Finally New SAR Planes ... again

[Gannet167]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/movin ... story.html

[sstaurus]

I'm sure I speak for many on this board when I say it would make me very happy to see new Buffalos in the air! That just makes too much sense though...

[jpilot77]

I'd also like to see a new version of the Buffalo chosen as well.

[Gannet167]

The mighty Buffalo hangs out on the West coast these days - but the new SAR aircraft will be based in Comox, Winnipeg, Trenton and Greenwood. In addition to the mountain valleys, this plane needs to traverse immense distances up to the North, out to the middle of the oceans and across the prairies. While the Buff is a favorite of her crews for STOL performance, it really doesn't fit the bill for the vast majority of the country.

It's ability to fly slowly in a tight valley is amazing, but speaking to a very experienced SAR Buff pilot - he said that despite the amazing slow performance from an aviation perspective, it's very questionable how many searches actually resulted in saving lives due to that capability. Particularly since the Cormorant will show up and ultimately be what hoists the rescued out. The point was, although the performance is amazing, it's doubtful that a Hercules, flying a few knots faster and a bit higher wouldn't be able to do the same job nearly as well - particularly since it will arrive on scene much earlier, with fewer enroute fuel stops, carry more SAR kit, and loiter much longer before hitting bingo.

The Buff's performance is legendary and I believe even now there is nothing on the market that can do what it can. But, I don't know if there's enough demand to make a business case for building more of them.

[Beefitarian]

Well yes but..

Ideal Sar would be acheved if we had a one Herc and 4 SAR bases per province. Each SAR base would be equiped with one helicopter and 2 buffaloes, partially crewed by CASARA volunteer spotters.

Yes, I know we can't afford it.

[rigpiggy]

I disagree when stooging around at low level and about 100kias, at500' realistically you only have about 6-10 seconds before your past whatever your looking for. A reduction in Vso of 20% is that much more time on target. Not to mention upgrade costs are going up due to reduced fleet size, the USAF has announced plans to retire their fleet of 34?.

[Moose47]

"Not to mention upgrade costs are going up due to reduced fleet size, the USAF has announced plans to retire their fleet of 34?."

34 of what?

Cheers...Chris

[FlyGy]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/Viki ... 455-1.html

[goldeneagle]

It's really easy for those of use that have watched the buf, and other SAR assets wandering around the country, to develop opinions on what is needed. But, I've never flown a SAR mission, so, in reality, I dont really know what the various operational issues are.

Sar_QQQ seems to participate regularily here on this board. Question for you. Look back over the requirements of having flown a few years of SAR missions, what's the right airplane to fill the bill ? Does a first responder SAR airplane need the back ramp for dropping techs ? Does it need speed to get on station faster ? Does it need range to go up to the arctic from YQQ in one jump ? Is the job best done by a 'one size fits all' airframe, or, is a two prong attack a better fit ? One airframe to get on station quickly, and do preliminary searches, with a second prong arriving sometime later, for extended low level work ?

Personally, I'd love to see a herd of brand new bufs, but, that's probably just because I've watched them perform over the years, and have a fondness for the airframe and it's unique capabilities. It's used today for SAR, but, I do sometimes wonder, is it's a very expensive square peg, being pushed into a round hole, just because, it's the peg we have ?

[Beefitarian]

"acheved"? Thanks for nothing on that one spell check.

All my CASARA buddies love the buff.
It's big enough to be cool and take up several volunteer spotters.
Probably won't suddenly get a call and take you near the North Pole or somewhere. (Decide for your self if that is a real neat thing or real bad thing.)
It has the ramp so we can watch as two SAR-techs push their equipment off then jump out after it.
Finally as has been mentionened the C-130 is a bit stressful to spot from because it is going just a tad too fast.

To a small extent people should be using devices like spot2 to track them so they are easier to find.

I think We need a certain amount of C-130s because Canada is so giant and we can't afford to maintain bases all over. When it comes to SAR the sooner the better.

