cumulushumilis
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:17 pm

So it looks like the Airbus C-295 is the winner.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/sajjan-to-announce-airbus-c-295-aircraft-as-winner-as-fixed-wing-search-and-rescue-project

That surprises me, I thought it was not what the RCAF wanted and the C-27J was favored to win..
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:37 am

At long last, a much awaited decision on a long-delayed, critical acquisition.....

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air ... ue-project

Image
https://staticviewlift-a.akamaihd.net/d ... a-c-295jpg


cumulushumilis wrote:
I thought it was not what the RCAF wanted and the C-27J was favored to win.

This should put to rest allegations that the tender is rigged to make the Spartan the winner.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:58 am

Hearing some negative remarks from SAR operators already; they are all pointing out that the C-295 has a shorter range and is slower than the C-130H's being used as SAR aircraft right now, and they need that range and speed.

I'm also reading that the number of aircraft to be actually procured is not fixed; originally, it was supposed to be 17 aircraft. Now, it could be less, all depending on the budget and what the contractor proposed.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:08 am

Excellent choice, the C-235/295 family has already made a name for itself in the MPA/SAR/over-water operations role.

ThePointblank wrote:
Hearing some negative remarks from SAR operators already; they are all pointing out that the C-295 has a shorter range and is slower than the C-130H's being used as SAR aircraft right now, and they need that range and speed.


It's faster and has significantly more range than the DHC-5 Buffalo, so whats the problem?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:35 am

VSMUT wrote:

It's faster and has significantly more range than the DHC-5 Buffalo, so whats the problem?

It's slower, has less range, and the cargo area has limited head height compared to the C-130H, the aircraft that's currently being used across practically all across Canada except for the Victoria SAR region.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:08 am

ThePointblank wrote:
It's slower, has less range, and the cargo area has limited head height compared to the C-130H, the aircraft that's currently being used across practically all across Canada except for the Victoria SAR region.


Well obviously the competent personnel in the Canadian DND, RCAF and Public Services Procurement Canada have decided that it is fast enough, has enough range and can carry enough cargo to replace the CC-130H. It will get a much better sensor package too.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:27 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
Hearing some negative remarks from SAR operators already; they are all pointing out that the C-295 has a shorter range and is slower than the C-130H's being used as SAR aircraft right now, and they need that range and speed.

I'm also reading that the number of aircraft to be actually procured is not fixed; originally, it was supposed to be 17 aircraft. Now, it could be less, all depending on the budget and what the contractor proposed.


This plane is only replacing the older C-130s and the DHC-5 Buffalo. The newer generation Herc's will still be flying for quite a while.

As for the range, I don't see an issue.

When conducting SAR ops, the plane wont have much payload, and therefore should be nowhere near MTOW, so the range during SAR ops should be around 4,500-5,000 km. That's plenty !

Speed wise, I don't see an issue either.

Max cruise speed of 260 kts. Besides, when conducting SAR ops, you have a tendency to go slow, not fast, in order to find what you are looking for.

http://www.c295.ca/c295-canadian-sar/specifications/

VSMUT wrote:

Well obviously the competent personnel in the Canadian DND, RCAF and Public Services Procurement Canada have decided that it is fast enough, has enough range and can carry enough cargo to replace the CC-130H. It will get a much better sensor package too.


:checkmark:
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
cumulushumilis
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:34 pm

So Airbus is saying they can fulfill the contract with 16 aircraft, 1 less than the original RFP called for although now it was up to the provider to provide the correct number of aircraft . I hope we don't get into a situation similar to what we faced with the CH-149 Cormorant..Not enough serviceable frames in the fleet to maintain SAR coverage, originally 15 aircraft down to 14 with the loss of one.
 
jalarner
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:54 pm

I don't think the speed on station for a SAR event is what the concern was...but the ability to get there quickly. Don't forget the SAR area provided by Trenton is absolutely massive.

I wonder if these will replace the C-130's doing double-duty transport and SAR? Do they still do that? I go to Trenton a few times a year, but for my own purposes. (The C-130 'boneyard' is....interesting...)

