User avatar
Grizzly410
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:13 pm

It's been a while since last news in this thread viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1024947, here's what I can share on the progress.

Airbus quietly updated their FWSAR webpage adding a short video for the roll out of the first Canadian C295 (MSN183).
https://www.airbus.com/defence/c295/C295FWSAR.html

I think the video is a couple of months old as the aircraft is currently visible in flight line doing ground testing before Engine Run and First Flight. (obviously the landing gear doors are now fitted, and the 2 orange plate before rear doors are now replaced by two spotter window)

IRC the planning was to have first delivery in late 2019 after ~60 flight tests. It seems to me still on track, just a but tight knowing how heavily modified this version is, let's see how this develop :bouncy:

And FWIW I understand very much the concern emitted by user ThePointblank in the old thread in relation to the height of the cargo bay now I've experimented it myself. However, even if I don't know how SAR operation are conducted I'm not sure what would be the need to move around so much during a flight/search. Surely before an aerial delivery but you won't have to prepare material, just the delivery itself, should be quick enough to not suffer that much of ducking.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:58 am

Late yesterday the 183 did its first flight !
Unfortunately, take off at nearly 8PM and the usual spotter location useless (works on the runway) means no known local spotter have a shot :ashamed:

I heard another C-295 followed the 183 during this flight, hopefully Airbus took pictures and will release some soon.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:55 pm

In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
rlwynn
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 3:35 am

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:25 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
And FWIW I understand very much the concern emitted by user ThePointblank in the old thread in relation to the height of the cargo bay now I've experimented it myself. However, even if I don't know how SAR operation are conducted I'm not sure what would be the need to move around so much during a flight/search. Surely before an aerial delivery but you won't have to prepare material, just the delivery itself, should be quick enough to not suffer that much of ducking.


I do not see anybody ducking.

Image
I can drive faster than you
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:51 am

rlwynn wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
And FWIW I understand very much the concern emitted by user ThePointblank in the old thread in relation to the height of the cargo bay now I've experimented it myself. However, even if I don't know how SAR operation are conducted I'm not sure what would be the need to move around so much during a flight/search. Surely before an aerial delivery but you won't have to prepare material, just the delivery itself, should be quick enough to not suffer that much of ducking.


I do not see anybody ducking.

Image

Yeah, standing around, with nothing on their backs is a good indication of a potential problem with height in the cargo bay area...

A typical SARtech is carrying 265 lbs of equipment on them, with the average height of a typical SARtech being around 6ft tall (SARtechs are a bit taller than the usual lot of air crew). The current CC-115 Buffalo is already a bit of a tight squeeze at about 7ft tall internally when you have 3 SARtechs working in the back manoeuvring equipment around. There's already concerns about long-term back injuries stemming from using the C-295 as a jump platform because SARtech would have to constantly bend over to maneuver equipment and get around each other while preparing for a jump.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:23 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
rlwynn wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
And FWIW I understand very much the concern emitted by user ThePointblank in the old thread in relation to the height of the cargo bay now I've experimented it myself. However, even if I don't know how SAR operation are conducted I'm not sure what would be the need to move around so much during a flight/search. Surely before an aerial delivery but you won't have to prepare material, just the delivery itself, should be quick enough to not suffer that much of ducking.


I do not see anybody ducking.

Image

Yeah, standing around, with nothing on their backs is a good indication of a potential problem with height in the cargo bay area...

A typical SARtech is carrying 265 lbs of equipment on them, with the average height of a typical SARtech being around 6ft tall (SARtechs are a bit taller than the usual lot of air crew). The current CC-115 Buffalo is already a bit of a tight squeeze at about 7ft tall internally when you have 3 SARtechs working in the back manoeuvring equipment around. There's already concerns about long-term back injuries stemming from using the C-295 as a jump platform because SARtech would have to constantly bend over to maneuver equipment and get around each other while preparing for a jump.