Unless you are very near a base with an active SAR squadron, Comox, Winnepeg, Cold lake, ect. likely the first plane looking for you is a privately owned single with a pilot, navigator and two spotters that Volunteer. Most of the time once the C-130 or Buffalo shows up there are still many CASARA singles searching. I would have to ask if helicopters come to actuals in Alberta, last time I saw one it was for the big exercise.

I know Stars would be called if appropriate near YYC. I don't know what the criteria is for "appropriate".

[FlyGy]

"acheved"? Thanks for nothing on that one spell check.

Did you have spell check shut off maybe? "equiped"?

I know Stars would be called if appropriate near YYC. I don't know what the criteria is for "appropriate".

STARS' mandate is simply to transport the sick or injured. They do not conduct SAR operations and are not equipped for such (winch). An appropriate scenario for STARS to be called would be if the injured party was located and a medical team was already on the ground treating the patients. They would then swoop in and fly the patient(s) to the hospital. After that their marketing team would garner all the credit for saving a life when they were, in fact, just the air taxi ride after all the real life saving had been done by the medical team on the ground.

[frosti]

It's really easy for those of use that have watched the buf, and other SAR assets wandering around the country, to develop opinions on what is needed. But, I've never flown a SAR mission, so, in reality, I dont really know what the various operational issues are.

Too bad people here don't apply the same logic to the F35 purchase.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Too bad people here don't apply the same logic to the F35 purchase.

Also too bad the F35 defenders on this forum can rarely offer up much more than "Trust us, we're the experts, it's on a need-to-know basis and you don't need to know."

[frosti]

Too bad people here don't apply the same logic to the F35 purchase.

Also too bad the F35 defenders on this forum can rarely offer up much more than "Trust us, we're the experts, it's on a need-to-know basis and you don't need to know."

Here we go again, using personal belief over facts to come to a conclusion.

I wonder why there isn't media hysteria over this topic (a much bigger issue - SAR aircraft than fighters in Canada, IMO), probably harder to sell their crap to the ignorant Canadian public. SAR a/c aren't as sexy as fighter jets - because they are meant to save lives, rather than take them. Too boring.

[Beefitarian]

"acheved"? Thanks for nothing on that one spell check.

Did you have spell check shut off maybe? "equiped"?

I know Stars would be called if appropriate near YYC. I don't know what the criteria is for "appropriate".

STARS' mandate is simply to transport the sick or injured. They do not conduct SAR operations and are not equipped for such (winch). An appropriate scenario for STARS to be called would be if the injured party was located and a medical team was already on the ground treating the patients. They would then swoop in and fly the patient(s) to the hospital. After that their marketing team would garner all the credit for saving a life when they were, in fact, just the air taxi ride after all the real life saving had been done by the medical team on the ground.

If I'm on this goofy iPad I'm not aware of how to turn off the program that makes funny words instead of being helpfull. I just live with it, I was attempting "achieved" for that one.

CASARA's role is to search and communicate the results as accurately as possible to RCC. When something is found RCC will task someone typically military SAR techs to handle the rescue portion.

You could be right about STARS, in the past my understanding regarding the helicopter in YYC, was they operate like an ambulance that can fly. Part of their needs are an appropriate place to land and they will not be climbing up a hill or moving aircraft parts to get someone out. The bonus is sometimes they can be the fastest way to get someone to a hospital.

SAR techs go any where.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Too bad people here don't apply the same logic to the F35 purchase.

Also too bad the F35 defenders on this forum can rarely offer up much more than "Trust us, we're the experts, it's on a need-to-know basis and you don't need to know."

Here we go again, using personal belief over facts to come to a conclusion.

I wonder why there isn't media hysteria over this topic (a much bigger issue - SAR aircraft than fighters in Canada, IMO), probably harder to sell their crap to the ignorant Canadian public. SAR a/c aren't as sexy as fighter jets - because they are meant to save lives, rather than take them. Too boring.

