’s requirements.

AgustaWestland has been lobbying for some time to have seven of the Kestrels configured as Cormorants. Tracy told Vertical during a visit to the company’s facility in Yeovil, England, that the added capability would not only facilitate full SAR capability to Trenton but also be a useful sovereignty tool in the North. Basing the helicopters full-time in the Arctic probably would be impractical, but an air transportation kit which was part of the U.S. would enable rapid loading into a Boeing CC-177 Globemaster III transport at Trenton for northern deployment.

The idea of operating the Kestrels isn’t new. Nearly two years ago, when he was still Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay actually ordered the RCAF to reconsider its “spares only” position. At the time, MacKay was wrestling with Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s scathing critique of the RCAF’s entire SAR program. Among other things, he said the DND simply “does not have enough suitable . . . aircraft.”

When Ferguson recommended that the DND “give priority to the acquisition of new aircraft that are best suited for search-and-rescue activities and ensure that it has sufficient numbers” for its mission, the DND replied that it was planning to purchase new SAR platforms. These, however, would be a fixed-wing replacement for the older Hercules and the six remaining 50-year-old de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalo aircraft based in Comox, B.C. “With respect to SAR helicopter fleets,” the DND continued, “improvements have recently been made to the availability of the Cormorant fleet, allowing it to fly a record number of hours . . . and the Griffon fleet has undergone enhancements, which are allowing it to provide a more robust SAR capability.”

In a briefing note prepared for MacKay’s successor, Rob Nicholson, and released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, DND said that expanding the main SAR helicopter fleet by converting the Kestrels would break a DND commitment that they would be used only as a parts source for the Cormorants. Dan Ross, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) at DND, had stated unequivocally in December 2010 that the Kestrel acquisition was “not to procure flyable assets.” Rather, it was a unique opportunity “to procure a package of spares and assembled spares (airframes which were left in varying states of assembly) to support the existing Cormorant search-and-rescue fleet.”

The RCAF did eventually assess the feasibility of putting at least some Kestrels into service but evidently was concerned at the time that the airframes are uncertified and lack valid airworthiness certificates. The briefing note states that the use of them as a parts source has saved the DND $24 million when compared with having to purchase them commercially.

Since the Kestrels have an average of only 30 hours on them, including one which logged more than 100 hours of qualifying time, there is an argument that they can be readily converted. That would facilitate both the Cormorant MLU and a return to Trenton. Tracy confirmed that AgustaWestland and IMP had concluded, after detailed study, that conversion would be quicker, cheaper and simpler than buying new airframes. “A complete fleet of Cormorants, to the CH149B standard for SAR, would enable crew and parts commonality across Canada for the next 20-plus years,” he told Vertical. “Then there’s the proven capability of the Cormorant, which has been demonstrated repeatedly over the past 12 years.”

Article Link
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,136
Points
940
sounds like the "prohibition on flying airframes" was to get around TB policy or procedures. That can be changed with a stroke of the pen if there is a will to do so. My reading shows there is something like 200+ flying versions of this helicopter, not exactly an orphaned fleet, from reading wiki, it appears the factory sold so many orders they could not keep up and that led to the shortage of spare parts?
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
175
Points
710
Colin P said:
What about a SAR/Utility version of the Cyclone? Basically without the ASW suite and fitted with a winch and some some search tools (FLIR, etc)

Isn't that pretty much what the Cyclone is now??    :stirpot:
 
Top