It’s true there will be a certain discomfort for a tall and equipped SARtech but I can’t see this as anything more than that, a discomfort. If the guy needs to lift 120kg of equipment I’m not sure the biggest of its problem is having 18cm (7”) less headroom before jumping.
Again, I’m not familiar with actual SAR operations but I was under the impression the only moment the tech would have to stand and walk in the cabin is during the preparation of delivery or jump, compared to the mission length these preparation moment must be a fraction of the time. It also appears to me the layout is designed in a way to minimize the need of moving stuff around, knowing most of the modifications from a standard C-295 I’m confident Airbus worked closely with its customer to make sure the product fits well in their operation.
On top, maybe the CC-295 cabin ceiling is modified slightly to gain a bit of height here and there, who knows ? ;)
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:57 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
On top, maybe the CC-295 cabin ceiling is modified slightly to gain a bit of height here and there, who knows ? ;)

I think I read somewhere that some of the ceiling "obstacles" were modified on newer C-295, lamps or signs or something like that. I doubt that the actual diameter can be easily modified, though.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:11 am

Grizzly410 wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
rlwynn wrote:

I do not see anybody ducking.

Image

Yeah, standing around, with nothing on their backs is a good indication of a potential problem with height in the cargo bay area...

A typical SARtech is carrying 265 lbs of equipment on them, with the average height of a typical SARtech being around 6ft tall (SARtechs are a bit taller than the usual lot of air crew). The current CC-115 Buffalo is already a bit of a tight squeeze at about 7ft tall internally when you have 3 SARtechs working in the back manoeuvring equipment around. There's already concerns about long-term back injuries stemming from using the C-295 as a jump platform because SARtech would have to constantly bend over to maneuver equipment and get around each other while preparing for a jump.


It’s true there will be a certain discomfort for a tall and equipped SARtech but I can’t see this as anything more than that, a discomfort. If the guy needs to lift 120kg of equipment I’m not sure the biggest of its problem is having 18cm (7”) less headroom before jumping.
Again, I’m not familiar with actual SAR operations but I was under the impression the only moment the tech would have to stand and walk in the cabin is during the preparation of delivery or jump, compared to the mission length these preparation moment must be a fraction of the time. It also appears to me the layout is designed in a way to minimize the need of moving stuff around, knowing most of the modifications from a standard C-295 I’m confident Airbus worked closely with its customer to make sure the product fits well in their operation.
On top, maybe the CC-295 cabin ceiling is modified slightly to gain a bit of height here and there, who knows ? ;)


From what I understand, being able to efficiency move things around in the cargo hold is something that's always done, whenever the aircraft was the CC-115 Buffalo, or the C-130 Hercules. For example, sometimes, the drop order of equipment needs to change because the situation at the rescue site has changed; it could be that the original intent was to say, drop a generator and a pump down to a ship that's taking on water, now there's a need to drop a flare to illuminate the area, followed by a SKAD, followed by a pair of SARtech's.

But this is something that can be worked around, the bigger issues I heard from the end users was a lack of speed and range; being able to race out quickly to a search site and determine what's going on, and what assets are really needed to respond is one of the tasks demanded of FWSAR (they are like when the fire department shows up first when it comes to a emergency call). While the C-295 does have all of the electronic goodies to enable a proper search unsupported, it doesn't have the speed to get on station quickly.

Every hour spent getting to a search site is an hour that could have been spent searching, and with maritime rescues in particular, if the target is drifting, your search area will keep growing for every minute you delay. Longer time getting there means bigger search area, which means your search takes longer, which means you also come to the second point about needing the necessary legs to stay on station for the rescue.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:41 am

mxaxai wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
On top, maybe the CC-295 cabin ceiling is modified slightly to gain a bit of height here and there, who knows ? ;)

I think I read somewhere that some of the ceiling "obstacles" were modified on newer C-295, lamps or signs or something like that. I doubt that the actual diameter can be easily modified, though.

The big black smoke detectors you can see in this picture. I think they managed to rearrange this and won ~2”.


ThePointblank wrote:
From what I understand, being able to efficiency move things around in the cargo hold is something that's always done, whenever the aircraft was the CC-115 Buffalo, or the C-130 Hercules. For example, sometimes, the drop order of equipment needs to change because the situation at the rescue site has changed; it could be that the original intent was to say, drop a generator and a pump down to a ship that's taking on water, now there's a need to drop a flare to illuminate the area, followed by a SKAD, followed by a pair of SARtech's.

Well that’s a massive mission change isn’t it ? It would be a uncomfortable situation for the crew whatever the frame they are flying on, but if the aircraft is mission capable of this change it’s “just” a matter of getting the equipment on the containers and equip.
Not sure that’s doable though as generator&pump should be rather big and the aircraft prepared for this drop since its loading on ground. Is it possible to cancel this drop and replace by something else is not a given at least in the Buffalo, Spartan or C-295 size class.

