- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Perhaps both rescue Randy AND Requirements Guy would like to 'come clean' and tell us all exactly what they are about.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
If randy is 95% on all the data he has provided, he is a lot more accurate than a lot of people on this forum.
If his personal agenda is only 5% then, I can live with that....
That being said, if it is true, then I am a little saddened that he did not feel it necessary to "come clean" to express himself.... we would have listened to him anyway.... same as the media types who lurk and occasionaly type.
If his personal agenda is only 5% then, I can live with that....
That being said, if it is true, then I am a little saddened that he did not feel it necessary to "come clean" to express himself.... we would have listened to him anyway.... same as the media types who lurk and occasionaly type.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The following text is from a post which I put forward on Jan 6, 2006, where I believe I "came clean" . I stand by my comments, and by the text that I have put forward. It is too bad that there are those with certain agenda's who are now attacking my personal credibility. I will refrain from retaliating, but suffice to say that I am somewhat saddened that project staff, who are supposed to be impartial, would become promoters for a platform that is at best developmental and would become personally involved.
I do post as RLP on other sites, those were the letters that I have used in the military email for years. The reason that I used Rescue Randy on this post is in the text of the following email. For those who are in the Rescue business, there is a SAR tech joke in the nickname.
Text from one year ago follows:
For KJ_Gully and Zoomie, if you looked at my profile you will know that I am the guy from 19 Wing - I have been called that by the SAR community for a long time. I used this name to ensure that you, and the rest of the SAR community, can identify me, because those who know me will also know that I will neither peddle nor accept BS, regardless of the consequences.
I am currently self-employed, and while I have done some work for EADS, I have also worked for others who had questions about our current Air Mobility and SAR forces. My post was intended to provide some basic facts, not slanted to any one product, to raise the level of discussion a bit. Hopefully it came across that way.
My main interest remains the SAR community, and ensuring that they get the best new equipment that they can, recognizing that our track record in procurement has been pretty spotty. We were sold on the Cormorant, and supported the acquisition despite concerns over the tail rotor problems that the aircraft had since the beginning. We are paying for this today. Our seniors traded off military maintenance personnel in order to get the aircraft – only to find out that the serviceability of the new Cormorant was no better than that of the Labrador. The CF needs to make sure that they get the facts on the potential candidates prior to making a commitment, something that has not necessarily been done in the past.
I have done quite a bit of research on the contenders, not only for the FWSAR but also for the transport requirement. I began that research well before I left the military, and have continued it since. Suffice to say that glossy brochures from any aircraft manufacturer, or from anyone else with an axe to grind (including some from within DND), need to be carefully reviewed and pointed questions asked. Without slamming anyone, it appears that the procurement process to date has ignored some of the basic questions that have been raised by Stoney in his post. We need to get the facts out, and have a transparent procurement process. That does not mean a long process; it means that issues of flying characteristics, payload, range, speed, serviceability, parts, and affordability have to be considered before we make up our mind on what we are buying. It really does not matter which aircraft or combination of aircraft is procured, but you had better make sure that it will do the job, and be supportable, you cannot afford another Cormorant fleet. The CF cannot afford the “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” approach to procurement. Otherwise, we will get exactly what we asked for – just like we did with the Cormorant. Future generations of CF personnel will have to live with it, and with this procurement decision, for a hell of a long time.
I do post as RLP on other sites, those were the letters that I have used in the military email for years. The reason that I used Rescue Randy on this post is in the text of the following email. For those who are in the Rescue business, there is a SAR tech joke in the nickname.
Text from one year ago follows:
For KJ_Gully and Zoomie, if you looked at my profile you will know that I am the guy from 19 Wing - I have been called that by the SAR community for a long time. I used this name to ensure that you, and the rest of the SAR community, can identify me, because those who know me will also know that I will neither peddle nor accept BS, regardless of the consequences.
I am currently self-employed, and while I have done some work for EADS, I have also worked for others who had questions about our current Air Mobility and SAR forces. My post was intended to provide some basic facts, not slanted to any one product, to raise the level of discussion a bit. Hopefully it came across that way.
My main interest remains the SAR community, and ensuring that they get the best new equipment that they can, recognizing that our track record in procurement has been pretty spotty. We were sold on the Cormorant, and supported the acquisition despite concerns over the tail rotor problems that the aircraft had since the beginning. We are paying for this today. Our seniors traded off military maintenance personnel in order to get the aircraft – only to find out that the serviceability of the new Cormorant was no better than that of the Labrador. The CF needs to make sure that they get the facts on the potential candidates prior to making a commitment, something that has not necessarily been done in the past.