Jamie
Support air cadets!
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:09 pm

jalarner wrote:
I don't think the speed on station for a SAR event is what the concern was...but the ability to get there quickly. Don't forget the SAR area provided by Trenton is absolutely massive.

You've hit the nail on the head. Speed on station isn't a concern; range and speed for transit IS a concern, especially with the large SAR areas being covered. The Trenton SAR region for example covers the entire Canadian Arctic, to the western half of Quebec, and the entirety of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. And the birds have to fly from either CFB Trenton in Ontario or CFB Winnipeg to cover this area. With the C-295, if there is a call to the Arctic, the aircraft will have to make a refueling stop enroute as the aircraft doesn't have the legs to fly to the Arctic and conduct a search. The C-130H's can.

jalarner wrote:
I wonder if these will replace the C-130's doing double-duty transport and SAR? Do they still do that? I go to Trenton a few times a year, but for my own purposes. (The C-130 'boneyard' is....interesting...)


Yes; FWSAR was about replacing the CC-115's and the C-130H's doing SAR duties. That's the issue; the specifications were originally 3/4 Herc, 1/4 Buffalo as how the fleet was already allocated, so naturally, the specs were more Herc like than Buffalo. And some proponents cried fowl over that.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:04 am

From my reading and chatting, these are some of the thoughts according to the operators:

1. They are glad that they are getting something, anything to replace the CC-115 Buffalo's doing SAR duty. The Victoria SAR people are happy about that, as it means they don't have out of 6 aircraft sitting on the ramp, only 1 barely serviceable aircraft for SAR duty.

2. The operators are NOT happy to loose the C-130H's doing SAR duty, more on this below.

3. The operators are not happy with the C-295's cargo bay; while it is longer than the C-130H's cargo bay, it is narrower, and shorter. A typical adult person has trouble standing in the cargo bay of the C-295; this is not an aircraft for tall SAR operators and load masters working in the back. SAR operators are going to struggle with getting their equipment on with how tight it is in the aircraft.

4. There are concerns with whom is going to operate the sensor package that's supposedly coming with the aircraft; not enough sensor operators are employed by the CF to fill the role, and there's not enough in the training pipeline to fill the roles as the aircraft are delivered. They may have to take people away from the CP-140 Aurora MPA community to fill the sensor operator role for a while, but the Aurora MPA community doesn't have anyone to spare to send to the SAR community. The main constraint is training; not enough resources to train new people to fill sensor operator roles.

5. They are happy that the aircraft is pressurized; big boon for crew comfort during transit, as it means they can fly high and fast without the need to don oxygen masks.

6. There are concerns regarding field deployments of the C-295; the aircraft as proposed doesn't have an APU to provide power while on the ground. It's only an option, and one that Airbus didn't offer. The engine does have a propeller brake, but it's not really the same thing.

7. The range of the C-295 is a major concern. One scenario of note in the requirements where the C-295's lack of range is going to be felt immensely is a potential SAR event in the Halifax SAR region out at the very far edge at 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W out in the mid-Atlantic. The current C-130H's have a max search area that allows the aircraft to fly from Greenwood, NS, fly out that far, and cover an area from Labrador to Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, and recover in the UK without any problems. The new aircraft is supposed to have a small fraction of the possible maximum search area. Sounds like this was another area where the requirements really got cut back, and could lead to another Ocean Ranger like disaster in the future.

8. No one is really sure what's going to happen with the C-130H fleet that's doing SAR right now; this fleet currently does double duty as SAR and tactical transport, and the secondary transport role is an important one. Will some of them be retained for the secondary role, or will there be another aircraft purchased to replace it? Most of the CF C-130H fleet were delivered in the 1960's and they have been heavily used since. It is expected that the CC-115 Buffalo's will be disposed of; too old, and too much an orphan that's incredibly difficult to support today.
 
rlwynn
Posts: 1157
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 3:35 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:24 pm

3. The operators are not happy with the C-295's cargo bay; while it is longer than the C-130H's cargo bay, it is narrower, and shorter. A typical adult person has trouble standing in the cargo bay of the C-295; this is not an aircraft for tall SAR operators and load masters working in the back. SAR operators are going to struggle with getting their equipment on with how tight it is in the aircraft.