Huh? I think the only "conclusion" I'm alluding to above is that there's been a pretty poor/onesided job, both in the media in general and on this forum, of trying to defend the F35 as the best choice for a new fighter. For $25 billion, or $35 billion, or whatever the number of the week is, you're going to have to do a little better than "trust us".

On the upside, I have to agree that the SAR procurement is hugely important. I suspect it will be handled quite differently than the F35 procurement process. Lesson learned.

[rigpiggy]

"Not to mention upgrade costs are going up due to reduced fleet size, the USAF has announced plans to retire their fleet of 34?."

34 of what?
Cheers...Chris

the U.S. Department of Defense announced plans to remove all 38 C-27Js on order from the U.S. Air Force's inventory as their niche capabilities are too expensive.[39] The C-27J's duties are to be taken by the U.S. Air Force's C-130s.[40] In February 2012, Alenia warned that it would not provide support for C-27Js resold by the United States.[41] In March 2012, it was reported that the U.S. Coast Guard is considering taking over the aircraft from the U.S. Air Force.[42] On 23 March 2012, the U.S. Air Force announced that it will cut the C-27J from its inventory in fiscal year 2013 after determining that its per-aircraft lifecycle costs are higher than those of C-130 aircraft performing the same combat resupply mission.[43][44]

That said if we buy C27j's we should buy all of these airframes too, so we have "parts Support" a la EH101/cormorant buy from president Bama

[frosti]

Huh? I think the only "conclusion" I'm alluding to above is that there's been a pretty poor/onesided job, both in the media in general and on this forum, of trying to defend the F35 as the best choice for a new fighter.

I find it sad that its come down to the government having to sell any type of military equipment to the public, whom largely can't tell the difference between a F-15 or F-16. "I've seen XXX fighter at an airshow, Canada should buy that."

[YYZSaabGuy]

I find it sad that its come down to the government having to sell any type of military equipment to the public, whom largely can't tell the difference between a F-15 or F-16. "I've seen XXX fighter at an airshow, Canada should buy that."

I find it sad that some people don't understand that the issue isn't "selling" anything to the public. The issue is ensuring that the procurement process is as transparent as possible (given the classified nature of some of the F35's capabilities) and that it delivers the best possible capability/cost combination for the $25 or $35 billion, or whatever the actual number is, that's apparently required to replace the CF-18 fleet. Senior DND staff as well as the responsible politicians totally screwed the pooch on this fairly basic but essential task, which is why they are no longer running the process. The fact that some people still don't "get it" is surprising. And, yes, to use your word, sad.

[oldtimer]

This thread seems to be heading in the F-35 direction so to more or less get back on track,

I would like to put these three questions out there, especially to those who have Arctic experience.

1. In recent history we have had at least 3 twin jet airliners, Air Canada 767, Air Transat A330, BEA 777, forced down by a double engine failure and seeing how some of these long range jets fly polar routes which takes them over parts of the Canadian Arctic, if the unthinkable should ever happen, do you think one of these airliners could complete a forced landing and have survivors or is the terrain just too hostile. Remember when the CAF lost the C-130 @ Alert, and there were survivors. The pilot lost his life because of delayed rescue.

2. Are there either RCAF or civilian resources capable of rescuing survivors in a timely manner. Suppose 285 people survived the landing and it is January.

3. If you were forced down in the Arctic and you had your druthers, who would you like to come and attempt a rescue. A "southern" raised but military trained SARTEC or a military trained Inuit SARTEC.
Nothing against the SARTEC's but my vote would be for the Inuit because living off the land in the cold frozen Arctic is second nature to many of them. What I am saying is that maybe we have a tremendous resource that needs to be developed.

I wonder if you could put a 737 on skiis?, or a Herc on floats?

[Moose47]

"If you were forced down in the Arctic and you had your druthers, who would you like to come and attempt a rescue. A "southern" raised but military trained SARTEC or a military trained Inuit SARTEC.
Nothing against the SARTEC's but my vote would be for the Inuit because living off the land in the cold frozen Arctic is second nature to many of them."

