Canadian Navy forced to use private helicopters

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-11-20 01:11pm

Navy forced to use private helicopters
Civilian choppers do supply runs because Sea Kings too old, costly

Richard Foot
The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, November 20, 2004

ABOARD HMCS ATHABASKAN - Canada's navy has hired a private contractor to fly civilian helicopters out to its ships at sea, as a way of reducing the flying pressures on the military's aging Sea Kings.

In a major naval training exercise this month, the navy hired an American civilian helicopter service to make transport flights to the four helicopter-carrying Canadian ships, sailing roughly 100 kilometres off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia.

Civilian helicopters and pilots have been ferrying people, mail and other supplies to and from the fleet -- creating the unusual spectacle of shiny, blue Bell helicopters landing on the decks of naval ships in the midst of military operations.

The head of Canada's East Coast fleet says it's the first case he knows of in which civilian helicopters have been hired to service the navy's ships.

"I'm trying to save money," says Commodore Tyrone Pile, "and I'm trying to save Sea King flying hours, by contracting a helo-delivery service.

"We've had a lot of years of flying and landing off the backs of our ships. I know Coast Guard and other navy helicopters have landed on our ships. This could be a first for private helicopters," he said.

Commodore Pile says he's not afraid to let the Sea Kings fly, but because their old age makes them so expensive to maintain and operate, he wants to limit their time in the air to tactical training and other non-transport duties.

"Every training day is extremely valuable to me," he says. "I only have so many days per year to get out here and do these kinds of exercises. I've only got so many resources to train my ship's crews, and my Sea King crews.

"So instead of ferrying personnel, mail and cargo, the (Sea Kings) are out there doing the pointy end of their business -- tactics, operations related to hunting, finding and destroying submarines, and providing surveillance."

Canada's military has increasingly been contracting out non-combat business to civilian companies in recent years. Commodore Pile says the U.S. navy also uses the same civilian helicopter service for its ships.

However, contracting civilian companies to do the work of the military can create problems. Four years ago, the Canadian destroyer HMCS Athabaskan -- the flagship commanding the navy's exercises this month -- was itself ordered to intercept a civilian freighter, the GTS Katie, after the ship was contracted by the federal government to bring hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment back to Canada from Kosovo.

When the freighter refused to deliver the military gear during a contractual dispute among its owners, Canada was forced to intercept and take command of the ship at sea.

In Norfolk this month, the civilian helicopter service also had reliability problems. During a two-day storm in the midst of the naval exercise, the contractor shut down flights to the fleet because the company was unwilling to let its pilots fly during the gale. The navy was forced to put its Sea Kings back into the air, on transport duty, until the weather cleared.

Constant breakdowns have made the 41-year-old Sea Kings a thorn in the side of the military for many years.

The Conservative government said it would purchase a fleet of 50 EH-101 helicopters to replace the Sea Kings more than a decade ago, but the Chretien government scrapped the program when it came to power in 1993.

The Martin government announced this summer it planned to buy 28 new Sikorsky ship-borne maritime helicopters, but the first of those aircraft -- described by Defence Minister Bill Graham as "the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians" -- will not be delivered until 2008, and it will be several years after that before the new fleet was phased in and Sea Kings were completely decommissioned.

So precarious is the state of some Sea Kings that during a flight this month, as journalists and academics were being flown to sea to observe the training exercises off Virginia, a Sea King crewmember asked passengers to be on the lookout for signs of "leaking fluid" coming from inside the aircraft.

"Let us know," he said, "if you see any pink fluids leaking into the cabin."

www.ottawacitizen.com

Right, and it's supposed to be 2012 before the last of these buckets are retired? I say scrap them now and simply wait until the H-92s come into service as scheduled, because as it stands I wouldn't rely on the Sea Kings to do...well, anything.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-11-20 01:43pm

Urg.

Though, in the USMC, when I was in, there was a running joke on doing helo ops.

Everyone wanted the CH53 that had a trail of black smoke coming from behind it, because if it had the smoke, that meant atleast it had the oil to burn.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-20 05:45pm

The Martin government announced this summer it planned to buy 28 new Sikorsky ship-borne maritime helicopters, but the first of those aircraft -- described by Defence Minister Bill Graham as "the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians" -- will not be delivered until 2008, and it will be several years after that before the new fleet was phased in and Sea Kings were completely decommissioned.

In other words, the same cost as the orginal contract for the EH-101's but half the capability.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-11-20 06:28pm

How come the US President still uses a Sea King for "Marine One?"

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-11-20 06:30pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:In other words, the same cost as the orginal contract for the EH-101's but half the capability.

True, but all the Cormarants in Canada have been grounded because of fracturing tail rotors, and they're only about 5-6 years old.

I still think the Canadian government was on crack when they cancelled the original contracts, and now they have to settle for Sikorsky's which may or may not have their own problems.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-20 06:35pm

aerius wrote:
True, but all the Cormarants in Canada have been grounded because of fracturing tail rotors, and they're only about 5-6 years old.

They also had a windshield fault early on.

I still think the Canadian government was on crack when they cancelled the original contracts, and now they have to settle for Sikorsky's which may or may not have their own problems.

If they had bought the Cormorants as initially planned then they would be out of their teething troubles by now and we would have a strong reliable helo fleet.

As it is with the S-92's we'll have to work the bugs out of them as well. As well as having a different logistical train for their parts and different training for our techs.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-11-20 07:07pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:How come the US President still uses a Sea King for "Marine One?"

Because you have plenty of room to fit a throne in there plus oodles of jamming/intercept and comm gear

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-11-20 07:45pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:How come the US President still uses a Sea King for "Marine One?"

Also, the USMC Sea Kings (in VH-3D configuration) are babied. The CF Sea Kings probably received far harsher service.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-11-20 10:25pm

phongn wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:How come the US President still uses a Sea King for "Marine One?"
Also, the USMC Sea Kings (in VH-3D configuration) are babied. The CF Sea Kings probably received far harsher service.

They are also considerably newer than the Sea Kings since the US continued buying them well after Canada stopped. The relative newness, plus significant babying and no major salt water damage (the CF Sea Kings had been subjected to this type of damage for decades).

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-11-21 03:12am

Cpl Kendall wrote:As it is with the S-92's we'll have to work the bugs out of them as well. As well as having a different logistical train for their parts and different training for our techs.

Since the S-92 shares the mechanicals of the U/S/MH-60 series, teething should be fairly quick and painless.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-11-21 03:18am

Jalinth wrote: They are also considerably newer than the Sea Kings since the US continued buying them well after Canada stopped. The relative newness, plus significant babying and no major salt water damage (the CF Sea Kings had been subjected to this type of damage for decades).

On top of which, Marine One is slated to soon be replaced by a new aircraft. Though I can't recall which aircraft won the contract.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-21 11:28am

Most of the RAF SAR craft are Sea Kings and I can't ever recall one crashing. Hell, only type in service that crashed recently was that Iraq incident which was down to pilot error (I believe it was a Commando too).

ReinnResauq · Post by **ReinnResauq** » 2004-11-21 02:40pm

Reminds me of a joke on Red Green.

Harold Green wrote:Uncle Red, this is an emergency! We have to call the Canadian Air Force!

Red Green wrote: Harold, it's after six, he's gone home.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-11-21 08:37pm

I've made it a goal to stay out of ALL Navy aircraft, you know why?

I've been in long enough to see how maintenence is done in the fleet. The kind where you jerked off all week, putting off maintenence until it's Friday, and now you want to bug out so you just rush through it. (i.e. Gundeck).

Isn't a problem with my workcenter, but we had a 5 in mount break because of that mentality. I'd hate to fly in a Copter.