Since this is not true I am asking if you could give us all examples of what you mean.

Normal sized people can walk around in it and you can drive a Hummer into the bay.
I can drive faster than you
 
VSMUT
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Mon Dec 12, 2016 2:20 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
6. There are concerns regarding field deployments of the C-295; the aircraft as proposed doesn't have an APU to provide power while on the ground. It's only an option, and one that Airbus didn't offer. The engine does have a propeller brake, but it's not really the same thing.

7. The range of the C-295 is a major concern. One scenario of note in the requirements where the C-295's lack of range is going to be felt immensely is a potential SAR event in the Halifax SAR region out at the very far edge at 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W out in the mid-Atlantic. The current C-130H's have a max search area that allows the aircraft to fly from Greenwood, NS, fly out that far, and cover an area from Labrador to Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, and recover in the UK without any problems. The new aircraft is supposed to have a small fraction of the possible maximum search area. Sounds like this was another area where the requirements really got cut back, and could lead to another Ocean Ranger like disaster in the future.


6. How is a propeller brake not the same thing?

7. The C-130Js and P-3s will still be around. Besides, the C-295 (non-wingletted version) has enough range to reach 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W and return if you refuel in St. Johns. It has a range of up to 4600 km. That's enough to get it all the way to Zürich or Stockholm if necessary.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:57 pm

rlwynn wrote:
3. The operators are not happy with the C-295's cargo bay; while it is longer than the C-130H's cargo bay, it is narrower, and shorter. A typical adult person has trouble standing in the cargo bay of the C-295; this is not an aircraft for tall SAR operators and load masters working in the back. SAR operators are going to struggle with getting their equipment on with how tight it is in the aircraft.


Since this is not true I am asking if you could give us all examples of what you mean.

Normal sized people can walk around in it and you can drive a Hummer into the bay.

The C-295's cargo bay dimensions is 6 ft, 3 in high, 8 ft, 10 in across, 41 ft 8 in in length, per Airbus Military's website:
http://www.c295.ca/c295-canadian-sar/specifications/

So, no you can't get a hard top HMMVW into the back of a C-295. You can in a C-27J.

The average height of an adult male in Canada is 5ft, 9 in, but the average height of a CF SAR operator is higher. Even at average height, a SAR operator will have to duck their head while standing up inside to put on parachutes, helmets, etc.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:30 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
The average height of an adult male in Canada is 5ft, 9 in, but the average height of a CF SAR operator is higher. Even at average height, a SAR operator will have to duck their head while standing up inside to put on parachutes, helmets, etc.


So the C-295, an aircraft used to drop paratroopers throughout the world, is the wrong choice because the SAR operators who will be sitting down in ergonomic seats for most of the flight (and are on average higher than 190 cm, says an anonymous A.netter with no links to back it up) will have to duck their heads for the last few minutes before jumping. Right.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3101
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: RE: Canada And The Fwsar

Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:35 pm

connies4ever wrote:
For further out into the chuck, something like a turbine twin suitable modified with an extra fuel tank, rafts/floats etc. would be the likely choice.


Do 24ATT
http://www.do-24.com/index.php?home

Sea state be damned :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:47 am

VSMUT wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
6. There are concerns regarding field deployments of the C-295; the aircraft as proposed doesn't have an APU to provide power while on the ground. It's only an option, and one that Airbus didn't offer. The engine does have a propeller brake, but it's not really the same thing.

7. The range of the C-295 is a major concern. One scenario of note in the requirements where the C-295's lack of range is going to be felt immensely is a potential SAR event in the Halifax SAR region out at the very far edge at 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W out in the mid-Atlantic. The current C-130H's have a max search area that allows the aircraft to fly from Greenwood, NS, fly out that far, and cover an area from Labrador to Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, and recover in the UK without any problems. The new aircraft is supposed to have a small fraction of the possible maximum search area. Sounds like this was another area where the requirements really got cut back, and could lead to another Ocean Ranger like disaster in the future.