ThePointblank wrote:
But this is something that can be worked around, the bigger issues I heard from the end users was a lack of speed and range; being able to race out quickly to a search site and determine what's going on, and what assets are really needed to respond is one of the tasks demanded of FWSAR (they are like when the fire department shows up first when it comes to a emergency call). While the C-295 does have all of the electronic goodies to enable a proper search unsupported, it doesn't have the speed to get on station quickly.

Every hour spent getting to a search site is an hour that could have been spent searching, and with maritime rescues in particular, if the target is drifting, your search area will keep growing for every minute you delay. Longer time getting there means bigger search area, which means your search takes longer, which means you also come to the second point about needing the necessary legs to stay on station for the rescue.


Lack of speed or range comparing to what?
A standard C-295 is quicker and have better range then the Buffalo it replaces, slightly slower and less range than Spartan.
Now take in account this from Airbus website “elements have been incorporated for aerodynamic drag reduction to improve time-on-station for the aircraft and increase the top speed during search and rescue missions” (Winglets, main landing gear bay closure, vortex generator in the rear fuse, HF antenna by cable removal, various weight reduction effort) and the small gap existing with the Spartan should be almost closed.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:14 am

Grizzly410 wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
From what I understand, being able to efficiency move things around in the cargo hold is something that's always done, whenever the aircraft was the CC-115 Buffalo, or the C-130 Hercules. For example, sometimes, the drop order of equipment needs to change because the situation at the rescue site has changed; it could be that the original intent was to say, drop a generator and a pump down to a ship that's taking on water, now there's a need to drop a flare to illuminate the area, followed by a SKAD, followed by a pair of SARtech's.

Well that’s a massive mission change isn’t it ? It would be a uncomfortable situation for the crew whatever the frame they are flying on, but if the aircraft is mission capable of this change it’s “just” a matter of getting the equipment on the containers and equip.
Not sure that’s doable though as generator&pump should be rather big and the aircraft prepared for this drop since its loading on ground. Is it possible to cancel this drop and replace by something else is not a given at least in the Buffalo, Spartan or C-295 size class.

Sometimes conditions enroute change as the situation evolves, and there's no time or additional resources to prep another aircraft for launch. Or, in some cases, the conditions while at the site change, with a requirement that the mission profile while on station changes.

Generally, SAR-tasked aircraft are packed to the gills with all sorts of gear and equipment; SARtechs tend to bring everything they can with them, if they can strap it to a parachute and drop it.

Grizzly410 wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
But this is something that can be worked around, the bigger issues I heard from the end users was a lack of speed and range; being able to race out quickly to a search site and determine what's going on, and what assets are really needed to respond is one of the tasks demanded of FWSAR (they are like when the fire department shows up first when it comes to a emergency call). While the C-295 does have all of the electronic goodies to enable a proper search unsupported, it doesn't have the speed to get on station quickly.

Every hour spent getting to a search site is an hour that could have been spent searching, and with maritime rescues in particular, if the target is drifting, your search area will keep growing for every minute you delay. Longer time getting there means bigger search area, which means your search takes longer, which means you also come to the second point about needing the necessary legs to stay on station for the rescue.


Lack of speed or range comparing to what?
A standard C-295 is quicker and have better range then the Buffalo it replaces, slightly slower and less range than Spartan.
Now take in account this from Airbus website “elements have been incorporated for aerodynamic drag reduction to improve time-on-station for the aircraft and increase the top speed during search and rescue missions” (Winglets, main landing gear bay closure, vortex generator in the rear fuse, HF antenna by cable removal, various weight reduction effort) and the small gap existing with the Spartan should be almost closed.

Both the C-130 and the C-27J. Both aircraft have higher max speeds and cruise speeds than the C-295, and both have more power for performing some of the standard SAR search profiles. The original SOR requested a minimum cruise speed of 273 knots, which the C-295 at 244 knots could not meet.

This speed requirement was validated by Defence R&D Canada in this paper that studied the ideal cruise speed of a FWSAR aircraft based upon historical SAR missions:

http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc ... 40_A1b.pdf

The report effectively called for a minimum cruise speed of 315 knots for a new FWSAR aircraft in order for any response time improvement over existing aircraft. The 273 knot SOR speed was already a compromise, and the C-295's cruise speed is a even further compromise. Even the existing CC-115 Buffalo's cruise speed of 220 knots was considered sluggish especially for the British Columbia and Yukon SAR area the aircraft was expected to cover (especially in the Yukon). However, most people in the Yukon already knew that SAR response out there was going to be many hours away, and thus can be prepared for such occurrences.

