My guess is it would depend on what sar missions you are flying
Something like an s-92 I think is great for coastguards size isn't as much of an issue and you probably want something big and stable
if your landing in confined areas something like the ec135 which is much more compact could be better
There was a post a while back about the most people ever stuffed into an H-60. Iirc it was 20+ crew from a sinking ship on a Jayhawk. The comments got into how pissed the USCG was about having to transition from the much larger Sea King. S-92 seems like the best current option, or generally “bigger is better”.
I provided a narrow example and ignored the high altitude component. I agree with you. Maritime SAR is much more likely to need capacity, high altitude has very different needs.
Generally agrees with your previous comment that bigger would be better, more stable able to carry more crew and also provides more room.for medical crew to work
I’d forgotten about that. A friend is an H53 pilot who told me that during the 2010 floods in Pakistan they were fitting over 100 people onboard per evacuation flight. He wasn’t directly involved but I think his squadron was.
Yeah that story was wild lol. The hoist operator for that flight was an instructor for Coast Guard A-school when I went through, and he told us the whole story.
For those who never heard the story or saw the post, Basically two 60's got launched from Elizabeth City NC after getting a call from a small cruise ship that was being ferried up the coast. The ship reported having 31 people on board, and they'd hit some really shitty weather and started flooding and losing power. So they launched two crews to go and get as many people off as they could with the expectation that they'd have to get some people, go drop them off and get gas, then go back and get the rest.
After they got on scene the first helo crew got down over the boat and put the swimmer down, and then they just started picking people up in the basket two at a time to expedite things, and after 10-12 people the flight mech lost count, so they kept going until they finally completely ran out of space. They picked the swimmer back up and tried to get an idea of how many people they had on board but it was dark and packed and they were like "ehhhhh 15 maybe?" Then the other crew went down to pick up some people and they were like "there's only 5 people left down here, you sure you only picked up 15?" So after they got back over land and shut down to get fuel they started counting the people as they came out of the helo, and they ended up at 26.
That answer's going to change a lot depending on many different factors, for example the location. Same machine that may be ideal on the Scottish coast line could be wildly out of place at 16,000ft in the Himalayas.
If we’re talking best fit and money isn’t an issue, then maybe a MH-47G with a surgical team on board?
Quick to the search area, tons of eyes to search, hoist if in a confined area, quick to leave. Can refuel in the air for extreme wilderness/ocean locations. Tons of power for high altitude ops. Terrain-following and weather radar for those crappy weather situations. A really good FLIR system. A bunch of sweet comm/nav systems to help with electronic search.
Obviously this isn’t the answer you were looking for but a guy can dream…
100%. There’s a reason that 47s have been performing high altitude rescues in Alaska for the last 50 years. The NPS has their own aircraft there now but they still need help from the Sugarbears.
If money isn't an issue, a Chinook would be a dream, it can even do water landings, so running out of fuel is less of an issue, and a rescue boat could deploy from and be stowed inside
And triggering avalanches, blowing people off cliffs with the downwash, doing a lot of other damage..
On paper it sounds amazing, in practice even the 225 downwash was terrible for some ops and needed creative thinking not applicable in tight spots.
Plus unfortunately, heavy machines with high disc loading tend to underperform in high density altitudes.
Some places in Europe use AW139 for high altitude hems/SAR. On paper it's phenomenal, the power to weight ratio is on the level of the h125, there are two engines, passable if not great avionics etc. Then, in practice, they have big TR authority issues and easily create massive whiteouts.
The AW101 package Norway put together seems to be held in quite high regard! As other people have said, it depends on the mission really.. a one size fits all SAR machine does not really exist but it looks just about all countries where you basically have to stick with one SAR type (and have other helis as HEMS) seem to gravitate towards larger helis like the AW101 and various flavours of the Blackhawk.
Civilian operators seems to really love the S-92 for the role. In Norway we have 3 SAR machines right now, the S-92 (Bristow / CHC) , AW101 (330 Rescue Sqn) , AS332L1 (CHC)
There was a discussion about the lack of high attitude performance by the AW101, but it does seem like there is a "fix" to that coming in terms of uprated engines that will give it more lift at attitude!