6. How is a propeller brake not the same thing?

7. The C-130Js and P-3s will still be around. Besides, the C-295 (non-wingletted version) has enough range to reach 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W and return if you refuel in St. Johns. It has a range of up to 4600 km. That's enough to get it all the way to Zürich or Stockholm if necessary.


1. Fuel economy, especially in places where the ability to refuel may be limited due to lack of fuel at the airfield or lack of time. For example, one scenario is for the FWSAR platform to land at a nearby airfield and wait for the rescue helicopter to meet up to transfer patients to be flown to a more distant location. The FWSAR platform will need to sit on the tarmac without any external support while waiting for the helicopter to arrive. Running an engine is inherently more fuel inefficient verses an APU, along with the resulting increased wear and tear on the engine.

Another concern: Safety. If there is the chance to refuel, refueling an aircraft while its engine is running isn't a very safe idea. There's also the possibility of the propeller brake failing while the engine is running, and if that happens, better hope no one or anything is in the vicinity of the props. People have either been killed or seriously hurt because of this on other aircraft.

Also, tailwinds pose a problem for any aircraft that uses a propeller brake, as the engine will need to be closely monitored for overheating; if it does overheat, you need to completely shut down and run on the battery. If that happens and there is no external support to help restart the engine, you are SOL. This however can be managed if the wind direction remains constant and the direction is known.

One more concern: noise. Running the engine while the propeller brake is engaged is noisy, compared to an aircraft running off the APU.

2. The C-130J's are all tactical transports first, and 17 of them isn't enough to cover both the transport role and provide backup coverage for SAR. We had 32 C-130's to provide transport duties, and they are only being followed by 17 C-130J's. The E's are now all gone, and the H's are very old, with no clear plans regarding their future.

And, the CP-140 Aurora fleet is positively small as we don't have enough to cover all of the coast in its primary role of maritime patrol.

VSMUT wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The average height of an adult male in Canada is 5ft, 9 in, but the average height of a CF SAR operator is higher. Even at average height, a SAR operator will have to duck their head while standing up inside to put on parachutes, helmets, etc.


So the C-295, an aircraft used to drop paratroopers throughout the world, is the wrong choice because the SAR operators who will be sitting down in ergonomic seats for most of the flight (and are on average higher than 190 cm, says an anonymous A.netter with no links to back it up) will have to duck their heads for the last few minutes before jumping. Right.

There's a massive difference between a SAR tech that's fully kitted out to jump to a rescue, and how most nations use the C-295 for jumps. Load a C-295 with paratroopers, complete with their rucksacks, weapons etc and see how much space there is inside the aircraft. The C-27J is shorter, but the cargo bay is both wider and taller. You can drive a M113 APC into a C-27J no problem, and still have side access throughout the cargo bay.

I've been inside both the C-27J and the C-295; I'm able to stand comfortably in a C-27J, no problem. In the C-295, I risk the potential of bumping my head into something while I am standing up straight, and I'm slightly taller than average.

And no, SAR techs are usually not sitting down in a seat for most of the flight, they are standing up and configuring and organizing their equipment throughout the flight. They are actively working while the aircraft is in flight.

SAR techs are a very peculiar bunch; they are absolute pack rats. A SAR-equipped C-130 or CC-115 is absolutely packed to the gills with gear, depending on the type of rescue. Anything from generators, toboggans, sleds, ATV's, SKAD's, or anything they can stick on a pallet to be dropped out of the back. It is also expected that the FWSAR platform be used to also carry stretchers and supplies to and from a disaster site; say if the Big One hits the West Coast.
 
diverted
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:35 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
6. There are concerns regarding field deployments of the C-295; the aircraft as proposed doesn't have an APU to provide power while on the ground. It's only an option, and one that Airbus didn't offer. The engine does have a propeller brake, but it's not really the same thing.