I have done quite a bit of research on the contenders, not only for the FWSAR but also for the transport requirement. I began that research well before I left the military, and have continued it since. Suffice to say that glossy brochures from any aircraft manufacturer, or from anyone else with an axe to grind (including some from within DND), need to be carefully reviewed and pointed questions asked. Without slamming anyone, it appears that the procurement process to date has ignored some of the basic questions that have been raised by Stoney in his post. We need to get the facts out, and have a transparent procurement process. That does not mean a long process; it means that issues of flying characteristics, payload, range, speed, serviceability, parts, and affordability have to be considered before we make up our mind on what we are buying. It really does not matter which aircraft or combination of aircraft is procured, but you had better make sure that it will do the job, and be supportable, you cannot afford another Cormorant fleet. The CF cannot afford the “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” approach to procurement. Otherwise, we will get exactly what we asked for – just like we did with the Cormorant. Future generations of CF personnel will have to live with it, and with this procurement decision, for a hell of a long time.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks RR. Balls in your court Requirements Guy.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Thanks RR for the post,
I actually remember your post from last year.
Here it is:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145/post-316955.html#msg316955
Batter up.....
I actually remember your post from last year.
Here it is:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145/post-316955.html#msg316955
Batter up.....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
I am a CF pilot working at the Directorate of Air Requirements as the Deputy Project Director for the FWSAR project. I work with the SAR community, DRDC scientists, Operation Research personnel, and industry consultants to develop the operational requirements for the FWSAR aircraft. First and foremost I represent both the FWSAR community and the victims of SAR (remember them?). I work in conjunction with the project office staff to ensure that we in the SAR community get the aircraft that allows us to provide Canadians with the FWSAR service they expect. As mentioned my prime directive is that the SOR MUST ensure the same or better FWSAR service.
Rescue Randy posted above that, "The bottom line is that the project office has not written a SOR based on SAR requirements, they have written it based on the specifications of the Spartan."
This remark, apart from being absolutely untrue, insults a lot of extremely dedicated and professional members working on this project.
Please explain to me what possible motive we would have to cook the requirements so as to exclude viable contenders? The requirements are the requirements. They have been scrutinized by 100s of people over the past three years.
I have no problem if Rescue Randy wants to win converts to his product on on-line forums. I can even take the insulting accusations. This is all harmless and healthy debate. But, when as a result of him, some of these false accusations and false information appear on the front page of the Globe then perhaps it's time for a reality check.
Don't underestimate the damage done by the recent string of Globe articles. And don't believe everything you read.
For the record I don't advocate any of the potential contenders for the FWSAR project. But to be fair, the C27J can search at speeds of 130 kts and less. Coincidently, this is a Rescue Randy requirement, not one that is specified in the SOR, contrary to what was stated in the Globe.
Rescue Randy posted above that, "The bottom line is that the project office has not written a SOR based on SAR requirements, they have written it based on the specifications of the Spartan."
This remark, apart from being absolutely untrue, insults a lot of extremely dedicated and professional members working on this project.
Please explain to me what possible motive we would have to cook the requirements so as to exclude viable contenders? The requirements are the requirements. They have been scrutinized by 100s of people over the past three years.
I have no problem if Rescue Randy wants to win converts to his product on on-line forums. I can even take the insulting accusations. This is all harmless and healthy debate. But, when as a result of him, some of these false accusations and false information appear on the front page of the Globe then perhaps it's time for a reality check.
Don't underestimate the damage done by the recent string of Globe articles. And don't believe everything you read.
For the record I don't advocate any of the potential contenders for the FWSAR project. But to be fair, the C27J can search at speeds of 130 kts and less. Coincidently, this is a Rescue Randy requirement, not one that is specified in the SOR, contrary to what was stated in the Globe.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
In the interests of accuracy, I will add a couple of points, and then you can decide which end of the horse is which. The issues that I have raised on the SOR have been provided to me by concerned members of the SAR community, who feel that the coalface has lost the ability to have input into the project. Apparently they are among those who have reviewed the document referred to by Requirements guy. They have stated to me that there was an essential requirement in Version 2 of the SOR that not only identifies the search speed as 110-130 knots but also states that in the Canadian Forces, the maneuvering speed that is used for searching and aerial delivery for CC 130s Hercules aircraft is the 45 degree bank power-off stall speed, plus 20 knots indicated airspeed. This matches my knowledge from flying SAR on the Hercules. The Buff stalling speed is so low that it really doesn't come into play, but for an aircraft with a higher stalling speed, it does.