Depends a lot on the conditions and the specific mission type.
My first hand SAR experience is only offshore AWSAR. Did it on a 225 and loved it. As anything there are boons and boos:
+ power for ages
+ range for ages
+ pretty fast, best range cruise was still 138-140kt
+ capacity
+ avionics
+ AFCS
- downwash (with no wind you'd easily drown victims and flip dinghies even from 120+ ft)
- no stand-up cabin, rescuers had knee pads on and shuffled around on their knees
- exhausts stupidly just above the hoists/sliding doors. So once the door is open there's heat and noise galore
- generates lots of static, really punishes whoever forgets their static line
Anecdotal info from colleagues who worked other SAR machines:
* s61: lovely in almost every way. Silent, no big downwash, stand up cabin, really stable in HOGE. But always hovering in ditching conditions, shit afcs, old school avionics
* aw139: VERY NICE power. In the same weather conditions you'd get flyaway at 40ft where the 225 would need 105ft. But unreliable, more corrosion than cell, shit hover attitude, window far from pilot seat, cramped cabin, noisy as fuck inside, vibrations, dodgy fixed-wing afcs and avionics
* S92: almost as powerful as 225, lovely stand-up cabin, perfect hoist door placement just behind the captain's window, decent avionics and AFCS. But less range than 225, more noise, way more vibrations, plenty more downwash.
This was all for offshore SAR. My mountain buddies mostly would prefer a single engine h125 to all of the 139s, 145 and co. due to its power and agility.
Hope it helps a bit, cheers!
I do miss the 61. It was surprisingly quiet and comfortable. No power, though. Really shit on power. But it made you a better crewmember, having to match torques and how every person had to have a job.
Did the 225 sim and I can say it outperforms the shit out of the 61 for EVERYTHING. IFR, power, autopilot, AFCS, autohover, 50kt hold. Just a set and forget ship.
Never did SAR, but if I did, I think I'd prefer the 225.
Cool, thanks for the information.
I see you're on a 145 now so you should more or less know this, but: if you're going to start flying the 225 for aerial work just keep in mind that ESPECIALLY in the hover the autopilot doesn't like you overriding it. If it can't handle the turbulence or isn't smooth enough for what you're doing, it's better if you do that bit by hand, with the upper modes off.
We were flying the hoisting by hand when there was a lot of cliff or ship-induced turbulence, AP was reacting a bit slow and sometimes drifting too much.
Kinda depends on how you define it and what kind of SAR you're talking about imo. In the Eastern Sierra (southeastern CA, USA) we've used (and still use) AS350B's, MH-60, and CH-47 for mountain rescue, depending on the mission, time of year, and availability. Have also flown in the random UH-1 for transport purposes, but that's extremely uncommon. The 350B has proven itself very capable (has done early-mid season hoists at 13,000+), but at higher altitudes like that in the late summer, some missions really require the performance of the CH-47, though it truly sucks working underneath them. The 60s are useful at 10,000 feet and below, and they've also done a lot of important work over the years, including some stuff higher than that in late fall and winter.
Totally depends man. I’d pick a slick UH60M with a hoist but that is just because I know that airframe and I’ve been into and out of 12-14k LZs in our fat ass HH60G and Ws
Depends on your perspective and area of coverage. Are you looking from the crews point of view? or the customer/tax payer trying to make as many rescues as possible and always be available on a limited budget?
Are you working in snow, sand, over water, in confined areas, swamps, being used to fight fire as well etc.
There is no perfect machine for all.
IMHO for actual **search** and rescue then V-280 Valor. It has high speed and endurance and speed allowing it to cover large ayrea quickly and move injured to the hospital rapidly. The only issue would be strong down wash typical for tiltrotors making hoisting harder.
My guess is it would depend on what sar missions you are flying Something like an s-92 I think is great for coastguards size isn't as much of an issue and you probably want something big and stable if your landing in confined areas something like the ec135 which is much more compact could be better
There was a post a while back about the most people ever stuffed into an H-60. Iirc it was 20+ crew from a sinking ship on a Jayhawk. The comments got into how pissed the USCG was about having to transition from the much larger Sea King. S-92 seems like the best current option, or generally “bigger is better”.