7. The range of the C-295 is a major concern. One scenario of note in the requirements where the C-295's lack of range is going to be felt immensely is a potential SAR event in the Halifax SAR region out at the very far edge at 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W out in the mid-Atlantic. The current C-130H's have a max search area that allows the aircraft to fly from Greenwood, NS, fly out that far, and cover an area from Labrador to Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, and recover in the UK without any problems. The new aircraft is supposed to have a small fraction of the possible maximum search area. Sounds like this was another area where the requirements really got cut back, and could lead to another Ocean Ranger like disaster in the future.


6. How is a propeller brake not the same thing?

7. The C-130Js and P-3s will still be around. Besides, the C-295 (non-wingletted version) has enough range to reach 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W and return if you refuel in St. Johns. It has a range of up to 4600 km. That's enough to get it all the way to Zürich or Stockholm if necessary.


1. Fuel economy, especially in places where the ability to refuel may be limited due to lack of fuel at the airfield or lack of time. For example, one scenario is for the FWSAR platform to land at a nearby airfield and wait for the rescue helicopter to meet up to transfer patients to be flown to a more distant location. The FWSAR platform will need to sit on the tarmac without any external support while waiting for the helicopter to arrive. Running an engine is inherently more fuel inefficient verses an APU, along with the resulting increased wear and tear on the engine.

Another concern: Safety. If there is the chance to refuel, refueling an aircraft while its engine is running isn't a very safe idea. There's also the possibility of the propeller brake failing while the engine is running, and if that happens, better hope no one or anything is in the vicinity of the props. People have either been killed or seriously hurt because of this on other aircraft.

Also, tailwinds pose a problem for any aircraft that uses a propeller brake, as the engine will need to be closely monitored for overheating; if it does overheat, you need to completely shut down and run on the battery. If that happens and there is no external support to help restart the engine, you are SOL. This however can be managed if the wind direction remains constant and the direction is known.

One more concern: noise. Running the engine while the propeller brake is engaged is noisy, compared to an aircraft running off the APU.

2. The C-130J's are all tactical transports first, and 17 of them isn't enough to cover both the transport role and provide backup coverage for SAR. We had 32 C-130's to provide transport duties, and they are only being followed by 17 C-130J's. The E's are now all gone, and the H's are very old, with no clear plans regarding their future.

And, the CP-140 Aurora fleet is positively small as we don't have enough to cover all of the coast in its primary role of maritime patrol.

VSMUT wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The average height of an adult male in Canada is 5ft, 9 in, but the average height of a CF SAR operator is higher. Even at average height, a SAR operator will have to duck their head while standing up inside to put on parachutes, helmets, etc.


So the C-295, an aircraft used to drop paratroopers throughout the world, is the wrong choice because the SAR operators who will be sitting down in ergonomic seats for most of the flight (and are on average higher than 190 cm, says an anonymous A.netter with no links to back it up) will have to duck their heads for the last few minutes before jumping. Right.

There's a massive difference between a SAR tech that's fully kitted out to jump to a rescue, and how most nations use the C-295 for jumps. Load a C-295 with paratroopers, complete with their rucksacks, weapons etc and see how much space there is inside the aircraft. The C-27J is shorter, but the cargo bay is both wider and taller. You can drive a M113 APC into a C-27J no problem, and still have side access throughout the cargo bay.

I've been inside both the C-27J and the C-295; I'm able to stand comfortably in a C-27J, no problem. In the C-295, I risk the potential of bumping my head into something while I am standing up straight, and I'm slightly taller than average.

And no, SAR techs are usually not sitting down in a seat for most of the flight, they are standing up and configuring and organizing their equipment throughout the flight. They are actively working while the aircraft is in flight.

SAR techs are a very peculiar bunch; they are absolute pack rats. A SAR-equipped C-130 or CC-115 is absolutely packed to the gills with gear, depending on the type of rescue. Anything from generators, toboggans, sleds, ATV's, SKAD's, or anything they can stick on a pallet to be dropped out of the back. It is also expected that the FWSAR platform be used to also carry stretchers and supplies to and from a disaster site; say if the Big One hits the West Coast.