According to the same folks, Version 4 of the SOR states the mandatory search speed as 110 - 140 knots in the section entitled Manoeuvrability and omits the explanatory sentence from Version 2. They also tell me that most of the SAR requirements, such as the ability to see below the aircraft to allow effective visual search and equipment delivery, and the requirement for 66 sq ft for the SAR techs to work in at the back of the aircraft, have either been downgraded or reduced below the acceptable minimum in Version 4. I have said as much in my posts - not sure why Requirements Guy has a different interpretation of the SOR, but I will point out that the SOR for FWSAR has never been available in its entirety to the public, and ATI versions that are available in the reading room are severed to the point where no requirements are included. If the SAR community is in error, then there is a significant communications problem within the Project Office. This is in direct contrast to the Joint Support Ship SOR, where the requirements were developed jointly with industry and the customer in full transparency, and the SOR is fully available on the internet at http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp . The FWSAR aircraft is a SAR airplane, not a stealth fighter, there is no need for such secrecy - all it does is create situations like the one we have here today.
I was notified by PM by Requirements Guy two days ago that he had a different stalling chart for the C-27J, and that I was providing incorrect data. I replied, asking him to compare notes to reconcile the two charts, as the one that he was quoting has values that are not consistent with power-off operations for the Spartan, but that communication seems to have stopped. Therefore, I will provide the data that I have for full transparency, by scanning and attaching computations for both the C-295 and the C-27J from the respective aircraft operating instructions. I regret that I do not have one for the Dash-8, or I would include it as well. The one for the C-27J uses a stalling chart from the C-27A as I do not have the chart for the C-27J, but the data for power off stall will remain valid as the engine does not come into play, and the airframe components (flaps, wings, etc) that mandate stalling speed are unchanged with the modifications made to produce the C-27J. The nice thing about aeronautics is that calculations are straightforward math, and are not subject to interpretation - the stalling speed is the stalling speed. I invite Requirements Guy to do the same and provide any charts that he has so that this discussion can be resolved - at the very least, he should be concerned that Alenia is providing different data values for the same airframe and require an explanation. Once again, this is the type of review that should take place as part of a full and transparent competition, which is the only way this will be really be resolved.
Finally, if CASA were to pull out of, or lose, the competition, you will continue to see my input on SAR requirements. The SAR community knows who I am, and appears to appreciate that someone who has served in every SAR region, scaring himself and them in the process, who was with them in the ongoing nightmare of the Cormorant introduction, and survived to collect a pension still cares enough about what they are doing to raise their concerns.
According to the same folks, Version 4 of the SOR states the mandatory search speed as 110 - 140 knots in the section entitled Manoeuvrability and omits the explanatory sentence from Version 2. They also tell me that most of the SAR requirements, such as the ability to see below the aircraft to allow effective visual search and equipment delivery, and the requirement for 66 sq ft for the SAR techs to work in at the back of the aircraft, have either been downgraded or reduced below the acceptable minimum in Version 4. I have said as much in my posts - not sure why Requirements Guy has a different interpretation of the SOR, but I will point out that the SOR for FWSAR has never been available in its entirety to the public, and ATI versions that are available in the reading room are severed to the point where no requirements are included. If the SAR community is in error, then there is a significant communications problem within the Project Office. This is in direct contrast to the Joint Support Ship SOR, where the requirements were developed jointly with industry and the customer in full transparency, and the SOR is fully available on the internet at http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp . The FWSAR aircraft is a SAR airplane, not a stealth fighter, there is no need for such secrecy - all it does is create situations like the one we have here today.
I was notified by PM by Requirements Guy two days ago that he had a different stalling chart for the C-27J, and that I was providing incorrect data. I replied, asking him to compare notes to reconcile the two charts, as the one that he was quoting has values that are not consistent with power-off operations for the Spartan, but that communication seems to have stopped. Therefore, I will provide the data that I have for full transparency, by scanning and attaching computations for both the C-295 and the C-27J from the respective aircraft operating instructions. I regret that I do not have one for the Dash-8, or I would include it as well. The one for the C-27J uses a stalling chart from the C-27A as I do not have the chart for the C-27J, but the data for power off stall will remain valid as the engine does not come into play, and the airframe components (flaps, wings, etc) that mandate stalling speed are unchanged with the modifications made to produce the C-27J. The nice thing about aeronautics is that calculations are straightforward math, and are not subject to interpretation - the stalling speed is the stalling speed. I invite Requirements Guy to do the same and provide any charts that he has so that this discussion can be resolved - at the very least, he should be concerned that Alenia is providing different data values for the same airframe and require an explanation. Once again, this is the type of review that should take place as part of a full and transparent competition, which is the only way this will be really be resolved.