The only reason why the C-295 got a pass was because the new SOR dropped the minimum speed requirement and replaced it with merely a suggestion on how to meet minimum response times; Airbus's response to that was to open new SAR bases across Canada (especially in the North) for aircraft to be based at, however, the military isn't going to be doing that because of costs and manpower considerations.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:13 am

Time to pick a name:

http://rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/cc-295- ... 8CuvY3kBSo

Choices are:
CC-295 Canso II
CC-295 Guardian
CC-295 Iris
CC-295 Kingfisher
CC-295 Turnstone
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:16 am

CC-295 Searchy McFlyFace

Also WTH is a Turnstone
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:36 am

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
CC-295 Searchy McFlyFace

Also WTH is a Turnstone

A type of small, migratory, Arctic bird:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstone
 
TObound
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:32 am

Worked in the project office. Nobody wanted this aircraft. The pilot on the team retired before the RFP went out. Didn't want his name associated with it.

Airspeed. Range. Payload.

The CC295 can only meet three at any given time. Despite what Airbus says. Most rescues happen close to bases. But if you're at 30°W or in the High Arctic good luck to you.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:45 am

TObound wrote:
Worked in the project office. Nobody wanted this aircraft. The pilot on the team retired before the RFP went out. Didn't want his name associated with it.

Airspeed. Range. Payload.

The CC295 can only meet three at any given time. Despite what Airbus says. Most rescues happen close to bases. But if you're at 30°W or in the High Arctic good luck to you.

On the plus side, Airbus is more likely to provide better support than Leonardo... haven't heard good things about the quality of support from Leonardo.
 
TObound
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:57 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
TObound wrote:
Worked in the project office. Nobody wanted this aircraft. The pilot on the team retired before the RFP went out. Didn't want his name associated with it.

Airspeed. Range. Payload.

The CC295 can only meet three at any given time. Despite what Airbus says. Most rescues happen close to bases. But if you're at 30°W or in the High Arctic good luck to you.

On the plus side, Airbus is more likely to provide better support than Leonardo... haven't heard good things about the quality of support from Leonardo.


Not sure how much support helps if the aircraft isn't capable of the mission to begin with.

Let's be clear. The preferred aircraft were C-130s. The budget unfortunately would not allow for it. So downsizing was forced. The only aircraft that shrank but still cane close to C-130 performance was the C-27. But because of industrial considerations we ended up with C295.

Nobody is super thrilled with this. But people in uniform make do. So it is what it is. Maybe we can convince a future Government to fund a few more frames to locate in Yellowknife.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: C-295 Canada FWSAR Update

Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:00 pm

TObound wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
TObound wrote:
Worked in the project office. Nobody wanted this aircraft. The pilot on the team retired before the RFP went out. Didn't want his name associated with it.

Airspeed. Range. Payload.

The CC295 can only meet three at any given time. Despite what Airbus says. Most rescues happen close to bases. But if you're at 30°W or in the High Arctic good luck to you.

On the plus side, Airbus is more likely to provide better support than Leonardo... haven't heard good things about the quality of support from Leonardo.


Not sure how much support helps if the aircraft isn't capable of the mission to begin with.

Let's be clear. The preferred aircraft were C-130s. The budget unfortunately would not allow for it. So downsizing was forced. The only aircraft that shrank but still cane close to C-130 performance was the C-27. But because of industrial considerations we ended up with C295.

Nobody is super thrilled with this. But people in uniform make do. So it is what it is. Maybe we can convince a future Government to fund a few more frames to locate in Yellowknife.


We had this problem before with the CH-149; spare parts were an issue from the beginning, causing very low readiness rates. Sometimes, even a CH-124 Sea King was used to backup the CH-149's because of the extremely low readiness rates. Most of the issues revolved around getting parts and technical support from the manufacturer, which took a while to work through.

Also, a number of C-27J users are also complaining about low aircraft availability rates due to a lack of support and spares; I suspect that Airbus would have better product support for their aircraft as they have a much more robust network to get spare parts to end users, and they would have more people available to fly out and provide technical support as needed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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