Can't comment too much on this as I haven't been following this too closely, but in regards to a prop brake, for all intents and purposes it's an APU.

I know on our ATR's, when hotel mode is engaged it's considered an APU, and refuelling with it running is not considered a hot refuel. Obviously ground power is preferred, but it's not a big deal. Of course no one is going to be permitted to walk near the prop with the engine running, in case the prop brake were to fail.

In terms of fuel, I wouldn't think that's a big concern. At those small northern stations, they will NOTAM that fuel is avail for medevac only if they are running low, and the other operators up there will be forced to tech stop at other stations for fuel. Happens all the time in the arctic.

Again, I can't really comment on the other logistical challenges, but a prop brake shouldn't be a deal breaker by any means.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:43 am

diverted wrote:
Can't comment too much on this as I haven't been following this too closely, but in regards to a prop brake, for all intents and purposes it's an APU.


It is indeed, and apart from being more noisy, does the exact same job as a dedicated APU, and is much simpler too.

diverted wrote:
I know on our ATR's, when hotel mode is engaged it's considered an APU, and refuelling with it running is not considered a hot refuel. Obviously ground power is preferred, but it's not a big deal. Of course no one is going to be permitted to walk near the prop with the engine running, in case the prop brake were to fail.


ATRs shouldn't be refueled in hotel mode, the FCOM states that quite specifically. Airbus does however state that the C-295 is capable of hot refueling.

ThePointblank wrote:
Another concern: Safety. If there is the chance to refuel, refueling an aircraft while its engine is running isn't a very safe idea. There's also the possibility of the propeller brake failing while the engine is running, and if that happens, better hope no one or anything is in the vicinity of the props. People have either been killed or seriously hurt because of this on other aircraft.


I am extremely familiar with the PW-127 family, and I have never heard of a prop brake failure on a well maintained engine. The most common occurrence is that worn out brake discs start slipping, but any competent MRO facility should catch that before it happens.

ThePointblank wrote:
Also, tailwinds pose a problem for any aircraft that uses a propeller brake, as the engine will need to be closely monitored for overheating; if it does overheat, you need to completely shut down and run on the battery. If that happens and there is no external support to help restart the engine, you are SOL.


Any pilot knows that an aircraft should be parked with its nose into the wind. The tailwind/nacelle overheat issue is related to civil airports where they have to park at a gate or stand, not some barren airfield in the Canadian north. The starter on the C-295 is also electrical and can be started by the battery, so again, a non-issue unless you waste all the electricity.

ThePointblank wrote:
The C-130J's are all tactical transports first, and 17 of them isn't enough to cover both the transport role and provide backup coverage for SAR.


Not a problem, the Canadian government is stepping down it's international commitments.

ThePointblank wrote:
Running an engine is inherently more fuel inefficient verses an APU, along with the resulting increased wear and tear on the engine.


The same engine on the ATR has a fuel burn of 110 kg/h in hotel mode. The APU on the Dash-8Q400 uses between 100 and 150 kg/h.

:)
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:27 am

VSMUT wrote:
It is indeed, and apart from being more noisy, does the exact same job as a dedicated APU, and is much simpler too.

However, more prone to a significant failure. Note that of the other civilian turboprop aircraft, only the ATR series comes only with a propeller brake; the Dash-8 and Saab 2000 have APU's, the Fokker 50 has it as an option. It's not a very popular feature for end users.

VSMUT wrote:
I am extremely familiar with the PW-127 family, and I have never heard of a prop brake failure on a well maintained engine. The most common occurrence is that worn out brake discs start slipping, but any competent MRO facility should catch that before it happens.

I'm aware of a number of companies that operate ATR's have discouraged the use of hotel mode on the ATR's due to uncommanded releases of the propeller. There's also a documented gearbox fire caused by the prop brake on a ATR; look up ASRS report # 559337 as an example.