Finally, if CASA were to pull out of, or lose, the competition, you will continue to see my input on SAR requirements. The SAR community knows who I am, and appears to appreciate that someone who has served in every SAR region, scaring himself and them in the process, who was with them in the ongoing nightmare of the Cormorant introduction, and survived to collect a pension still cares enough about what they are doing to raise their concerns.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Once I saw Rescue Randy's "RLP" handle, I recognized it from my own site:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-aircraft-are-in-supplementary.html#116231587944353722
He is, for better or worse, consistent in his opposition to the Alenia offering.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-aircraft-are-in-supplementary.html#116231587944353722
He is, for better or worse, consistent in his opposition to the Alenia offering.
- Reaction score
- 22,026
- Points
- 1,360
Rescue Randy said:
No! Not if the charts are not publicly released!
I will refer those viewing and interacting in this thread to the Army.ca CONDUCT GUIDLINES.
...especially this part:
There is a difference between measured discussion and goading, Rescue Randy. Posting material contrary to the CONDUCT GUIDLINES will earn a warning IAW Army.ca WARNING SYSTEM.
Let's carry on in an appropriate manner.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
My apologies to the site
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
I can’t divulge any requirements for the FWSAR aircraft since these have not been publicly released. But since the search speed information referred to in the Globe(as provided to them by RR), is not a requirement and is now part of the public domain, I will address it.
First of all, no FWSAR SOR has ever specified explicit search speed requirements.
All versions of the FWSAR SOR have an extensive section that explains FWSAR for the benefit of those not in the SAR community (which is often many of the people who are responsible for approving this document). This section has been released numerous times via access to information requests and is therefore in the public domain. The background information section of the SOR is separate from that which outlines explicit requirements and this is very obvious to any reader, even Rescue Randy's (RR) so called “concerned members of the SAR community”. This section is where the only reference to search speeds occurs. The section clearly indicates that FWSAR search speeds are dependent on numerous variables such as terrain, search object, altitude, aircraft weight……and states that search speeds typically vary between 110-130 knots. This is absolutely not presented as a requirement nor is anything else in this section. The section also outlines how the Canadian Forces Hercules SAR community determines their search speeds by adding 20 knots to the aircraft 45-degree bank stall speed. The 45-degree bank turn is used as a reference because it is the maximum allowable bank-angle for the Herc with flaps down, and flaps are always required for the Herc to achieve a minimum search speed.
Subsequent to a review of the SOR by the CC-130 SAR community (1 and ½ years ago) the feedback we received was that in fact the standard CF SAR Herc is not capable of searching at speeds of 130 knots and below until some time after take-off due to aircraft weight. We were obliged to correct this speed information accordingly to ensure accuracy of the document. This background information regarding typical search speeds was coirrected to 110 to 140 knots. You can construe this change anyway you want, but no one can deny that it is the most correct representation of the FWSAR search speeds typically used by CF Buffalos and Hercs. Regardless, these speeds are are NOT requirements.
The explanation of how the Herc determined its search speed was also removed because, it was deemed to be too much detail and there was direction (and rightly so) to reduce the size of the document. In fact all the extraneous information was removed and the remaining background information was pushed into annexes, including the subject search speed paragraph. The FWSAR SOR was reduced by one third its former size. All the explicit requirements of the SOR are in the main body of the document. The main body of the SOR is all that matters from a requirements perspective.
The operating intent (albeit not the operational requirements) of the new FWSAR aircraft is, and has always been, linked to the current operation of the CC-115 Buffalo. In fact the FWSAR Project is often referred to as the Buffalo replacement project in the media. This is likely based on the assumption that the new FWSAR aircraft will not be a Herc but will be a twin-engine aircraft that more closely resembles the weight and performance of the Buff. In fact, I never even imagined that anybody would be so silly as to suggest that the search speeds for the new FWSAR aircraft should be derived from the methodology used by the Herc. Quite simply this method results in minimum search speeds that are 40 to 50 knots above the wings-level power-off stall speeds of an aircraft. Clearly, this is an excessive amount of speed to carry considering the effect of speed on search effectives and the fact that the vast majority of search time is spent wings level with only occasional gentle turns. The Herc methodology was imposed due to the fact that the aircrew are flying a 155,000 lb airplane with NO stall warning system in a low altitude environment. As such, the balance between search effectiveness and safety was skewed to the safety side due to aircraft specific risks.
I will use RR’s reference to the Buffalo to illustrate why the legacy Herc methodology is not transferable. RR is correct that the Buffalo never has to worry about the 45-degree stall speed because this speed is always well below the search speeds being employed. However, unlike the Herc the Buffalo is not restricted to turns of 45-degrees of bank or less, and is permitted to use turns in excess of 45 degrees of bank. In fact turns of up to 60 degrees of bank are common. At 39000 lbs the 45-degree bank stall speed (with 7 degrees flap hanging) of the Buffalo is 95 knts and the 60-degree bank stall speed is 113 knts. Standard search speed in the mountains is 120 knts. At 60 degrees of bank in the Buff you are only 7 knts above the stall speed (not 20). Since this type of manoeuvring is common on the Buffalo, crews are trained accordingly and the risk is mitigated and acceptable.