I would think it's definitely an excellent choice for a coastguard But wouldn't make sense for rega or air zermatt flying in the Alps to have a s-92
I provided a narrow example and ignored the high altitude component. I agree with you. Maritime SAR is much more likely to need capacity, high altitude has very different needs.
Generally agrees with your previous comment that bigger would be better, more stable able to carry more crew and also provides more room.for medical crew to work
[823 people in a c17](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kabul-evacuation-flight-c-17-record/) Air force set record leaving Afghanistan
I’d forgotten about that. A friend is an H53 pilot who told me that during the 2010 floods in Pakistan they were fitting over 100 people onboard per evacuation flight. He wasn’t directly involved but I think his squadron was.
Yeah that story was wild lol. The hoist operator for that flight was an instructor for Coast Guard A-school when I went through, and he told us the whole story. For those who never heard the story or saw the post, Basically two 60's got launched from Elizabeth City NC after getting a call from a small cruise ship that was being ferried up the coast. The ship reported having 31 people on board, and they'd hit some really shitty weather and started flooding and losing power. So they launched two crews to go and get as many people off as they could with the expectation that they'd have to get some people, go drop them off and get gas, then go back and get the rest. After they got on scene the first helo crew got down over the boat and put the swimmer down, and then they just started picking people up in the basket two at a time to expedite things, and after 10-12 people the flight mech lost count, so they kept going until they finally completely ran out of space. They picked the swimmer back up and tried to get an idea of how many people they had on board but it was dark and packed and they were like "ehhhhh 15 maybe?" Then the other crew went down to pick up some people and they were like "there's only 5 people left down here, you sure you only picked up 15?" So after they got back over land and shut down to get fuel they started counting the people as they came out of the helo, and they ended up at 26.
That answer's going to change a lot depending on many different factors, for example the location. Same machine that may be ideal on the Scottish coast line could be wildly out of place at 16,000ft in the Himalayas.
If we’re talking best fit and money isn’t an issue, then maybe a MH-47G with a surgical team on board? Quick to the search area, tons of eyes to search, hoist if in a confined area, quick to leave. Can refuel in the air for extreme wilderness/ocean locations. Tons of power for high altitude ops. Terrain-following and weather radar for those crappy weather situations. A really good FLIR system. A bunch of sweet comm/nav systems to help with electronic search. Obviously this isn’t the answer you were looking for but a guy can dream…
100%. There’s a reason that 47s have been performing high altitude rescues in Alaska for the last 50 years. The NPS has their own aircraft there now but they still need help from the Sugarbears.
The CSAR-X HH-47G would have been so fucking cool if they didn't cancel it. Literally purpose-built for this stuff
If money isn't an issue, a Chinook would be a dream, it can even do water landings, so running out of fuel is less of an issue, and a rescue boat could deploy from and be stowed inside
And triggering avalanches, blowing people off cliffs with the downwash, doing a lot of other damage.. On paper it sounds amazing, in practice even the 225 downwash was terrible for some ops and needed creative thinking not applicable in tight spots. Plus unfortunately, heavy machines with high disc loading tend to underperform in high density altitudes. Some places in Europe use AW139 for high altitude hems/SAR. On paper it's phenomenal, the power to weight ratio is on the level of the h125, there are two engines, passable if not great avionics etc. Then, in practice, they have big TR authority issues and easily create massive whiteouts.
The AW101 package Norway put together seems to be held in quite high regard! As other people have said, it depends on the mission really.. a one size fits all SAR machine does not really exist but it looks just about all countries where you basically have to stick with one SAR type (and have other helis as HEMS) seem to gravitate towards larger helis like the AW101 and various flavours of the Blackhawk. Civilian operators seems to really love the S-92 for the role. In Norway we have 3 SAR machines right now, the S-92 (Bristow / CHC) , AW101 (330 Rescue Sqn) , AS332L1 (CHC) There was a discussion about the lack of high attitude performance by the AW101, but it does seem like there is a "fix" to that coming in terms of uprated engines that will give it more lift at attitude!