VSMUT wrote:
Any pilot knows that an aircraft should be parked with its nose into the wind. The tailwind/nacelle overheat issue is related to civil airports where they have to park at a gate or stand, not some barren airfield in the Canadian north. The starter on the C-295 is also electrical and can be started by the battery, so again, a non-issue unless you waste all the electricity.

The issue is that depending on the airfield, that may not be an option, and of course, if the aircraft dispatches with an known unserviceable prop brake or even if it is discovered that the prop brake is not functional during a mission, it severely limits the options.

VSMUT wrote:
Not a problem, the Canadian government is stepping down it's international commitments.

Domestic requirements use the existing transport fleet very heavily. With the C-130E and H fleets, we had the highest time C-130's anywhere on the planet. I believe one C-130E in RCAF service flew for over 45,000 hours in its 40 years of service, mostly on domestic missions, from BOXTOP flights and training missions. That bird is now a ground instructional airframe.

Don't get me wrong; the C-295 is a fantastic aircraft, and is miles better than the DHC-5's the RCAF has now on the West Coast. But it is a poor C-130 replacement due to limitations in range, speed, and internal volume for the rest of Canada. The operators have a lot of concerns regarding the C-295 in its suitability for the type of SAR ops we do with the existing aircraft due to Canada's unique operating environment; we are trying to provide SAR coverage for the second biggest country in the world, and the one with the longest coastline in the world. I think the only country that does anything similar to what the RCAF does are the Americans, and they use the HC-130 as their primary platform for para-rescue operations.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:15 am

An added benefit that hasn't been mentioned, is that the ATR-42 is rapidly replacing the 737-200 as the aircraft of choice for civilian operators in the Canadian north. The ATR shares a lot of systems and parts with the C-295. Getting spares away from home will be much simpler.

ThePointblank wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
It is indeed, and apart from being more noisy, does the exact same job as a dedicated APU, and is much simpler too.

However, more prone to a significant failure. Note that of the other civilian turboprop aircraft, only the ATR series comes only with a propeller brake; the Dash-8 and Saab 2000 have APU's, the Fokker 50 has it as an option. It's not a very popular feature for end users.


Statistics and reports from flight crew show that the APU in the Q-400 is extremely unreliable and prone to breakdowns. The ATR's hotel mode on the other hand is extremely reliable.


ThePointblank wrote:
There's also a documented gearbox fire caused by the prop brake on a ATR; look up ASRS report # 559337 as an example.


It took place in the US in 2009, hence there is a 99% chance that the aircraft was an American Eagle aircraft, and they belong firmly in the above mentioned old and clapped out, and possibly not quite so well maintained category. US ATR operators aren't exactly well known for their fleets of young ATRs, and ATRs returned to the leasing company from American Eagle have proven to be a constant nightmare for all subsequent users.

:)
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:50 am

VSMUT wrote:

Statistics and reports from flight crew show that the APU in the Q-400 is extremely unreliable and prone to breakdowns. The ATR's hotel mode on the other hand is extremely reliable.

Operators also frequently avoid using hotel mode for extended periods (usually until ground power is available) on the ATR as well. Many other carriers have actually disabled the ability to use hotel mode on the ATR, preferring to use ground power when possible.

SAR operators frequently fly into air strips where ground equipment, such as power carts, aren't available. And it is not just in the north; there are also small air strips in BC and Ontario with very limited ground support facilities that SAR aircraft might have to stop at to perform their missions. Being able to retain the ability to operate from remote air strips without any ground equipment to do things like patient transfers is very much something that SAR operators would like to continue.

From my reading of the matter, it seems the C-295 won on the basis of cost and the new Value proposition format, which allowed Industrial Regional Benefits to dictate the decision, not because it was the better aircraft. The C-27J was the better aircraft, as it's faster, has a more efficient cargo area, more range, better cockpit visibility, and better STOL capabilities. It just wasn't the cheapest option, or the one that had the most Canadian content.

Mind you, the gold standard would have been more C-130J's.