Using the Herc methodology: since the Buff is manoeuvring at up to 60 degrees of bank therefore the minimum allowable search speed must be the 60-degree bank stall speed plus 20 knots not the 45-dgree bank stall speed plus 20 knts. As a result the minimum search speed for the Buff would be 133 knots, which is 13 knots above what is currently used, 53 knots above the wings-level stall speed and 2 knots above the max allowable speed for the flap setting being used (flap over-speed). This is bloody ridiculous! Anybody that advocates this methodology is being untruthful and likely has an ulterior motive.
I highly doubt that the replacement aircraft will be cranking 60 degrees of bank in the mountains like the Buff, but I am sure that we won’t be determining search speeds by adding 20 knots onto the stall speed of the highest bank angle we expect to employ. The point is that the balance between effectiveness and safety is aircraft specific. The new FWSAR aircraft (whatever it is) will be a fraction of the weight of the SAR Herc and it will have multiple stall warning systems and other advanced system tools to allow the crews to fly safely at the limits of aircraft performance. Even if the CF were to acquire new J-Model Hercs for the FWSAR role (hypothetically), the legacy Herc search speed methodology would NOT be used due to the advanced systems/tools on the new generation Hercs.
The Project Staff could never defend a decision to impose a “45-degree stall speed plus 20 knots” requirement as contenders and other CF oversight personnel would VERY quickly (and correctly) point out that we were invoking a double standard as the Buffalo often searches at speeds well below the stall speed-plus-20 for the maximum bank angle being utilized.
For RR to post the old C27A chart with a C27J title at the top is very bizarre but it is indicative of the types of manipulation going on by lobbyists behind the scene. Of course these types of charts are proprietary and cannot be legally posted here without the permission of the intellectual property rights owners (i.e. Alenia and EADS).
I don’t advocate any of the contending aircraft for FWSAR although I absolutely agree that the CASA 295 is a good aircraft as are the rest. However, in order to address the smear campaign being addressed towards the Project staff, and other FWSAR contenders, I offer the following to show how the information posted by RR is, at the very least invalid, if not purposefully misleading.
Fact: The C27A was never civil certified but retained a US military qualification certification only. The Civil standard for the production of aircraft performance data differs from the Military Standard. The C27J has an EASA/JARS type certificate and as a result the performance charts are held to a higher standard. The difference is due to the fact that the military qualification process varies from the civil type in that it places less (if not zero) emphasis on validating performance charts. To mitigate this fact sometimes the military qualification process de-rates performance charts (adds a fudge-factor) to mitigate the fact that they have not been adequately validated by a rigorous process. Stall speeds for the some aircraft may chart higher on a military qualified aircraft compared to a civil certified aircraft despite the fact that the aircraft are identical. The CF Buffalo also holds a military qualification only and some of the performance data for the CF Buffs has been de-rated as a result.
However, more importantly, the flap settings (in degrees) on the C27J are different from those of the C27A. This is due to a 30% increase in aircraft power and an increase in AUW of the C27J, which resulted in the flap settings being altered so as to optimize the new aircraft performance. This is a common practice and is also the case for the miltary versus civil model Buffalos. The performance chart speeds for the C27J are different and not comparable to the C27A. The changing of the flap settings resulted in a Flap 3 setting comparable (but not exactly) to a flap setting between the 50% (mid) and 100% (full) settings on the C27A. Stall speeds for the C27J at Flap 3 are 4 to 6 knots lower than the Flap 2 setting. However, since the C27J has 30% more engine power than the C27A this allows for the safe use of Flap 3 settings for searching, even at 45-degrees of bank following the loss of the critical engine. All this to say that once again the information presented by RR is inaccurate and very misleading. Relying on this information alone would be extremely reckless and irresponsible.
It is my job within the project to provide subject matter expertise about potential FWSAR aircraft. The information provided above should not be construed as a bias towards the C27J as I have equivalent knowledge of all the other potential FWSAR aircraft.
As far as RR’s allegations of secret-ism surrounding the FWSAR project. DND is governed by the same project approval process as the rest of the federal government which is dictated by PWGSC and Treasury Board. Technically, a project does not exist until it has received Preliminary Project Approval from Treasury Board, after which the project is officially in the Definition phase. Until a Memo To Cabinet is signed, FWSAR cannot seek Treasury Board approval for PPA, and therefore all requirements documents cannot be released. The Joint Support Ship Project received PPA approval 2 years ago, that is why it has posted it’s SOR on-line. The SORs for the ACP-S Project (C-17s) and MHLH Project (Chinooks) are also on-line as these projects all have PPA. Once/if FWSAR receives TB/PPA approval the SOR will be released.