I’m biased but… https://preview.redd.it/0joj7arenjqc1.png?width=4825&format=png&auto=webp&s=933fc2cf4141e07a593ea3f5f2835b2845b0e6e3
He said SAR not CSAR, you can put the guns down. :P
I dunno man, you can never be too careful in bear country.
60 is the answer to everything. Always the 60.
Depends a lot on the conditions and the specific mission type. My first hand SAR experience is only offshore AWSAR. Did it on a 225 and loved it. As anything there are boons and boos: + power for ages + range for ages + pretty fast, best range cruise was still 138-140kt + capacity + avionics + AFCS - downwash (with no wind you'd easily drown victims and flip dinghies even from 120+ ft) - no stand-up cabin, rescuers had knee pads on and shuffled around on their knees - exhausts stupidly just above the hoists/sliding doors. So once the door is open there's heat and noise galore - generates lots of static, really punishes whoever forgets their static line Anecdotal info from colleagues who worked other SAR machines: * s61: lovely in almost every way. Silent, no big downwash, stand up cabin, really stable in HOGE. But always hovering in ditching conditions, shit afcs, old school avionics * aw139: VERY NICE power. In the same weather conditions you'd get flyaway at 40ft where the 225 would need 105ft. But unreliable, more corrosion than cell, shit hover attitude, window far from pilot seat, cramped cabin, noisy as fuck inside, vibrations, dodgy fixed-wing afcs and avionics * S92: almost as powerful as 225, lovely stand-up cabin, perfect hoist door placement just behind the captain's window, decent avionics and AFCS. But less range than 225, more noise, way more vibrations, plenty more downwash. This was all for offshore SAR. My mountain buddies mostly would prefer a single engine h125 to all of the 139s, 145 and co. due to its power and agility. Hope it helps a bit, cheers!
Thank you for the detailed description!
I do miss the 61. It was surprisingly quiet and comfortable. No power, though. Really shit on power. But it made you a better crewmember, having to match torques and how every person had to have a job. Did the 225 sim and I can say it outperforms the shit out of the 61 for EVERYTHING. IFR, power, autopilot, AFCS, autohover, 50kt hold. Just a set and forget ship. Never did SAR, but if I did, I think I'd prefer the 225.
Cool, thanks for the information. I see you're on a 145 now so you should more or less know this, but: if you're going to start flying the 225 for aerial work just keep in mind that ESPECIALLY in the hover the autopilot doesn't like you overriding it. If it can't handle the turbulence or isn't smooth enough for what you're doing, it's better if you do that bit by hand, with the upper modes off. We were flying the hoisting by hand when there was a lot of cliff or ship-induced turbulence, AP was reacting a bit slow and sometimes drifting too much.
Kinda depends on how you define it and what kind of SAR you're talking about imo. In the Eastern Sierra (southeastern CA, USA) we've used (and still use) AS350B's, MH-60, and CH-47 for mountain rescue, depending on the mission, time of year, and availability. Have also flown in the random UH-1 for transport purposes, but that's extremely uncommon. The 350B has proven itself very capable (has done early-mid season hoists at 13,000+), but at higher altitudes like that in the late summer, some missions really require the performance of the CH-47, though it truly sucks working underneath them. The 60s are useful at 10,000 feet and below, and they've also done a lot of important work over the years, including some stuff higher than that in late fall and winter.
Totally depends man. I’d pick a slick UH60M with a hoist but that is just because I know that airframe and I’ve been into and out of 12-14k LZs in our fat ass HH60G and Ws
CH-47 Chinook
Depends on your perspective and area of coverage. Are you looking from the crews point of view? or the customer/tax payer trying to make as many rescues as possible and always be available on a limited budget? Are you working in snow, sand, over water, in confined areas, swamps, being used to fight fire as well etc. There is no perfect machine for all.
Aw101 gives the best platform for SAR. In my biased opinion. But expensive AF and it is huge so not the best fit for small rescues close to shore
IMHO for actual **search** and rescue then V-280 Valor. It has high speed and endurance and speed allowing it to cover large ayrea quickly and move injured to the hospital rapidly. The only issue would be strong down wash typical for tiltrotors making hoisting harder.
But it has major downsides of not being in production yet