First off it's SARTECH. Secondly, I wish you knew how stupid your statement is. It's painfully obvious you have not worked with these people. I have in both training and real world missions. I'll leave it that berfore I say something ignorant!

Cheers...Chris

[Chaxterium]

First off it's SARTECH

Beat me to it. It's short for Search And Rescue TECHNICIAN.

Cheers,
Chax

[North Shore]

Saw something in a magazine a while ago about using the V22 Osprey as a SAR bird? It's got good speed to get you there, and can hover/fly slowly, to extract people. or was it just some journalist's pipe-dream?

[Beefitarian]

Hate to ruin your game oldtimer but...

In a scenario where you have 285 people I'm not confident the Inuit dude is going to be able to whip up enough raw caribou for the whole gang in a jiffy.

In theory RCC should not have much problem dropping some engineers with tents and rations to set up temporary food and shelter. I sense that the search portion should be reduced greatly by the information made available recently like you get on www.flightaware.com

You might still lose people waiting because we simply can not afford bases to really cover the vast area that is Canada. In my opinion we don't have enough SAR bases in the actual populated regions. I just can't afford to fix that on my wife's income though.

[old_man]

This thread seems to be heading in the F-35 direction so to more or less get back on track,

I would like to put these three questions out there, especially to those who have Arctic experience.

1. In recent history we have had at least 3 twin jet airliners, Air Canada 767, Air Transat A330, BEA 777, forced down by a double engine failure and seeing how some of these long range jets fly polar routes which takes them over parts of the Canadian Arctic, if the unthinkable should ever happen, do you think one of these airliners could complete a forced landing and have survivors or is the terrain just too hostile. Remember when the CAF lost the C-130 @ Alert, and there were survivors. The pilot lost his life because of delayed rescue.

Having to ditch in the North Atlantic would probably be worse but in any case it is a extremely remote possibility. You mentioned 3 aircraft in 'recent history' (Gimli Glider was almost 30 years ago) and there is on or about 90 000+ flights daily. Extremely remote possibility.

2. Are there either RCAF or civilian resources capable of rescuing survivors in a timely manner. Suppose 285 people survived the landing and it is January.

Define 'timely'. There are always aircraft and crew on stand by. A herc could leave Trenton or Winnipeg and be dropping supplies/equipment/SARTechs fairly quickly I would imagine. Getting them out of there would take longer of course. DND does have something called a MAJAID plan.

MAJAID is the Canadian Forces emergency response plan to a major air incident that exceeds the resources of a responsible Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centre. The plan provides for far-reaching search and rescue (SAR) services in the remote regions of Canada, especially the high Arctic. There are four, 80 person kits which contain supplies, such as tents, medical supplies, a field hospital, a six-wheeled all-terrain vehicle, rations, environmental clothing, and more, to help people survive, even in the most extreme weather conditions. The MAJAID kits provide for 320 persons for 72 hours, but can be augmented by equipment from the primary SAR aircraft.

The kits are located at CFB Trenton, the central Canadian Forces Base, allowing for rapid deployment in any direction across Canada, and each kit contains the same supplies.

With increased travel to the North, the Canadian Forces has also developed Arctic Cache kits as part of the MAJAID plan. Six caches, consisting of emergency survival clothing and sleeping bags, will be located in Iqualuit, Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, Resolute Bay, Inuvik and Whitehorse. These kits can be used on their own for any SAR distress, or used in conjunction with a MAJAID kit.

So, as you can see, there are already plans for such events.

3. If you were forced down in the Arctic and you had your druthers, who would you like to come and attempt a rescue. A "southern" raised but military trained SARTEC or a military trained Inuit SARTEC.
Nothing against the SARTEC's but my vote would be for the Inuit because living off the land in the cold frozen Arctic is second nature to many of them. What I am saying is that maybe we have a tremendous resource that needs to be developed.

There is something called the Canadian Rangers. You are aware of them right?

I wonder if you could put a 737 on skiis?, or a Herc on floats?

*sigh*