Finally, unlike RR, everyone associated with developing the FWSAR project requirements are 100% accountable for every requirement developed. There are un-countable layers of oversight and continuous reviews by numerous branches of the CF and the operational community. All essential requirements are determined and validated through extensive operational research, scientific analysis and industry consultants. The research notes and technical reports produced by the Ops Research personnel and DRDC scientists are peer reviewed by other scientist to ensure accuracy. Operational requirements development is subject to extreme rigour. It is impossible for non-legitimate essential requirements to make it into an approved SOR.
It is absolutely unacceptable and irresponsible for an industry lobbyist to secretively and unilaterally decide that the new FWSAR aircraft must be able to search at 130 knts and that this can only be determined by the aircraft’s 45-degree bank stall speed plus 20 knots. However, when this false information is provided to a national newspaper where it receives front-page coverage this can only be interpreted as a shameless attempt to discredit the CF, the FWSAR Project Staff and all other potential aircraft contenders.
There is a maxim that states, “Truth does not do as much good in the world as the semblance of truth does evil.” What RR is doing is manufacturing the appearance of truth, and this does more harm than blatant lies.
First of all, no FWSAR SOR has ever specified explicit search speed requirements.
All versions of the FWSAR SOR have an extensive section that explains FWSAR for the benefit of those not in the SAR community (which is often many of the people who are responsible for approving this document). This section has been released numerous times via access to information requests and is therefore in the public domain. The background information section of the SOR is separate from that which outlines explicit requirements and this is very obvious to any reader, even Rescue Randy's (RR) so called “concerned members of the SAR community”. This section is where the only reference to search speeds occurs. The section clearly indicates that FWSAR search speeds are dependent on numerous variables such as terrain, search object, altitude, aircraft weight……and states that search speeds typically vary between 110-130 knots. This is absolutely not presented as a requirement nor is anything else in this section. The section also outlines how the Canadian Forces Hercules SAR community determines their search speeds by adding 20 knots to the aircraft 45-degree bank stall speed. The 45-degree bank turn is used as a reference because it is the maximum allowable bank-angle for the Herc with flaps down, and flaps are always required for the Herc to achieve a minimum search speed.
Subsequent to a review of the SOR by the CC-130 SAR community (1 and ½ years ago) the feedback we received was that in fact the standard CF SAR Herc is not capable of searching at speeds of 130 knots and below until some time after take-off due to aircraft weight. We were obliged to correct this speed information accordingly to ensure accuracy of the document. This background information regarding typical search speeds was coirrected to 110 to 140 knots. You can construe this change anyway you want, but no one can deny that it is the most correct representation of the FWSAR search speeds typically used by CF Buffalos and Hercs. Regardless, these speeds are are NOT requirements.
The explanation of how the Herc determined its search speed was also removed because, it was deemed to be too much detail and there was direction (and rightly so) to reduce the size of the document. In fact all the extraneous information was removed and the remaining background information was pushed into annexes, including the subject search speed paragraph. The FWSAR SOR was reduced by one third its former size. All the explicit requirements of the SOR are in the main body of the document. The main body of the SOR is all that matters from a requirements perspective.
The operating intent (albeit not the operational requirements) of the new FWSAR aircraft is, and has always been, linked to the current operation of the CC-115 Buffalo. In fact the FWSAR Project is often referred to as the Buffalo replacement project in the media. This is likely based on the assumption that the new FWSAR aircraft will not be a Herc but will be a twin-engine aircraft that more closely resembles the weight and performance of the Buff. In fact, I never even imagined that anybody would be so silly as to suggest that the search speeds for the new FWSAR aircraft should be derived from the methodology used by the Herc. Quite simply this method results in minimum search speeds that are 40 to 50 knots above the wings-level power-off stall speeds of an aircraft. Clearly, this is an excessive amount of speed to carry considering the effect of speed on search effectives and the fact that the vast majority of search time is spent wings level with only occasional gentle turns. The Herc methodology was imposed due to the fact that the aircrew are flying a 155,000 lb airplane with NO stall warning system in a low altitude environment. As such, the balance between search effectiveness and safety was skewed to the safety side due to aircraft specific risks.
I will use RR’s reference to the Buffalo to illustrate why the legacy Herc methodology is not transferable. RR is correct that the Buffalo never has to worry about the 45-degree stall speed because this speed is always well below the search speeds being employed. However, unlike the Herc the Buffalo is not restricted to turns of 45-degrees of bank or less, and is permitted to use turns in excess of 45 degrees of bank. In fact turns of up to 60 degrees of bank are common. At 39000 lbs the 45-degree bank stall speed (with 7 degrees flap hanging) of the Buffalo is 95 knts and the 60-degree bank stall speed is 113 knts. Standard search speed in the mountains is 120 knts. At 60 degrees of bank in the Buff you are only 7 knts above the stall speed (not 20). Since this type of manoeuvring is common on the Buffalo, crews are trained accordingly and the risk is mitigated and acceptable.
Using the Herc methodology: since the Buff is manoeuvring at up to 60 degrees of bank therefore the minimum allowable search speed must be the 60-degree bank stall speed plus 20 knots not the 45-dgree bank stall speed plus 20 knts. As a result the minimum search speed for the Buff would be 133 knots, which is 13 knots above what is currently used, 53 knots above the wings-level stall speed and 2 knots above the max allowable speed for the flap setting being used (flap over-speed). This is bloody ridiculous! Anybody that advocates this methodology is being untruthful and likely has an ulterior motive.
I highly doubt that the replacement aircraft will be cranking 60 degrees of bank in the mountains like the Buff, but I am sure that we won’t be determining search speeds by adding 20 knots onto the stall speed of the highest bank angle we expect to employ. The point is that the balance between effectiveness and safety is aircraft specific. The new FWSAR aircraft (whatever it is) will be a fraction of the weight of the SAR Herc and it will have multiple stall warning systems and other advanced system tools to allow the crews to fly safely at the limits of aircraft performance. Even if the CF were to acquire new J-Model Hercs for the FWSAR role (hypothetically), the legacy Herc search speed methodology would NOT be used due to the advanced systems/tools on the new generation Hercs.
The Project Staff could never defend a decision to impose a “45-degree stall speed plus 20 knots” requirement as contenders and other CF oversight personnel would VERY quickly (and correctly) point out that we were invoking a double standard as the Buffalo often searches at speeds well below the stall speed-plus-20 for the maximum bank angle being utilized.
For RR to post the old C27A chart with a C27J title at the top is very bizarre but it is indicative of the types of manipulation going on by lobbyists behind the scene. Of course these types of charts are proprietary and cannot be legally posted here without the permission of the intellectual property rights owners (i.e. Alenia and EADS).
I don’t advocate any of the contending aircraft for FWSAR although I absolutely agree that the CASA 295 is a good aircraft as are the rest. However, in order to address the smear campaign being addressed towards the Project staff, and other FWSAR contenders, I offer the following to show how the information posted by RR is, at the very least invalid, if not purposefully misleading.
Fact: The C27A was never civil certified but retained a US military qualification certification only. The Civil standard for the production of aircraft performance data differs from the Military Standard. The C27J has an EASA/JARS type certificate and as a result the performance charts are held to a higher standard. The difference is due to the fact that the military qualification process varies from the civil type in that it places less (if not zero) emphasis on validating performance charts. To mitigate this fact sometimes the military qualification process de-rates performance charts (adds a fudge-factor) to mitigate the fact that they have not been adequately validated by a rigorous process. Stall speeds for the some aircraft may chart higher on a military qualified aircraft compared to a civil certified aircraft despite the fact that the aircraft are identical. The CF Buffalo also holds a military qualification only and some of the performance data for the CF Buffs has been de-rated as a result.
However, more importantly, the flap settings (in degrees) on the C27J are different from those of the C27A. This is due to a 30% increase in aircraft power and an increase in AUW of the C27J, which resulted in the flap settings being altered so as to optimize the new aircraft performance. This is a common practice and is also the case for the miltary versus civil model Buffalos. The performance chart speeds for the C27J are different and not comparable to the C27A. The changing of the flap settings resulted in a Flap 3 setting comparable (but not exactly) to a flap setting between the 50% (mid) and 100% (full) settings on the C27A. Stall speeds for the C27J at Flap 3 are 4 to 6 knots lower than the Flap 2 setting. However, since the C27J has 30% more engine power than the C27A this allows for the safe use of Flap 3 settings for searching, even at 45-degrees of bank following the loss of the critical engine. All this to say that once again the information presented by RR is inaccurate and very misleading. Relying on this information alone would be extremely reckless and irresponsible.
It is my job within the project to provide subject matter expertise about potential FWSAR aircraft. The information provided above should not be construed as a bias towards the C27J as I have equivalent knowledge of all the other potential FWSAR aircraft.
As far as RR’s allegations of secret-ism surrounding the FWSAR project. DND is governed by the same project approval process as the rest of the federal government which is dictated by PWGSC and Treasury Board. Technically, a project does not exist until it has received Preliminary Project Approval from Treasury Board, after which the project is officially in the Definition phase. Until a Memo To Cabinet is signed, FWSAR cannot seek Treasury Board approval for PPA, and therefore all requirements documents cannot be released. The Joint Support Ship Project received PPA approval 2 years ago, that is why it has posted it’s SOR on-line. The SORs for the ACP-S Project (C-17s) and MHLH Project (Chinooks) are also on-line as these projects all have PPA. Once/if FWSAR receives TB/PPA approval the SOR will be released.
Finally, unlike RR, everyone associated with developing the FWSAR project requirements are 100% accountable for every requirement developed. There are un-countable layers of oversight and continuous reviews by numerous branches of the CF and the operational community. All essential requirements are determined and validated through extensive operational research, scientific analysis and industry consultants. The research notes and technical reports produced by the Ops Research personnel and DRDC scientists are peer reviewed by other scientist to ensure accuracy. Operational requirements development is subject to extreme rigour. It is impossible for non-legitimate essential requirements to make it into an approved SOR.
It is absolutely unacceptable and irresponsible for an industry lobbyist to secretively and unilaterally decide that the new FWSAR aircraft must be able to search at 130 knts and that this can only be determined by the aircraft’s 45-degree bank stall speed plus 20 knots. However, when this false information is provided to a national newspaper where it receives front-page coverage this can only be interpreted as a shameless attempt to discredit the CF, the FWSAR Project Staff and all other potential aircraft contenders.
There is a maxim that states, “Truth does not do as much good in the world as the semblance of truth does evil.” What RR is doing is manufacturing the appearance of truth, and this does more harm than blatant lies.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I refuse to be caught up in an unprofessional name calling exercise, nor will I retaliate.
I believe the fact that the National SAR Manual is on the internet makes it open source,it can be found at http://www.casaraontario.ca/~webmaster1/Manuals/NationalSARmanual_full_english.pdf .
Fact - The Speed range for visual search for wreckage is 70-130 knots in the chart at Figure 5-7, page 21, Chapter 5 (PDF page 136 of 336), a statement on contour search that stresses the danger and the requirement for low speed is at para 8, page 38 Chapter 5, (PDF page 153 or 336), and a statement about the impact of search craft speed on effectiveness of search is found at para 6.34, page 18 of Chapter 6, (PDF page 184 of 336).
Fact - If you search at over 130 knots, you are outside of the speed range established by the National SAR Manual.
I believe the fact that the National SAR Manual is on the internet makes it open source,it can be found at http://www.casaraontario.ca/~webmaster1/Manuals/NationalSARmanual_full_english.pdf .
Fact - The Speed range for visual search for wreckage is 70-130 knots in the chart at Figure 5-7, page 21, Chapter 5 (PDF page 136 of 336), a statement on contour search that stresses the danger and the requirement for low speed is at para 8, page 38 Chapter 5, (PDF page 153 or 336), and a statement about the impact of search craft speed on effectiveness of search is found at para 6.34, page 18 of Chapter 6, (PDF page 184 of 336).
Fact - If you search at over 130 knots, you are outside of the speed range established by the National SAR Manual.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
RR,
The 130 knots search speed is not an explicit requirement because ALL potential contending aircraft can do it......including the Herc. THAT'S MY POINT! Therfore, it need not be explicitly stated in the requirements. Some can't do it for all aircraft weights, but ALL of them can do it.
The problem is that you have devised some ellaborate method of determining search speeds that conveniently excludes ALL other aircraft but the CASA 295. Which by some strange coincidence is manufatured by your employer. It is not your domain to dictate how the CF detrmines and expresses its project requirements.
The 130 knots search speed is not an explicit requirement because ALL potential contending aircraft can do it......including the Herc. THAT'S MY POINT! Therfore, it need not be explicitly stated in the requirements. Some can't do it for all aircraft weights, but ALL of them can do it.
The problem is that you have devised some ellaborate method of determining search speeds that conveniently excludes ALL other aircraft but the CASA 295. Which by some strange coincidence is manufatured by your employer. It is not your domain to dictate how the CF detrmines and expresses its project requirements.
- Reaction score
- 22,026
- Points
- 1,360
Requirements Guy, Randy has checked fire on his previous personalizations of the issue, please do the same. There is no issue with factual discussion for the most part of your most recent response, but the personal tone can stay at home.
The thread's about a hair from being locked (and my endorsing MV-22 for "F"WSAR as the last post
), let's keep things civil and carry on without the personal exchange...
Regards
The thread's about a hair from being locked (and my endorsing MV-22 for "F"WSAR as the last post
), let's keep things civil and carry on without the personal exchange...Regards
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Haletown said:
I find it odd your initial question would be trying to find out if RR works with Casa.....tread lightly.