VSMUT wrote:
It took place in the US in 2009, hence there is a 99% chance that the aircraft was an American Eagle aircraft, and they belong firmly in the above mentioned old and clapped out, and possibly not quite so well maintained category. US ATR operators aren't exactly well known for their fleets of young ATRs, and ATRs returned to the leasing company from American Eagle have proven to be a constant nightmare for all subsequent users.

:)

Actually, it took place in 2002. There's also another reported incident in 2007 that caused another engine fire as well.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:33 pm

Looks like the selection is going to go to court:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fixed-w ... -1.3994694

Leonardo is citing that the C-295W first doesn't meet one of the technical requirements (range), and second, doesn't meet the cost requirements (total contract including support must not exceed $3.4 billion).
 
diverted
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:14 pm

VSMUT wrote:
diverted wrote:
Can't comment too much on this as I haven't been following this too closely, but in regards to a prop brake, for all intents and purposes it's an APU.


It is indeed, and apart from being more noisy, does the exact same job as a dedicated APU, and is much simpler too.

diverted wrote:
I know on our ATR's, when hotel mode is engaged it's considered an APU, and refuelling with it running is not considered a hot refuel. Obviously ground power is preferred, but it's not a big deal. Of course no one is going to be permitted to walk near the prop with the engine running, in case the prop brake were to fail.


ATRs shouldn't be refueled in hotel mode, the FCOM states that quite specifically. Airbus does however state that the C-295 is capable of hot refueling.


Apologies that I'm 2 months late to reply to this...

Just looked through our FOM regarding Hot refuelling

-All non-essential crew and pax must deplane any time the aircraft is undergoing hot refuelling. (F/A's are considered non-essential)

NOTE: When the ATR42 is operating in Hotel Mode the engine is considered to be an APU. Fuelling while in Hotel Mode is NOT considered hot refuelling"

Obviously I can't be posting pages of our FOM on the net, but trust me it's in there.

ThePointblank wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Statistics and reports from flight crew show that the APU in the Q-400 is extremely unreliable and prone to breakdowns. The ATR's hotel mode on the other hand is extremely reliable.

Operators also frequently avoid using hotel mode for extended periods (usually until ground power is available) on the ATR as well. Many other carriers have actually disabled the ability to use hotel mode on the ATR, preferring to use ground power when possible.

SAR operators frequently fly into air strips where ground equipment, such as power carts, aren't available. And it is not just in the north; there are also small air strips in BC and Ontario with very limited ground support facilities that SAR aircraft might have to stop at to perform their missions. Being able to retain the ability to operate from remote air strips without any ground equipment to do things like patient transfers is very much something that SAR operators would like to continue.



Agree to an extent. Our FOM says Hotel mode should only be considered if there will be significant delays in obtaining ground power and air cart, or if it's unavailable."

Only limitations is that the aircraft can't be left unattended while in hotel mode, and not to run in hotel mode in anticipation of being towed.

I've flown into places on the ATR that had no ground power. Seemed to be a non issue. I don't see why that would be any different for SAR.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:01 am

Someone with considerable knowledge on the FWSAR program and the requirements posted this up. It raises even more questions regarding the selection of the C-295W:

http://www.happydiver.space/?p=277

Again, issues with speed, ergonomics, and reserve power are raised with the C-295W./\
 
Happydiver
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:15 pm

Re: Canada And The Fwsar

Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:48 pm

The Pointblank,
Thanks for posting my article. I used to work SAR with the CCG plus 442 Sqn in Comox, so I have a passion for the subject and connections with the field. Word in the SAR community is they will make do with the Airbus as it's better than nothing. The Buffalos will be @60 years old by the time they're replaced (if that actually happens). They are tough old birds and decent for maintaining but the saga of replacing them has been ridiculous. The probable main reason for the decision was money as this aircraft was the cheapest option up front. Another issue though is it isn't interoperable with the rest of the RCAF fleets whereas the Spartan would have dovetailed in as a 'Baby' Herc, which would have saved money downstream.

SAR isn't as sexy as refugees and wasn't an election item this last cycle and the RCAF will be saddled with an inadequate aircraft.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos