SAR going out to contract. [Archive]

rafloo

12th May 2005, 08:59

OK. I'll bite. what we need to do is to put out the entire SAR contract to tender. The Coastguard helicopters at Lee and in Scotland do a fine job AND for half the cost the Armed Forces do. The only thing that the Armed Forces do that the civilians cannot do is despatch SAR Divers (even the Crabs can't do that) So, lets bin the entire thing. Hand it all over to Bristows. Decommish the SK fleet and use the money saved to buy some weapons (and maybe some decent clothing).

airborne_artist

12th May 2005, 09:19

If women are always right, who wins when a lesbian couple have an argument?

Saint Evil

12th May 2005, 10:46

RAFLOO

The only things that the civs can't do is Low Level NVG(below 500') and SAR Divers.

No reason they can't do either - if training, regs and a budget will allow.

Got to get past the CAA though.

Sad to say that the Military have probably lost any claim to being the experts as Bristows do it just as well as the Mil.

In this day and age of diminishing resources the Mil probably need to redeploy their personnel in SAR to the overseas air force(basically wherever Tony wants to fight next). Mind you the exodus from the Mil of SAR Crews will probably allow the forces to trim down even further.

However in the spirit of this thread.....

Why is when a Harrier shuts down the whining doesn\'t stop?

C130 Techie

12th May 2005, 11:16

Why is it if you tell someone there are billions of stars in the universe they beilieve you but if you tell them that there is wet paint on a door they have to touch it to check?

ORAC

12th May 2005, 11:29

Why isn't palindrome spelt the same way backwards?

Icecap

12th May 2005, 11:29

What shape would chairs be if your knees bent the other way?

Stax

12th May 2005, 11:51

How High is a chinaman

Dancing Bear

12th May 2005, 15:12

When a fly lands on the ceiling does it do a half loop or a half barrel roll??

As soon as the contracts are announced then watch the dust as the Sea King boys sprint for the door, there really is no arguement that the Bristows boys are doing a superb job in Lee and Scotland so I guess thier expansion is inevitable, after all it is cheaper and cuts back on the nasty unpleasant serviceman charged with the so called defence of this country!!

I reckon it is a half barrel roll by the way!! :D

6Z3

12th May 2005, 16:06

I believe they're all going to be re-sprayed to a standard colour scheme...Yep you've guessed it...Dark Pink and Grey, which should also solve Tigs2 dilemma about servicing.

Safeware

12th May 2005, 16:38

Stax,

Is Wun Wing Lo a pilot?

freeride

12th May 2005, 17:08

Just as a matter of interest, Bristows aren't the only civvie SAR operator nor will they be!

exleckie

12th May 2005, 19:37

Basically, The cab drivers and rearcrew will remain service.

Groundcrew are going to be civilianised.

This will release service guys to go to "front line first" units and allow the(civvy) groundies to get on with the job of producing servicable a/c to perform SAR duties.

Okay, it is a sad day for RAF SAR, but it means jobs for the redundant and ex service SAR.

Yes, I know a lot more but this isn't the place to say it.

Regards.

Exleckie.

spankymonkey

12th May 2005, 21:19

If you want high visibility for the RN, why order green and black badges.

Whooa Leslie, wrong thread?

Or is it?

hmmm....................bed now

exleckie

12th May 2005, 21:30

The whole contract is for total support.

Over five years, 300 million.

Thats 60 million per year, which will include projected salaries.

It means not only !st line(deliberate) but long term as SeaKing is expected to stay in service till 2018.

Think about what happened to the Sim Techs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For some people, it could be a good thing.

Scorpy

13th May 2005, 07:27

As a SAR Force engineer, we were told back in July that our jobs are to be contractorised around April 07. I haven't seen any of this published in any of the notices that came around detailing the cutbacks though, it just mentions 203/HMF. But all first line posts are definitely going too.

rafloo

13th May 2005, 07:47

And then from 1 April 2008 the rear crew and drivers will be civilianised...

exleckie

13th May 2005, 21:22

With the continuing development of CSAR, I would suspect that front and rearcrew will remain service types.

Look at COMR contracts, civvy groundcrew but with mil aircrew.

Is that not already in place at Valley and Cyprus?????

plane of motion

14th May 2005, 00:36

I think we are getting off the topic here lads

From The Office:

How can I kill a tiger armed only with a biro?

Will there ever be a boy born that can swim faster than a shark?

6Z3

14th May 2005, 09:22

If you changed the biro's name to 'dillo'. Then all you'd need to do is find the way to 'arm' it. The tiger would have no chance... GRR!

[email protected]

15th May 2005, 06:29

SAR and CSAR are not even slightly related and RAF SAR assets are not equipped to do that job.

The RAF SARF is being neatly packaged ready for handover - it's just a shame it has to go to Valley first.

By 2012 the UK will have either a completely civvy SAR helo organisation run by the MCA or possibly staffed by a mix of mil and civ crews. The amount of training will be the bare minimum to meet the contract and the skill levels will go down. You cannot put a price on the capability of the mil SARF but the bean counters will try; they won't care about the reduction in capability because the bottom line looks good. Civvy SAR is cheaper.

Beeayeate

15th May 2005, 07:41

How can I kill a tiger armed only with a biro?

Tigers armed with biros are notorious killers. They use the biro to write you out of the picture.

:rolleyes:

Tanewha

15th May 2005, 07:42

Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?

Toxteth O'Grady

15th May 2005, 08:52

6Z3

If you changed the biro's name to 'dillo'. Then all you'd need to do is find the way to 'arm' it.

Show me the way to Arm a Dillo...........

Sha-la-lah, la-lah, la-lah-lah!

:cool:

TOG

Decks

15th May 2005, 09:09

Crab,
I'm a SAR p1 for CHC in Shannon. We get 60 hours a month to train with in an aircraft almost identical to the Seaking. In the 5 years I have been here, there have been very few jobs turned down.... almost none. Of those that have, there are none that I know of that resulted in loss of life.
The co. receives receive VERY stiff financial penalties if we are offline or reduced in capability for any reason. If the aircraft goes u/s they will jump thru hoops to get it back online. And at the end of the day we do what we are told to do by our client... the Coastguard. If they want "more" the government have to pay more... but then again a military op. would be the same.
When the contracts come up for renewal the client gets offers from all prospective bidders and gets the best for its buck. Subsequently we get audited by the client, the IAA, and internally on a very regular basis... If theres a snag it is addressed until the Coastguard are happy.
We have had pilots and rearcrew from all backgrounds including RAF. Most were excellent, some were average but it was the individual rather than the background that was the common factor in the best of them.
I have no doubt that the RAF have provided an excellent service. I hope they still do. But thats not to say that others cant provide an equally good service too.... regardless of how the cash gets from the taxpayer to the winch hook.

Crashondeck

15th May 2005, 14:54

60 million a year???? And how much change would a civvy contractor get for providing the full SAR package - cabs, crew and maintainance?? Me thinks the military are being ripped off. Again.

Tanewha

15th May 2005, 16:57

I am quite frankly shocked that anyone dare second guess the SARF Commander and the Cheif Coastguard in their bid for World domination. :eek: (Evil laugh!)

VitaminGee

16th May 2005, 13:10

tanewa,

I wonder where you were last Thursday morning?!!

VG

Tanewha

17th May 2005, 12:44

Did I see you there?

Tanewha

VitaminGee

17th May 2005, 15:39

Regret AM only - however, it did give me time to reflect on the 60th anniversary of our successful defence against another vertically challenged moustachioed megalomaniac!!

VG

[email protected]

17th May 2005, 19:59

Decks - that means you get less than half the training that we do and rather confirms my concern. All the auditing and bean counting doesn't look at capability just cost effectiveness so as long as your customer (CG) is happy then so are the bean counters. Who checks your operational effectiveness?

The one good to come of privatisation is serviceable aircraft - our IPT seem proud of a pathetic 12.5% serviceability which just wouldn't be tolerated in industry. They just can't answer the fact that Bristows produce stunning serviceability from S61s that have 3 times the number of hours of our Sea kings!

engineer(retard)

18th May 2005, 07:54

"our IPT seem proud of a pathetic 12.5% serviceability which just wouldn't be tolerated in industry. They just can't answer the fact that Bristows produce stunning serviceability from S61s that have 3 times the number of hours of our Sea kings!"

Crab

Perhaps the money Bristows are saving on training is being spent on spares.

Regards

Retard

rafloo

18th May 2005, 08:27

That’s because we over maintain our aircraft...wasting millions of pounds with unnecessary maintenance.

Roland Pulfrew

18th May 2005, 10:24

rafloo, I hope that was meant tongue-in-cheek or you have missed the point of the previous posts! 12.5% serviceablity is pathetically poor and if true then the IPTL needs shooting! So no over servicing here then!

Decks

18th May 2005, 10:35

Crab,
In response to your point re hours I think 60 per base is sufficent.
We have 8 pilots and 8 crewmen per base who are doing nothing only SAR. 720 hours annually gives 180 per pilot (and per crewman)and this IMHO is enough. Do you average a lot more? We have a wall planner with a list of around 30 items all of which must be done within a specific time period...usually 90 days. In reality we get to do most of the skills on a much more regular basis.
The operational audits are done by an independant auditor employed by the IRCG. He decides if we're doing what it says on the tin. Again he decides what is needed, reviews this on a regular basis and makes his reports and recommendations to the IRCG.
The key word as you rightly point out is cost effectiveness. The bean counters are not some guys who hoard the money if they dont spend it. They are giving it to the cancer units and the homeless folks etc. And there is huge competition for this money. Every night of the week there is a documentary from some deserving group looking for more funding. Another SAR unit or a cancer unit???? Its up to the politicians.
In civvie SAR the goal is to provide the very best service on a finite budget. (Obviously budget is never a consideration on a job.)The bidding competition gives companies the opportunity to do the best they can with the cost base they have. If they make some money, then it motivates them to do it well so they can renew their contract. Is it perfect...? no.. but does it work well?...yes.
I would love to see 10 S92's on the coast at purpose built airfields, with FLIR, NVG and a fleet of vessells at their disposal for training. But unless Abramovich buys Ireland then it aint going to happen!!!

rafloo

18th May 2005, 10:53

Not tongue in cheek at all. The reason our aircraft are u/s for 88% of the time is because we over-maintain them. In the air force we have approx 12 maintainers/engineers per aircraft. Bristows have 2. Our helicopters require in the order of 6 maintenance hours per flying hours. Bristows require 3 per flying hour.

The aircraft in the Armed forces are here to provide work for our engineers....not to fly

engineer(retard)

18th May 2005, 11:27

rafloo

Given the lack of capability and availability, the move to contractorisation looks good value for the public purse then.

Regards

Retard

rafloo

18th May 2005, 11:29

Exactly. And with luck we can reduce the excess manpower we have at this station.

[email protected]

18th May 2005, 12:10

Decks - we have 10 pilots and 10 rearcrew on average per flight but that allows support for courses, Falklands detachments etc. On an average day a crew will fly 2 hrs day and 2 hrs night although this could be cut down if we were not forced into stats chasing to meet our mandatory requirements.
Does the independent auditor fly with you to check your operational capability and effectiveness or is airborne performance not seen as part of the audit process?

We have pilot and rearcrew instructors on each flight, a squadron trg team for assessment and a SARF standards unit for checking the overall effectiveness on the ground and in the air.

freeride

18th May 2005, 12:36

We have pilot and rearcrew instructors on each flight, a squadron trg team for assessment and a SARF standards unit for checking the overall effectiveness on the ground and in the air.

and that is probably why you will never be cost effective. In the big, grown-up world, professional avaitors are expected to survive on one base check and one line check a year. This does not mean that if you are flying with a line training captain that this trip is not also assessed. It also means that the aircraft and personnel are left to get on with the job in hand - probably why Bristows' 61s are serviceable as they are not thrashed to death doing unnecessary GH. I haven't noticed an increased accident rate amongst civilian operators compared to the RAF and they also seem to get the job done just the same.

Perhaps may moons ago the RAF could justify its superior position but not now - old, u/s aircraft flown by quite inexperienced crews - the writing is on the wall.

VitaminGee

18th May 2005, 12:39

Crab (and subsequent ranters post 1900 on 17th!)

["The one good to come of privatisation is serviceable aircraft - our IPT seem proud of a pathetic 12.5% serviceability which just wouldn't be tolerated in industry."]

I think you will find that the 12.5 figure is not a percentage - rather an average number of available aircraft per day.

Not even the most inept tabloid journalist would believe any organisation would be happy with 12.5% equipment serviceability

VG

snaggletooth

18th May 2005, 22:30

Unless that organisation happened to be the MoD

tucumseh

19th May 2005, 06:10

“Not even the most inept tabloid journalist would believe any organisation would be happy with 12.5% equipment serviceability”

Not only do certain parts of the MoD condone ZERO % serviceability (and availability) they positively encourage it by promoting those who allow it and denigrating those who fight it.

And while I’d like to think 12.5 SK3/3As were available on any given day is the norm, I have personally known 7 to be acceptable to the powers that be; but when it became 6 they made a polite enquiry. As ever, the problem was predictable, predicted and ignored. A week later it was back up to 19. Cost? Less than £200 travel expenses for two of us. (And, we dropped £50 on the Mess bandit at Finningly that night).

engineer(retard)

19th May 2005, 10:17

We have pilot and rearcrew instructors on each flight, a squadron trg team for assessment and a SARF standards unit for checking the overall effectiveness on the ground and in the air.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"and that is probably why you will never be cost effective. In the big, grown-up world, professional avaitors are expected to survive on one base check and one line check a year. "

RAFLOO

Looking at the comparative usage as opposed to overall frame hours, the services appear to be consuming at a higher rate. If this is the case, it goes someway to explaining why you believe the cabs are overmaintained.

At a higher usage rate, you will pay the penalty of additional increased routine maintenance, hence more rects manhours per fg hr. To ascertain if your aircraft have a higher maintenance penalty you have to conduct your estimates on a comparative usage case.

Regards

Retard

Roland Pulfrew

19th May 2005, 11:29

rafloo

Once again your logic is inconsistant. Please can you explain why overmaintaining aircraft makes them u/s?

We do service our aircraft more than the civil world but we always seem to have a shortage of spares. This is something that the profit driven civil world would not accept. AOG spares often get priority over all other freight, because the airline demands a spare - NOW. Overmaintaining our aircraft does not make them unserviceable, lack of spares does.

Tanewha

19th May 2005, 11:42

Im with "freeride" on this one. Boy do we get checked too much. We have a check ride at least twice a year. We all love flying with QHI's and all, but please.

[email protected]

19th May 2005, 12:16

VitaminG - if I misheard the bloke from the IPT and it was 12.5 airframes per day that still only equates to 50% serviceability from a fleet of 25 Mk3 and 3As - still seems pretty crappy to me.

Freeride - we do not do unnecessary GH - 95% of our training is in role maintaining skills using radar/FCS/FLIR, NVG, PLB homings, cliff, wet and deck winching, mountain flying, navigation, search management and IF (procedural and non-procedural). This is so that when we go out on a job, we provide the best service possible in any conditions. Can you say that you train as hard? When was the last time you flew a night mountains sortie for training?
Our pilots have an annual check with the Trg team for their operational category, an IRT once a year for their IR and a standards check by the trappers once every 2 years - that doesn't sound too much more than your base and line check.
Our dilution level is higher at the front line than we would like but when you see the capabilities of even our inexperienced pilots you cannot fail to be impressed - part of this capability is achieved through lots of training.

Decks

19th May 2005, 12:48

Crab,

We do flight as well as ground audits. Each individual pilot will do 2 checks each year... (VFR and IFR). One of those will be in the sim.
They also do a line check with a training captain. The auditors (IAA and IRCG) do sample line checks aswell.
As far as having instructors on board every flight... If I do a poor job on a deck or drum or whatever I wont need any one to tell me. The day I do I'm in trouble. If by chance I do fail to notice I can assure you that the rearcrew will advise me on the debrief!!!

I dont want to jinx the maintenance guys but our servicability levels amaze me. I think the 61 loves the life of low MAUW(most of the time), relatively low hours, constant hangarage and good maintenance.

Our primary role is marine based SAR. We do mountain work as a secondary role. We are not provided with NVG so our night mountain capabilty is limited. If they ask us to, then of course we will. If they ask us to go to 500 miles offshore and pay for the equipment we will go there too.
We dont rest on our laurels and continue to re evaluate the service we provide. However the service we provide is very good....as Im sure is yours. Many of the jobs we do are in conditions no one would routinely train in. So even if we did twice the training I'm not sure it would help all that much.

Most of the pilots here come with lots of experience previously (SAR and otherwise) so that helps. But like I said, In my experience both the duds and good ones come in all colours. Whether the service is provided by the military or a civil operator is irrelevant. The money still comes from the taxpayer. And while I would love a bigger budget, 120 hours of training per month at a ten pilot SAR base sounds OTT to me.

VitaminGee

19th May 2005, 12:56

Tanewha,

".......We have a check ride at least twice a year. We all love flying with QHI's and all, but please."........

Only twice? You were looky!! When I were a lad we 'ad an annual QHI check, annual IRT (more if you include upgrades or re-tests!), 6 monthly night FCS checks, a trappers visit, back-in-the-saddle checks (after main leave periods) and, if on a single engine a/c (Wx III), six monthly engine-off checks - phew!! (and I daren't think about the simulator!)

Questionably on the plus side, at least the squadron wheels knew enough about you to write a fair and accurate CR!!

tucumseh

19th May 2005, 13:13

-re “over maintaining”

While engineers generally don’t carry out maintenance for the sake of it, I think I know what rafloo’s referring to.

The example I cited (RAF down to 6 cabs) was caused entirely by poor (non-existent) training leading to engineers removing a complete 13-LRU system every time the observers thought there was a fault. The instructors hadn’t been trained on the system so they were passing on duff gen to the observers. What the observers thought was a fault was a design feature of the system. The engineers weren’t trained to recognise / diagnose this so simply pulled the whole system (the over maintaining bit, if you like). Result? 99.5% No Fault Found Rate at 3rd line workshops. That is, almost 100% serviceability, but low availability. And as any engineer will tell you, thinking an LRU is serviceable is different from verifying it to QA standards, so there was a huge bottleneck at 3rd line while literally hundreds of serviceable LRUs (in fact, over 1000 on the day in question) had to be fully tested, which took months and diverted staff from other tasks.

In the end, a 5 minute teach-in with the Obs Instructor and a Chief Tech saved a fortune by reducing unnecessary maintenance, the NFF rate and 3rd line costs / overtime; and increased availability and operational effectiveness.

We also found out that the RAF didn’t routinely employ people to troubleshoot cases like this (and nowadays neither do IPTs) but they knew the RN had a specialist team doing just that. (Disbanded when the RAF took over RN support). Sounds like we need a return to a similar system. If such a level of efficiency savings could be achieved (again) without impinging on OE, it would throw into doubt the calculations underpinning the cost-effectiveness of SKIOS (which is the original subject of the thread).

engineer(retard)

19th May 2005, 13:50

"We also found out that the RAF didn’t routinely employ people to troubleshoot cases like this (and nowadays neither do IPTs) "

Tuc

That is not correct, the AEDITs were set up for this type of work. Of course, the IPT has to spot there is a problem in the first place and task the AEDIT to investigate.

Regards

Retard

[email protected]

19th May 2005, 14:04

Eng(retard) - we regularly highlight problems to the IPT so spotting them isn't the problem - getting the IPT to acknowledge the problem and then do something about it is the tricky bit. Even when we highlight a Flight Safety problem, backed up with incident signals and historic evidence, they still won't accept that a.the problem is of real concern and b. that it is their job to find the money to do something about it.
Now scrapping the IPT might be the way to generate funding for a few essential mods..........

Circuit Basher

19th May 2005, 15:12

[Not Mil Aircrew, but spent 7 yrs at Warton as an apprentoid / avionics devpt on Tonkas]
From my experience, there is scope for over-maintaining aircraft.

On avionics LRUs, repeatedly removing them to put them through 3rd line testing causes wear and tear on the connectors (which are frequently lifed for 500 mate / break cycles), causing a potential issue with over maintenance. At the time of design, 500 cycles probably seemed excessive for something with a 10,000 hr MTBF!

On mechanical items, all the opening / closing of Dzus fasteners on panels causes wear. These then have to be de-riveted and replaced, which often means having to over-drill and use larger rivets. Once that's happened a few times, then the whole panel needs changing.

Borescoping engines means lots of access panels to remove, causing increased wear and tear (plus the risk of damage to the turbines).

Engine replacement based on mag chip sampling - maybe safer to do this based on the cost of not doing so, but are engines replaced with an excessive safety margin??

Just a few ideas - ignore them if you will!! :D

Tanewha

19th May 2005, 15:28

If only any of this gum bumping would make a difference.

engineer(retard)

19th May 2005, 15:30

Crab

Not sure how things are now with the DLO IPTs but through the 90s we were taking 20% cuts in budget year on year and we were not allowed line items for contingency. If a problem was immediate money had to be taken from the equipment support budget. Scrapping the IPT might raise funds but then who will let the mods contract.

Circuit Basher

There is some sense in what you say but in my experience avionic LRUs are rarely lifed items, they normally have to come out to get access to other equipment that is lifed, or has a higher failure rate. Have to ask the aircraft designers about improving the design ;)

Mag chips do not show up blade damage again maybe the aircraft designers could reduce the number of panels to come off.

Regards Retard

freeride

20th May 2005, 08:08

Crab

As per usual you want to drag this down to "we're better than you" but you make many assumptions. Yes, we (that's the royal we as I didn't say I was SAR) don't do night mountains on NVG as we don't have them or the mountains! As far as I am aware only two RAF flights have what you could call mountains anyway. In my experience those that hark on about NVG mountains are those that have done the least of it.

As for the amount of checks, yes it does seem like the same amount but bear in mind that commercially the check will be done in the most expeditious manner and the IRT does not consist of unnecessary GH at 40 kts with SAS out! A base check is one trip, not a day sortie, night sortie and GH trip followed by a ground inquisition.

I fully agree that you provide a very good service but so do the civilian SAR operators and given the same resources would do more with less. You are no longer part of Tony's expeditionary forces, the Falklands could easily be done by Brintel and there you have it!

extpwron

20th May 2005, 08:45

“…….the Falklands could easily be done by Brintel and there you have it!”

Unless you want rescuing from the side of Mount Usborne one night.

rafloo

20th May 2005, 08:53

I heard a very good and robust rumour that the RN detachment at Prestwick is due to disband within the next few years. Starting with the introduction od civil mainenance and following with the introduction of civil aircrew shortly after. A friend who works with Bristows stated that Bristows are formulating a business case to take over the unit as of 1 April 2008.

freeride

20th May 2005, 10:07

Why would you need rescuing off the side of Mt Usborne at night? Who is going to be there unless they have decided to walk down from somewhere. As I said, given the same resources the civvie crews could do it but a reasonable balance of probabilities also has to be taken into account.

C130 Techie

20th May 2005, 16:31

Sadly nothing has changed in the IPT world:(

Bismark

20th May 2005, 17:38

rafloo,

Re Prestwick. Checked with my serving mates in the know and they state there is no intention to offer PWK SAR to commercial operators, now or in the future. Something to do with ugly black things not too far from Glasgow.

[email protected]

21st May 2005, 07:07

Freeride - so you are not SAR then - if you are then say so, if not then stop stirring on a subject you know little about. As usual, those that know little of NVG ops are the quickest to denounce the need for them. You jibe about the big world of professional aviation (intimating that the military was not a part of that) was the one that started any pi**ing contest.

Of course Brintel could do the FI job - if only they were allowed to we would be very happy as the dets are a pain.

fatobs

21st May 2005, 08:49

RAFLOO.

Re Prestwick RN deatchment being disbanded.....

Obviously you know something I don't, pretty surprising as I am based at pretwick and have heard no such rumour (although it is true that the maintainence is to be civilianised in 2007).

Mind you it would work well for me if it does go - I am outside back end of 2007, please let your "friend" in Bristows know.

Any more rumours please post them here so I can let everyone here else know.

fatobs

vecvechookattack

21st May 2005, 10:31

you guys are always the last to find out. Here in sunny K it's common knowledge that PWK will handover to a civilian contractor within the next 3 years...prob 1 apr 08

freeride

25th May 2005, 22:28

Freeride - so you are not SAR then - if you are then say so, if not then stop stirring on a subject you know little about

Crab, you obviously get very upset by any form of disagreement (maybe the QHI in you?) and so I will refrain from "stirring" anymore so as not to dent your delicate SAR God ego! Perhaps you are better suited to the Tiger thread where you also seem to have made quite a mark - grhhhhhhhh.....

[email protected]

29th May 2005, 10:07

Freeride - the Tiger thread was pi**taking and banter - I think some of the SH guys were more 'delicate' than me (are you amongst them?).
As to being a Beefer, surely you know our maxim - R C P means
Ridicule, Criticise, Patronise - and win the debrief at all costs!

ZH875

29th May 2005, 11:30

the Falklands could easily be done by Brintel and there you have it! And you can have it.

freeride

29th May 2005, 18:48

Ah Crab, I recognise that, they call it humour I think. Thanks for enlightening me!

ZH, without the FI there is no reason for SAR to remain military and with £18bn more cuts coming....

Saint Evil

30th May 2005, 15:07

Sea and air rescue will be sold by Government
By Sylvia Pfeifer (Filed: 29/05/2005)

Rescue missions in Britain's seas and mountains could soon be operated by the private sector under plans being drawn up by the Government.

The Ministry of Defence is expected to put Britain's search and rescue operations out to tender within the next 12 months under a private finance initiative that could be worth as much as £1bn.

Search and rescue activities are currently handled from 12 stations around the country by a combination of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

The RAF's distinctive yellow Sea King helicopters are due to be withdrawn from service in the next few years and under the plans the PFI contract would cover both the crews and the helicopters for all search and rescue activities.

The service exists primarily to assist military and civilian air crews who get into difficulty, but a large proportion of the work involves assisting shipping or people who find themselves in difficulties both on land and at sea.

Thought that the mighty Queens were going on until at least 2014?

STANDTO

30th May 2005, 21:14

right, can we get back on thread now with a few more decent one liners:

Why do cricketers wear long trousers in summer, and footballers short ones in winter?

Hay thenk yew

Anita Bush

1st Jun 2005, 10:08

Also as reported by the BBC this morning....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/4598701.stm

CVs in a plain brown envelope to.........:ugh:

vecvechookattack

1st Jun 2005, 10:14

It seems the cornish fishernmen only want to be rescued by the Navy and not by superior helicopters flown by Former Navy guys....very odd. The comment from the MP is a disgrace....

If it aint broke, dont fix it ....it clearly is broke.....

[email protected]

1st Jun 2005, 11:17

Saint Evil - are you near St Eval by any chance? The mighty Queen is supposed to go on to 2017 but unless something magical happens to the serviceability, I think this is unlikely.

Problem - SAR has a very limited military function and is non-deployable, it costs a lot to run and the platform (Sea King) is an old design with aging avionics and electrics and a known cracking problem.

Answer - let industry provide a new platform/mix of platforms.

Problem - where does industry get the crews?

Answer - Use military crews or a mix of mil and civvy crews.

Problem - will MOD sanction the use of mil pilots for non mil purposes?

Answer - No - make them redundant and let the PFI offer them jobs at less than market rates because they will all have pensions. This eases the need to downsize the military to meet the new defence budget cuts.

Problem - where will the SAR aircraft be based?

Answer - give the PFI all the current locations/hangars etc so the PFI bid looks cheaper on paper than the military cost of providing.

Problem - what about the cost to the taxpayer?

Answer - start charging people to be rescued to offset the costs.

Bye bye Military SAR

vecvechookattack

1st Jun 2005, 11:22

Problem - Where does industry get the crews....

Answer - they put and Advert in the paper...same as everyone else! where do you think the crews for Portland SAR got there?

Problem - what about the cost to the taxpayer?

Answer - the Taxpayer will be relieved to know that the cost will be significantly reduced. Just compare the cost of Culdrose SAR with that of Portland SAR.

Tourist

1st Jun 2005, 12:46

Do you mean the cost of 771 which, on top of SAR, carries out pilot and observer training, aircrewman training, engineering training, parents Gannet plus secret squirrel stuff we cannot talk about but which appears in the current recruiting bumpf?

Are you comparing all of that to a helicopter at Portland?

Widger

1st Jun 2005, 12:49

Sorry if this has been asked already.

I can understand the logic of Contracting UK SAR but what about the RN cabs. We still need SAR qualified crews at Sea. Unless the NAAFI are going to provide the crews. (CVF???) Can crews get enough training in this role without "double tapping" as civilian SAR as well?

vecvechookattack

1st Jun 2005, 13:17

Can crews get enough training in this role without "double tapping" as civilian SAR as well?

yep - easy peasy. SAR is a secondary role taught to all studes. Front line aircrew would have no problem from conducting SAR operations.

[email protected]

1st Jun 2005, 17:32

Vecvechooketc. - do you really think there are 80 SAR pilots just sat out there waiting for the adverts? The only place the pilots can come from is from within the military unless you drop the qualification requirements and put any Tom, Dick or Harriet into the seats.

Is that the daylight only Portland SAR you are talking about? The same ones who were given all the infrastructure at Portland instaed of having to build it themselves. Not really a fair comparison to 771 is it?

I guess from your remarks that you have no experience of SAR - if all studes are taught it and it is so easy, why do we have SAR flights at all? Anyone can hover over the sea on a nice day, well almost anyone but it is the nasty weather and darkness that needs an extra little bit of skill.

Bing

1st Jun 2005, 23:07

I think you may be missing vecvechookattack's point. The treasury looked at the numbers and came to a conclusion(sp?). Civilians are cheaper, at leat for the first the first five years, the whole argument of experience etc. is lost on bean counters bless them

exleckie

1st Jun 2005, 23:37

"Civilians are cheaper, at least for the first the first five years, the whole argument of experience etc. is lost on bean counters bless them."

Thanks Bing, but do you mean that civilians are cheap or are cheaper to employ?

In my experience, the civvies are paid more, with less staff to perform the same, (if not more) function:ugh:

In other words, it is sad for the mil as far as the serving mates as well as traditions
are concerned, but the bean counters and non mil types will win.

Myself , I am pro Forces SAR.

exleckie

vecvechookattack

2nd Jun 2005, 10:10

No SAR experience???? you clearly don't know me, but to give you a clue my first SAR job was the rescue of a small boy drifting out to sea on an inflatable off Browndown point. Still, back to the thread and it has to be agreed that civilian SAR operators do it far, far cheaper than the military. As far as experience goes...well just give Portland or Lee SAR a ring and ask them where there guys did their Flying Training. Think you'll find the answer is in Cornwall.
Recruiting Pilots won't be a problem. Whats the difference between a pilot and a SAR pilot? A 2 day course. Recruiting crewmen to relocate to Culdrose will be easy as there are dozens of them already there.

Nope, all in all it will be cheaper and more efficient.

[email protected]

2nd Jun 2005, 19:40

vecvecetc - as I said, anyone can hover over the water on a nice day but rescuing a lad from a lilo doesn't make you a SAR pilot. A 2 day course will not prepare you for night decks/ night mountains/IMC ops over the water etc etc.
What will happen is that the mil SAR will be replaced by civvy SAR who will have a very tightly controlled contract and look really good on paper. They won't have the hours to do the training (except bare minimum IF) and will probably be very creative with their serviceability stats eg it says serviceable on the ops screen right up until you want to launch it and then it mysteriously wont start (often cos it's got no engines or gearbox in). Cheaper is not better, it's just cheaper.

freeride

2nd Jun 2005, 20:36

and will probably be very creative with their serviceability stats eg it says serviceable on the ops screen right up until you want to launch it and then it mysteriously wont start (often cos it's got no engines or gearbox in).

Crab, do you have documentary evidence of this or could this just be another of the legendary mil SAR stories that has been heard for years? Is this a slur on the professionalism of the civvie SAR crews? I think you will find that it is your own house that needs closer scrutiny when it comes to having any serviceable aircraft to declare - and yes, I do have documentary evidence of the amount of occasions that MOD SAR cannot produce the goods because it available to the public.

In terms of hours for training you are quite correct, there won't be as many as the military have now but I think that with modern aircraft and better reliability the hours will be better utilised.

ORAC

3rd Jun 2005, 06:06

BBC: RAF answers coastal rescue doubts

The RAF Sea King helicopters will be withdrawn by 2012
The Ministry of Defence insists lives will not be at risk when it retires its Sea King helicopters in 2012.

RAF Leconfield, near Hull, currently sends a Sea King to help emergency services if people are in trouble in the North Sea, off the Lincs coast. But the fleet will be out of service within seven years - and among the options for the RAF is privatisation.

Officials say the review may allow them to use helicopters with a sole task of rescuing the public.

The MoD said the current system's primary task is to rescue military personnel, with civilian rescue coming second.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hello, I´ve just seen a helicopter crash"

"Civilian was it"

"Err, army I think"

"Ah, sorry, not in our contract mate, try the fire brigade"....

vecvechookattack

3rd Jun 2005, 07:45

What a load of rot. Crab clearly knows bugger all about civilian helo operations and in particular the servicability rate.

To see the difference please ring Culdrose SAR and ask them what their servicability record is. Also ask them how many aircrew, maintainers and support personnel they have on watcgh at the moment. Then ring up Portland SAR and ask them the same. Think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I only have evidence of Portland and Lee SAR units as well as having served with 771 and I can asure you that the civvy guys are head and shoulders above their military comrades...why? because the Navy guys do the job for 2 years and then go and drive a desk in MOD or fly Merlin. I can point you to at least 6 guys at PO and LEE who have over 5000 hours SAR alone. One particular oppo of mine has been flying SAR operations since 1986....Thats why they are so good at it.

As for servicability....How do they manage to maintain such a high percentage of servicability with so few maintainers? In fact if you were to ring LEE you would find there is only 1 maybe 2 maintainers on watch. So, how do they do that? easy - they don't change components until they are broke. If it aint broke don't fix it. The military over maintain their aircraft.

Hummingfrog

3rd Jun 2005, 12:48

vecvechookattack.

I don’t normally respond to posts from people who don't know what they are talking about but your comment:-

“I can asure(sp) you that the civvy guys are head and shoulders above their military comrades..."

It is both stupid and untrue. Having been a RAF SAR pilot (9yrs) and now flying as a civilian I would say that both sides are as professional and capable as each other in there respective roles.

The civilian SAR pilot however is much more specialized in what he does and is not as rounded in his abilities as a RAF SAR pilot who has been trained in all aspects of SAR be it night decks to night mountains on NVG.

They both do an excellent job in there own way and the comments you make are both uncalled for and unprofessional.

HF

(However if your comments only apply to RN SAR then I may agree with you.;) )

[email protected]

3rd Jun 2005, 15:34

Vecvec and freeride - I have never said our serviceability is good - quite the opposite, it is appalling and part of it is that we overmaintain our aircraft. This poor performance is the main reason we will be civilianised as it just costs too much to keep our aging Sea Kings going.

The RN tend to use SAR as a rest tour and many pilots only do one tour on it - the RAF SAR force has a high proportion of SAR pilots with several thousands of hours on type and in role so maybe the RAF and civvy standards are closer and the RN lag behind?

As to the civilian serviceability - if you don't fly the aircraft, it needs no servicing and therefore it is always available. Can you put your hand on your heart and tell me a U/S aircraft has never been declared 'on state' just to keep the figures looking good and the contract running smoothly?

I know that Lee uses 2 engineers on shift when we have 10 at Chivenor but we have 2 aircraft to keep going (in an effort to produce a 2nd standby which we are required to do - not so at Portland or Lee) as well as military tasking and a Mk3A OCU to run.

The playing field is not level in this game of privatisation and the military always looks more expensive until you look at all the other stuff you get from the mil operation (all the other Sea King jobs at Culdrose for example)

engineer(retard)

3rd Jun 2005, 15:56

Crab - "part of it is that we overmaintain our aircraft"

VecVec - "The military over maintain their aircraft"

I thought we were back on page 6 and 7 again, how are they being overmaintained? Military aircrew fly more training sorties for the same task and you are surprised that you have less availability. How about we change the argument to military aircrew fly too much to ensure operational availability of the airframes. Of course, we could take the easy path and blame someone else.

Regards

Retard

Spurlash2

3rd Jun 2005, 16:09

Re: crab@'s comments on manning; Another reason for extra RAF engineers is that they also deploy out of area for 4 months at a time. There is also the extra ****** (fill in your own PLJ's that the military do as a matter of course)

[email protected]

3rd Jun 2005, 17:05

engretard - yes you are right, we do fly a lot more hours but I guess if you look at the age of some of the S61s (30,000 hrs) they must do something substantially different in terms of engineering since all ours a dead at 10,000. They also don't fetter their engineers with crap like LITS which needs more time to complete than the job itself. We get given the hours so we fly them, cos if you don't, some bean counter takes them away from you the next year.

engineer(retard)

3rd Jun 2005, 20:23

Crab

If you can ignore fatigue, then age is not the issue.

Take the car example - one car 30 years old, the other 10 years, with both requiring a service every 10k miles. If the old car is only doing 5k miles a year and the newer one 20k miles, the newer car will not be available to drive on demand as often as the old one.

If you do factor in fatigue, then its down to usage. If your old car is used for Grannys Sunday shopping, whilst the newer one is used for serious off-roading (gripped). The newer one is going to fall apart first.

LITS was supposed to streamline the system but never saw it in action. ISTR it was derived by IBM from a South African system but this is the government trying to buy IT, and that has yet to work efficiently in any department.

Regards

Retard

pr00ne

4th Jun 2005, 19:26

So, if SAR 1st line is going contractorised, are there going to be ANY non deployment jobs left for the gingers?

niknak

4th Jun 2005, 22:54

Mil SAR do an excellent job and I could never fault them, however, the MOD way of life is infinately more expensive to the Treasury (ie the TAXPAYER), than contracting the job out to Civilian SAR operators, who are equal in EVERY department to the Mil SAR, but cost less.

I know, I've worked very very closely with both, on a regular basis.

So who, do you realistically, think is going to get the job???:rolleyes:

[email protected]

5th Jun 2005, 05:59

Nik Nak - they do not have the same night capability (especially overland) nor do they hold a second standby so how can you compare like with like and say we cost too much. I don't know if the S61 has the same over-water IMC capability as the Sea King (operating below safety altitude and carying out letdowns to vessels IMC) but I suspect this would require exemptions from the ANO.

Crabette

5th Jun 2005, 09:21

Firstly we all seem to acknowledge that the SAR crews Mil or Civ do a fine job for those in need in this Country. The facts are the ‘Cost’ to the taxpayer are less with the Civilian option. Go on spit into wind;)

As for the doing the business, well…. the civilian aircraft are in a better state of repair and maintenance than those of the Military, this looks good on paper and in the air too, with less incident reports to write.

For No:1 crustacean: Civvies do all that the Mil boys do training wise (except goggles…heck they could do that too if the MCA said they wanted it, enough ex NVG instructors on every base already) each pilot/crewman averages the minimum 15 hours per month that the Navy SAR crews use to have for training. Perhaps it’s higher in both mil camps now with the NVG requirements. Hey all those real SAR flight hours are a bonus every year. For the Civvie with only about an average 8/9 shifts per month, nearly 2 hours a duty period. There is no need for ‘standby’ crews, that is what a serviceable aircraft state, a UK SAR overlap system and effective tasking is for. This leaves plenty of time to read pprune, family life and spending what’s left of the £££ salary after most of it has been taken away in tax to pay for expensive MOD bills. Before you whinge about the pay packet, remember that the numbers required to run a base effectively in the civil world is markedly less than it’s military counterpart, besides most civvies did a mil SAR job and then 10-15 years on top. The civil aircraft have no problem doing absolutely everything IMC thanks to Mr Louis Newmark as well. For those bases that have hills in their patch well I’m sure the requirement to ‘low mountain’ fly will be met.

Fancy someone saying that without the SAR squadron gods that all those other Navy Pilots who are expected to fly at night to and from ships and hover for hours over the sea can’t cover the small hole left by removing a second line role like SAR. That’s like saying the RAF SH crews couldn't do a mil SAR mission if asked, unless they had driven a yellow one for years and years…Shame on you.

Most importantly since I don’t see too much Civvie bashing from the RN crews I shall keep their CV’s in my ‘In Tray’.

night dipper

5th Jun 2005, 10:55

Following this thread with interest from the beginning I must say that Crabette could not have said it better.:ok:

Having quite some experience in SAR on the continent, I can see some similairity's. In the MOD I know, SAR is mainly a PR tool to keep the taxpayers on their hands. Not much wrong with that if you do a good job. But like many things, SAR is dynamic and operators and aircraft need to keep in pace with the latest technologie, procedures and demands. It is exactly this where the MOD seems the be out of budget and lagging behind. The civies on the other hand, DO stay focused and invest to keep in pace!

Please spread the word to the continent, the Goverment(s) can learn/save a lot!:ooh:

Night Dipper

WIGYCIWYT

5th Jun 2005, 11:01

I am ex RN pilot of 22 years (cards on the table from the start!) who completed SAR tours at Prestwick, which included rescues in the mountains at night, in snow, before the introduction of NVG's (hence my everlasting admiration, respect and thanks to Observers), Culdrose and a SAR exchange tour to Miami (bang goes the anonymity). I can, perhaps immodestly, claim to have completed some very demanding SAR missions in the most difficult of conditions BUT never really understood the RAF need make the role seem so 'difficult' and 'specialised' typified by the posts of Crab@... All RN pilots were trained in it and certainly in ASW cabs, were required to conduct SCT in it on a monthly basis - enabling SAR duties to be undertaken pretty much at the drop of a hat. There are numerous examples of this from the Fastnet race to 810 Squadrons epic of a few years ago which resulted in medals all round (a rare occurrence indeed in the FAA, well done all). I have been more frightened sitting in a 40ft hover at night for hours on end with bits dangling in the water just praying everything stays working.
I was never really convinced SAR was a real 'full time occupation' for a military pilot, always an adqual - 771/772 were essentially to provide 'rest' tours from the front line and some time at home! This is not in any way to belittle the skill and professionalism of those involved - but I know it can be done just as well by a civvie outfit, (usually using the same bits of whatever flying guide), most of whom are/would be ex-mil and glad of the better equipment. I could rant on forever but will stop mid stream for breath.

extpwron

5th Jun 2005, 12:15

35 years in SH/SAR. Still flying within Mil SAR.

The point crab@ is making is that whilst “SAR” can be done more cheaply by civilian contractors the taxpayer will not be getting the same product.

Remember - the Yellow Birds have BOTH P1 and P2 fully trained for NVG operations for that rescue of an injured climber half way up a mountain one stormy night.

They also have a dedicated Radar Operator sat in front of his FLIR and 360 degree radar screens for those occasions when the oil rig is enveloped in fog.

To match that would require training – which isn’t cheap.

[email protected]

5th Jun 2005, 12:37

Crabette, not ex 84 are you perchance?

We are required to maintain a second standby throughout daylight hours - most of us disagree with it but it is there and requires people and airframes to do it with - COST number 1 not borne by the civvy SAR.

We are required to train more than the civvies such that for a pilots on 8/9 shifts per month, 4 hours per shift will usually be flown - COST number 2 not borne by civvy SAR.

We are required to keep 2 full crews in the Falklands all year round - COST number 3 not borne by the civvy SAR.

We currently hold the UK standby - previously done by SH - Cost number 4 not borne by civvy SAR.

We are required for umpteen other tasks (SCSR and station wets, NARO etc) COST number 5 not borne by civvy SAR.

Do you see where I am coming from now? The playing field is not level and all those bean counters can see is yellow helicopter replaced with red white and blue helicopter = money saving without understanding the bigger picture. All of the other tasks would have to be picked up by the overstretched SH force/jungly force.

PS you need more than an autopilot to carry out IMC ops over the water.

WYGetc - don't start banging on about medals after 771 got AFCs for hovering over someones house at Boscastle.

ShyTorque

5th Jun 2005, 12:54

Another case of accountants knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing?

mallardpi

5th Jun 2005, 17:18

Chookattack

"Whats the difference between a pilot and a SAR pilot? A 2 day course."

Well, I cannot believe how naive you are in saying what you did above. I don't know what SAR course you did, but I hope that if I'm on a sinking deck in a Force 9 at night, you're not on shift to get me. Do you really believe you can turn a helicopter pilot into a SAR pilot in 2 days? Well, perhaps teach him/her to hover over calmish water, yes, but not everything else involved too. Decks, coastal approaches in fog and at night, NVG, mountain flying, search patterns, winching are all involved let alone the coordination side, liaison with other agencies, crew cooperation (most important) etc etc the list goes on.

What you say is just like suggesting a helicopter pilot could learn tactical flying and go to war in two days in support of our boys on the ground - no I dont think so. Your comments are obviously biased, I dont know why.

Military SAR crews do, without doubt have a greater capability than the civilian crews. Nobody should say one does a better job than the other. Remember the Coastguard SAR crews are only contracted to work to the high tide mark, so how can they be so good at overland SAR if they never train in that role. The Mil crews provide complete SAR, anywhere and everywhere. There are differences with the RN and RAF but these are being addressed.

As to the question of privatisation? Well, my view is this. Should an emergency service provider be allowed to make profit out of the rescue and assistance given to those in need? I say No. Its like saying lets privitise the Fire Brigade and let somebody make money out of fighting fires. Helicopter SAR should be a government run operation. No, it doesn't have to military, but lets say for instance a Govt Flying Service. Funded by the public purse, and not for profitable means, they could be at the call of the CG, Police Fire etc etc. Flown by civil crews with dispensation for NVG and night overland from the CAA they could be just as good as the servies now provided.

The CAA I believe would grant such certificates if the units could prove the training was adequate and robust. Ah here we are again, more training that the mil crews do, not currently undertaken by the civvies. Well, perhaps thats where the difference in price comes from. If you want a complete service, you'll have to pay for it.

[email protected]

6th Jun 2005, 05:08

Hooray - someone on my side at last, thanks mallard.

Tanewha

6th Jun 2005, 07:59

mallardpi,

At last, a rational argument. I think you've just about said it all.

vecvechookattack

6th Jun 2005, 08:20

Some good relevant points from mallard. - Totally concur. I think the idea of a government run SAR flight is a non starter though as the litigation, risk and liability would be too great. Sadly I think the days of Military SAR are numbered and the bean counters will have their way.

freeride

6th Jun 2005, 15:28

WYGetc - don't start banging on about medals after 771 got AFCs for hovering over someones house at Boscastle

yes but they weren't rude about the SARFC on the FLIR tape - tut, tut.

Anita Bush

6th Jun 2005, 16:54

.yes but they weren't rude about the SARFC on the FLIR tape - tut, tut.

I think that you are mistaken on two counts;

Firstly it was DSARFC
Secondly the crew concerned were quite positive about his inclusion in the rescue effort as it was "all we f:mad:ing need"
:ok:

Anita Bush

6th Jun 2005, 18:04

Most importantly since I don’t see too much Civvie bashing from the RN crews I shall keep their CV’s in my ‘In Tray’.

Crabette
:oh:
I think that is positive discrimination - I will seek legal advice
Pr00ne :8- what is the legal standpoint on this?

mallardpi

6th Jun 2005, 18:06

"I think the idea of a government run SAR flight is a non starter though as the litigation, risk and liability would be too great."

The Armed Forces do not have the comfort of Crown Immunity now so they are already open to litigation etc. So what difference would it make if heliSAR was run by a Govt Agency?

Anita Bush

6th Jun 2005, 18:17

I think that a good model to follow would be that of the Hong Kong Govt Air Service.

Still under Govt control but run obstensively as a civil organisation. I understand that their procurement programme consists of going out and buying the stuff they need off the shelf.........it would never catch on here.

Mind you the money on research and development on many of these items would have been paid for out of other Govt pockets. I wonder if that factor is taken into account when calculating the cost of UK Mil SAR.
Do those in the civil sector buy off the shelf or are they involved in paying for any research and development?

ralphmalph

6th Jun 2005, 19:15

Can someone clarify as to whether all of the ground role jobs will be civvy or will it only be the maintainers....?

Will there still be a role for sqn ops staff and squippers?

Cheers

Ralph

Tanewha

12th Jun 2005, 06:44

First slip in the date has already happened. The goat is up and running. Apr 08 now for the GC.

sargod

12th Jun 2005, 22:29

As a soon to be ex Forces SAR person who has been enticed into the civvy SAR world by more money and better working condictions, I cannot see why everyone is against change. Everyone wants to be the best at what they do, but at the end of the day the only people that really matter are those in need of our services and no matter what colour your overalls are, the job will get done.
We should look across the water at Eire, they have sacked their Military crews in favour of civvy's under the contract of CHC, and guess what it only bloody works.
So come on guys what are you really scared of, people said the Wessex was the best for SAR but now everyone is trying to keep the old Sea King. Just think of the people whos lives will require saving in the future, a purpose built SAR a/c, faster ,greater range and better equipment is surely the way ahead or do you want to be plodding along in your old Sea King. :ok:

Hummingfrog

13th Jun 2005, 05:17

Sargod

If you are going to Eire you will be plodding along in your even older S61. If you are going to JIGSAW your conditions of work will be worse as living on an oil rig is no fun.

HF

Anita Bush

13th Jun 2005, 16:36

ex Forces SAR person who has been enticed into the civvy SAR world by more money and better working condictions
sargod

I've got a message from Stores: Your size 18 slippers are ready to be collected, but as you won't be needing them for the twenty days a month that you used to have off, they have returned them to stock.
:ok:

airborne_artist

13th Jun 2005, 17:25

Hummingfrog
living on an oil rig is no fun

Which oil rigs have you lived on?

As an FDO I worked 15 on/15 off in the BP Forties for six months in the "summer" of 1980 - on an accom. rig that was alongside Forties Charlie. We worked 18 hours a day, were fed very well, and had 2 man cabins that were OK. The crack was good, the food excellent - so much so that I put on 20 lbs!

We had a resident 365 pilot who seemed pretty happy with his 7 on/7 off. The guys I felt sorry for were the Bristows S61 drivers who flew ex-Dyce three times a day.

Guys on the West African rigs did have a lousy time, admitted.

Megawart

13th Jun 2005, 17:25

Not sure where you get your info from but no one on SAR gets 20 days off a month (without leave).

Oh, and don't give me that bull about seconds being a day off - even on the seconds day we spend at least 10 hours AT WORK (midnight to about 10am).

Those unlucky enough not to live within about 20 miles of work will spend 22 hours AT WORK on a seconds day in summer (don't ask why - the answer is beyond human intelligence).

Soooooo, for some a shift can be 22 hours at work on day one - up to midnight, followed immediately by another 22 hours until they're allowed home.

Hey - Maybe that's why MilSAR is so expensive? Seconds!!

Regards.

Sooooooo, a run of 4 can equal 148 hours at work in an 8 day period.

Aren\'t there EU rules about the 148 hour week? :O

Anita Bush

13th Jun 2005, 20:48

even on the seconds day we spend at least 10 hours AT WORK
which is, I believe, part of your twenty four hours at work....hmmm let me see if I remember this right....
Arrive for handover which is at 1000
1015 decide what to fly for this shift, most probably two hours day, two hours night......but this time of year don't night fly.
1030 Decide whos cooking lunch
1030 - 1200 Kerrang, cricket,secondary duties
1200-1330 Lunch including 1230 ITV news and the BBC one o clock.
Afternoon flight to include Decks, drums and radar, or if feeling a little adventurous Radar Decks and Drums.
Land by 1730 so as not to miss dinner and The Street at 1930
2000 Eastenders followed by brief for night flying
Night flying to include same as PM flight but in the dark
Down by 2300 to get the free porn on at 0000 and then to bed.

......need I go on? I know because I've been there. You have a cushy life and loads of time off. I know where I would rather be for time off at the moment and its on a SAR Flt.

The HBZ is active!!!:ok:

snaggletooth

13th Jun 2005, 21:41

Is the HBZ a porn channel then?

[email protected]

14th Jun 2005, 06:08

You forgot the crosswords and the sudoko..... and the table football........oh and the comedy ECMO in the middle of the night and the fruitless search for red flares.

As for the Irish binning milSAR - I think the mil setup was nowhere near the standard of UK in terms of trg and equipment and the trigger for change was a sad fatal crash in fog. It had a lot less to do with pure civ v mil costings.

Hummingfrog

14th Jun 2005, 07:38

airborne_artist

"Which oil rigs have you lived on?"

For the past 15 yrs:- 40sA, 40sB, 40sD, Iolair, Safe Felicia, Poly Concorde, Tharos, Esmonde and a few nightstops on others.

I think you have a romantic memory of life on a rig. A few months in the summer may be OK, but winters can be very challenging with lots of night flying in marginal weather. Rules and regulations have also mushroomed since 1980; for instance you get told off if you don't hold onto the handrail when climbing stairways.

In 1980 the 40s were only 5yrs old. They haven't been modernised much since then.

While offshore basing suits some people there are not a lot of volunteers in my company. A recent shortage of volunteers saw the offshore allowance increased by 300% as once pilots had been offshore based many were reluctant to repeat the experience.

The constant 15days on/13 off also has a wearing effect on family life. So as I said life on the rigs is not fun and I wouldn't do it if it did not fit in with my lifestyle requirements.

HF

SASless

14th Jun 2005, 11:02

MallardPI,

If the civvies can provide the same SAR coverage, with the same standards, and make a profit at it....and do it cheaper overall than the military.....why is that a problem? The taxpayer gains out of that situation.

If the CG contract only goes to the high tide mark....alter the contract to meet the needs and let the civvies bid on that requirement. Place the standards to be met within the framework of the contract and then....compare apples to apples....when considering the cost of military SAR versus civvie SAR. A bit of competition never hurts....if you can provide the better service to the customer at the lower price...then the military keeps the contract....if not the civvies get the contract.

The point about military SAR doing other tasks that the civvies do not....is valid....but that in and of itself should not determine the issue. SAR coverage for cost is the issue.

sargod

14th Jun 2005, 20:26

Hummingfrog

You missed the main point of my arguement, i think certain people took their heads out of the sand and looked to make the best from this, all the crews will have to come from Raf/RN SAR crews and from what my new contract states they will be on far better money (what a bummer eh!!!), and when you are asked and not told to cover another shift coz someones ill, guess what they even pay you....LOTS.
After 20 years of towing the line it is an eye opener how well you are treated in civvy life. :ok:

SASless

14th Jun 2005, 21:00

SarGod....

I might suggest you contact some pilots that got dumped by the major operators based upon age.....before you crow about the good treatment you receive in the civilian world. Contracts go away....pilots go away too and not necessarily in a polite organized way. One outfit dumped 52 as I recall....and not in a gentlemanly manner either. Do some checking around.

Hummingfrog

14th Jun 2005, 22:11

Sargod

"when you are asked and not told to cover another shift coz someones ill, guess what they even pay you....LOTS."

You can't be going to Bond then;)

A SASless says there is no such thing as job security in our business. Lose the contract and you may lose your job as has happened quite recently in CHC. Same applies if you lose your medical - it is not like the forces where you may find a job in the RCC etc - it is thank you (if you are lucky) and bye bye.

From your profile I assume you are not a pilot so your pay will probably be more than rearcrew in the RAF - but remember you will have to fund your own pension out of your pay and the taxman loves taxing any perk such as BUPA or LOL. The Irish taxman is particularly avaricious:{

HF

luvverboy

15th Jun 2005, 16:06

all you civvy fags out there aren't half a bunch of whinging big girls......ooooh two on two off........oooh smelly oil rigs.......oooh sharing a cabin, try being real men and stop whinging, most matlowes would think that routine was heaven.... you lot have obviously been moly coddled for too long

sasless and hummingfrog take note fannies !!!

Hummingfrog

15th Jun 2005, 20:48

luvverboy

I wouldn't normally reply to a wind up from a fishead but I have time to spare sitting on this old rusty rig.

You are exactly the type of person the helicopter companies are looking for:-

Someone who will accept poor conditions because when he was in the military he slept on the floor/got treated like an animal/shared a cramped cabin with fellow men who smiled at him knowingly. He is now grateful for what ever scraps the company will throw his way - ooh leave who needs it in the Navy we were away at sea for X months at a time. Decent pay and conditions - ooh don't need those we used to hot bed and were gateful for the pay we got.

Grow up and join the real world where your skills are a commodity that can and do command a high price with good conditions.

You may, however, be disappointed as offshore we don't share cabins;)

HF

vecvechookattack

16th Jun 2005, 09:43

Grow up and join the real world where your skills are a commodity that can and do command a high price with good conditions ....that is assuming that you are in the forces only for the money. Some people like service life and would still be in the forces even if the money was bad.

Hueymeister

16th Jun 2005, 10:13

Saw the first of 2 and more EC225's officially handed over to Bristows yesterday at Le Bourget...they left tha access gate open so us civvies just wandered in, enjoyed a freebie champers and watched as EC and Bristows schmarmed one another up...are these the one heading for Jigsaw?

crabbbo

16th Jun 2005, 11:02

I would be surprised if theye are heading for Jigsaw as it is Bond Offshore who is doing that...

Hueymeister

16th Jun 2005, 11:26

Coat's on....heading for the door.....are these Bristow machines headed for Aberdeen then?

mallardpi

18th Jun 2005, 17:20

SASless:

If a company can provide SAR cheaper and make a profit, then surely there is scope for a Government Agency to do it for a lesser price, i.e without profit, hence even cheaper for the taxpayer. Unlikely, I know, but theoretically possible.

The CG would never change their contract as they have no jurisdiction above the high-tide mark. They want to keep their helicopters for themselves and any "sharing" would only reduce their cover. As soon as a helicopter is tasked inland, there's nobody to cover the sea (because there is usually only helicopter at each base and certainly no seconds crews).

If a tender for SAR cover was offered which required an equal standard to that provided by the military now, it would take any civvie company a long time to train crews and adapt helicopters to meet the same overland standards of today's military. The CAA would have to become inherently involved and permit special AOCs, which although I know they would do, they would need a lot of persuading. So, I admit, nothing is impossible. But is anybody willing to take the risk?

Now, lets look 10 years into the future. The military expertise has all left (to the civvie world). The civvies have to actually train new crews now as their supply has dried up. There is suddenly no more competition to the civvies and hey, guess what, the price for the service, which the government feels obliged to provide goes through the roof. How will the taxpayer feel now, with, no doubt, the profit margin increasing every time the contract is re-signed.

You are right, competition never hurts. A financial level playing ground would obviously show differences in cost, but when would the standards of civvie overland SAR meet those of the military on a level par? - years?, decades?

I still think the Govt Flying Service is still the best option and I'm wiling to fight my case. I can go on, but I'll stop here and see what you all think.

SASless

18th Jun 2005, 17:56

The Mafia in this country (if not with the big M...certainly organized crime with a small m then...) tried the same thing in the garbage collection business. They would approach the local governments with ridulously low prices that undercut the local units costs by a bunch.....get the contract....hold the prices down until the government unit shed itself of all of its equipment and personnel....then the prices headed up quickly. The strategy was to keep the new prices well above the original government operation costs....but not so high the government could purchase a whole fleet of equipment and hire new personnel thus the taxpayer would lose and "organized" criminals would benefit.

Not saying that is the case in this situation but a similar situation could occur just as you describe. I would think honest competition by the various operators would work to defeat that concern however. Instead of the RAF/RN competing with private business....the competition would be between the private operators.

The RAF/RN would have to maintain a Combat SAR capability along with their other committments thus that expertise would not disappear from the RAF/RN skill sets by non-combat SAR going to the civvies in my view. I could see the military SAR units being a backup to the civvie SAR for domestic operations.

212man

18th Jun 2005, 20:37

Huey, yes. In fact, the Bond Jigsaw machine is in MRS at the moment (well was last week when I was there); not sure if post production testing or crew training.

vecvechookattack

19th Jun 2005, 09:56

SASless makes a good point. We must reteain a Combat SAR cap. However, Im not sure that his appreciation of the Civvy SAR units stands up. Bristows helicopters have been slowly taking over the SAR task for the UK for the past 10 years. First it was Stornoway then Lee, then Portland...(i might have got my order wrong there) but the point is that 15 years ago the Military used to conduct ALL SAR operations in this country and now they do less than half.....

Maybe its time to give up the last remnants we have over to a cheaper option.

Droopystop

19th Jun 2005, 12:14

Mallardpi,

The CG machines already do alot of work over land.

They are already manned by a significant number of civvie trained crews up to the highest level.

The CAA are already involved - how do you think Bristow's and CHC have been providing civillian based SAR since the 70s?

There is already significant commercial competition in the market place to keep prices down.

As for experience, I think you will find that some civvy sar copilots have more years SAR experience than some military SAR captains, virtually all the civvy crewmen have a full military service behind them plus the civvy world since leaving and there are enough ex mil instructors in civvy street to allow training for NVG and any other relevant specialisation.

There are many on this forum who have no confidence in the civvy system. How many of them will be swallowing their "pride" and knocking on Mr Bristow's/ CHC/ Bond's door looking for a job when the leave the mob?

Wiretensioner

19th Jun 2005, 12:38

VecVechookattack!

[First it was Stornoway then Lee, then Portland...(i might have got my order wrong there) but the point is that 15 years ago the Military used to conduct ALL SAR operations in this country and now they do less than half.....]

Take your shoes and socks off and do some sums. Coastgaurd have four flights, military have six RAF and two navy which when I went to school comes to eight military flights. Strikes me that the military have more than half the flights. And I have worked SAR both sides of the fence military & civil.

Twinact

19th Jun 2005, 16:45

We must reteain a Combat SAR cap

(Not my sp.)

Isn't that the role we finally decided merlin 3 could actually do, rather than the one it was purchased for.

snaggletooth

19th Jun 2005, 23:13

VecVechookattack. Back in your box lad & rework the math. :ok:

mallardpi

20th Jun 2005, 06:28

Droopystop

"Virtually all the civvie crewmen have a full military service behind them"

So this is where the civvies beneift by not having to train virually all their rearcrew; a massive cost saving. If the mil give up SAR for good, then what will happen to the cost of civvie SAR as they will have to expend hours of training for rearcrew? It will undoubtedly rise. Then apples will be apples.

"They [CG machines] are already manned by a significant number of civvie trained crews up to the highest level.

The CAA are already involved - how do you think Bristow's and CHC have been providing civillian based SAR since the 70s?"

I do not dispute that Civvie SAR sometimes works overland, but only when the CG releases them to work for another agency. But are they trained to the highest level? Which of the CG SAR crews is authorised to work below 500ft agl overland at night on NVG? Yes the CAA are involved, obviously, but have they given SAR operators the remit to use NVG overland?

Oh and by the way to keep the current discussion in context, I have not said civvies could not provide the same service as Mil crews currently do. Civvies could, but it will cost them a lot more and I'm not sure they're willing to do this.

vecvechookattack

20th Jun 2005, 07:43

Which of the CG SAR crews is authorised to work below 500ft agl overland at night on NVG?

why would they want to do that? where is the requirement?

Droopystop

20th Jun 2005, 08:28

Mallardpi,

I agree that to provide the exact same onshore capability, the CG contract prices will go up. But the prices would not double, let alone get close to the cost that the military stump up for SAR. Time will tell about how long it will take civvy sar crews to get operational NVG capability. But if that is what the MCA want, that is what they will get. On time. Don't forget that the military have a long lead time for new kit too.

sargod

20th Jun 2005, 20:01

SASLESS

Please don't me laugh "combat SAR" the only way we could mount a mission in a hostile area is to ask uncle Sam for a hand,or we would be blown out of the sky. The Yanks have it down to a fine art, we can only play at it, like most things nowadays ;)

[email protected]

20th Jun 2005, 20:12

vechook - funnily enough, Sunday night in N Yorkshire!

Droopy stop- the clue in the overland capability is in the title, Maritime Coastguard Agency - why will they ever fund an overland capability?

Helibelly

21st Jun 2005, 06:52

I loved reading this thread, it's good to see all the old arguments dug up for an airing. The sad fact is, it's not if, it's when will SAR in the UK go civi. In the meantime we'll do our jobs and take the shilling (where ever that comes from).

vecvechookattack

21st Jun 2005, 11:14

funnily enough, Sunday night in N Yorkshire

So, in order to fly over land at night you MUST have NVG ?

s'funny. I was doing it for years without any Goggs.

That doesn't get away from the fact that there isnt a requirement to fly at night on Goggs.

Saint Evil

21st Jun 2005, 18:47

Mate,

there never used to a height hold for hovering over water at night, but now there is.

I think you'll find it's called progress.

Just 'cos that's the way we used to do it - doesn't make it right.

SARREMF

21st Jun 2005, 19:52

Chaps, first post ever so here goes - be kind! You all make valid points in isolation. RAF SAR is no better than RN, Military is no better than Civil. We all just do it differently. What we need is best practice from all to get the SAR Force of the future. Now that might well include civilian aircraft from a reputable companybut military registered. Then you can take the best from the civilian world - they DO keep the aircraft more serviceable then military engineers because they do it differently. You can still use NVG becase now you are in a military registered ac - lets face it, its what the best dressed person wears at night these days.

Vechookattackome you have stated why do you need NVG? You did it without for many years? Are you driving the same car you drove then? No Ford Cortina in the car park then? Why, because things got better.

Crab, same applies to us me old, we have to move with the times and adapt. Learn fast!

Lights blue touch paper .........

[email protected]

21st Jun 2005, 20:06

Vec - I used to fly at night without goggles - above 500' with any letdown being a very interesting procedure without nightsun or similar bright light source. Now, with goggles, it is just like day flying except the world is green and you have a limited field of view. It is so much safer, quicker and easier flying on NVG which is why we do it, not only for pure overland stuff but for cliff letdowns and for collision avoidance over the sea at night - it's just better! Any crew going to a winching situation overland at night is going to need goggles to get there safely and expeditiously, even if they do the winching itself on white light.

SARREMF - I know, flexibility...it's the key to something or other...

vecvechookattack

22nd Jun 2005, 07:20

Hey - Im Goggs biggest fan and totally agree with you that they make a world of difference (although your comment that using Goggs makes it flying like day would receive a short rebuke from the old man at CAM who used to reiterate that the only thing that made the night look like day was the sun).

But at the end of the day SAR crews indeed a lot of helicopter crews all around the world are flying aroud at night conventionally and doing it very safely.

Droopystop

22nd Jun 2005, 07:31

Crab,

So who pays for all the overland work done by the CG machines at the moment?

Tanewha

22nd Jun 2005, 07:44

Droopystop,
I think that the CG (and the RN for that matter) present a bill to the tasking authority for any overland jobs that they do. The ARCC very quickly passed the bill for, dare I say it, Boscastle up the chain to some bean counter in government. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong.

mallardpi

22nd Jun 2005, 16:07

If, like the RN the RAF sent bills for servcies provided, how much would mil SAR cost then? Apples and apples......

Crab and SARREMF - good points indeed

How many helicopter pilots are flying around below 500ft agl in the mountains of Scotland in winter without NVG and having to plan and make an approach to an unlit, unapproved landing site? NVG are the thing of today and tomorrow and for low-level ops which SAR has to be (there are not many people requiring rescue above the MSA) NVG make the job a whole lot safer and give the casualty a much better chance of rescue and therefore survival.

[email protected]

22nd Jun 2005, 20:24

Droopy - what overland work? Other than flying a casualty to an inland hospital?

freeride

22nd Jun 2005, 21:40

Crab

The Scottish HMCG aircraft do venture into the hills particularly the Stornoway cab. The Scottish Air Ambulances also provide cover in the mountains for non-winching jobs.

Bertie Thruster

22nd Jun 2005, 21:48

Freeride, do both those operations work at night in the hills?

JTIDS

23rd Jun 2005, 00:13

Night mountain SAR work needs googles. What used to be done without them is no where near what is done now with them...

That said I can't see any reason why civilians can't be taught to use them. But it would be a large investement for any company who wished to carry out SAR "at a profit," to teach their people to use them.

vecvechookattack

23rd Jun 2005, 07:39

That doesnt get away from the fact that NVG for civilian SAR units is not a requirement. Its not part of the contract and therefore will not be provided by the company (why should they, after all).

It will only become necessary when the Govt write a statement of requirement into the contract and therefore make it a requirement that the company deliver.

steamchicken

23rd Jun 2005, 15:21

Good morning. You are through to McRescue, the UK's premier privatised search and rescue systems solutions company. I'm sorry, all our operators are busy at the moment. Please try again later....

But remember to have your wallet with you, for when the winchman produces the EFTPOS terminal and asks "Do you know your PIN?"

exleckie

23rd Jun 2005, 17:58

It seems that the majority of you have little or no experience of military SAR supported by civilian engineers.

In the long run, it won't be a fight about who will do what job with what kit and who will run it with who etc etc.

I will raise the following points.

1. CG will remain CG who will continue to operate within their own remit.

2. Military SAR will continue with Mil Aircrew and Rearcrew with engineering support functions performed by civilian groundstaff.

3. It has already been happening for the last 2 years. Mil SAR supported by Civ engineering.

4. It works better than you may think.

5.Compare...... 5 aircraft wth 70 mil engineers and a 35% serviceability rate to 4 aircraft with 10 civ engineers and a 95% serviceability rate.

6. You hold the purse strings, you choose.

vecvechookattack

23rd Jun 2005, 20:22

Military SAR will continue with Mil Aircrew and Rearcrew with engineering support functions performed by civilian groundstaff .....but with a remit to only conduct Military SAR.

snaggletooth

23rd Jun 2005, 22:47

vecvechookattack, are you on the same planet as the rest of us?

Having sampled a few of your posts now I guess not. Wierd MF.

detgnome

24th Jun 2005, 04:23

vecvec etc....

err actually no. The operation exleckie talks about provides SAR to the civillain population as well, with a well extablished requirement to do so. As is the norm, 99% of actual SAR is in support of non mil incidents.

vecvechookattack

24th Jun 2005, 06:57

Thats the current state of play, but once the contract is let and accepted, Britows will take over the provision to cover SAR duties including overland SAR.

Military units will maintain an SAR role but will only provide cover during normal airfield operating hours.

Juan Smore

24th Jun 2005, 08:34

Vec etc..

Not sure where you're coming from; having given SAR over to a civilian operator, what would be the point of maintaining a military capability "during normal airfield operating hours"? Wouldn't this negate the cost saving realised by going civilian?

exleckie

24th Jun 2005, 09:14

Vec,

The particlar operation I refer to was contractorised well over two years ago. There will be no hand over to Bristows because, in essence, they are already running the show.

It is a military unit with aircraft provided by a civilian company. These aircraft are manned by military crews and maintained by civilian engineering staff.

It provides SAR to the military fraternity, SAR to the civilian community, support to civilian authorities.

As far as your presumption that cover is only provided during airfield opening hours, you are very much mistaken. Like most SAR outfits, this particular operation to which I refer has 24 hr 365 day commitment. Clearly this involves out of hours tasking and call outs.

Juan,

The whole point of civilianising SAR is to maintain, or even better the standard of SAR units, be that in or out of hours flying, whilst at the same time reducing costs by employing a more streamlined eng support structure to the unit. e.g. A civ engineer doesn't do guard, get deployed, need to go to PSF, nip out for a haircut, attend station briefs, fill sandbags etc etc. They are paid to look after the aircraft and the aircraft only.

Saving money all round without compromising operational effectiveness.

I know that civilianising uniformed jobs is a bitter pill to swallow but unfortunately, it's a reality that cannot be ignored. You won't be in uniform forever so think about life after you hand back your kit.

exleckie

vecvechookattack

24th Jun 2005, 16:09

The whole point of civilianising SAR is to maintain, or even better the standard of SAR units - the real point of civilianising anything is to save money. Standards and practices won't even get a look in if it is a cheaper option.

exleckie

24th Jun 2005, 16:18

Vec,

You really should start thinking a little deeper as to why the Mil SAR/ civ eng mix works.

You seem to refuse to accept that SARops can be improved somewhat by employing a different stategy?

Put it this way, would you prefer to use a typewriter or a keyboard to input posts?

I guess you would say keyboard. Don't get caught up in the past because you deny progress. Don't get left behind.

Cheers,

exleckie

negativesplinters

24th Jun 2005, 16:23

I think the constant referral to "BRISTOW" taking the contract for SAR off the military is a little presumptuous, there are many more willing companies out there that are far less militant, more dynamic and do not employ a bunch of dinosaurs to run their units on a shoe string with crappy old aircraft. they may be safe for the next couple of years with the interim contract, but I am sure the government will want a better company to run the big one. it is not in the bag yet !!!

vecvechookattack

24th Jun 2005, 16:43

Totally agree. There are plenty of companies that are far less militant, more dynamic and do not employ a bunch of dinosaurs to run their units on a shoe string with crappy old aircraft....but I'll bet that Bristows will undercut them.

exleckie

24th Jun 2005, 17:02

vec,

Why the fixation with Bristows?

And, who are you agreeing with?

exleckie.

running in

24th Jun 2005, 23:13

Vecvec etc

Are those "crappy old S61s" the ones with EHSIs, autohover, twin hoists, HUMS, FLIR etc, or something you read about in the Beano? Oh, and the aircraft are servicable and crews come into work to go flying not do groundruns and PLJs.

Isn't a "militant dinosaur" an oxymoron? Compared to CHC, Bristow pilots are not at all militant, although better paid than their military counterparts. Also we don't do detachments to grotty places that Tony Blair sends us to.

Exleckie is right, wake up and smell the coffee. Recently a goverment minister arrived at a Scottish RAF airbase to see the "new" equipment the RAF SAR Sea Kings had just aquired. The "new" equipment, Ultraforce 2/Leo II QWIP FLIR had already been flying on an RAF Bell 412 supplied by FBH for 2 years! (I will give you a clue, the B in FBH stands for Bristow).

As for NVG, FBH now train the RAF on NVG at Shawbury! There are civilian standards for NVG Ops which are in fact higher than the military ones, if the customers wants it (and is prepared to pay) then the civil world can supply it, faster, cheaper and to a higher quality standard.

Vecvec..leave the mess bar and come out and see what the real world does!!!!!!!!!!!

SARREMF

25th Jun 2005, 08:26

Running In. You are not quite correct. FBH do NOT train the RAF on the use of NVG. They form part of the team who train new crews in the RAF to use NVG - a 60/40 split with the larger portion being military instructors.

Vec,
My dear chap, what is your issue. You talk about NVG not being a requirement. It is if we put it in the Statement of Requirement. Your information on military doing SAR during airfiled opening hours might be a double bluff! By the time this comes in we will only have 3 bases left and they will all be 24hr opening. Seriously, no person in there right mind is going to sign a .................... damn!

Ex Leckie. There have been a lot of lessons learned from the contract you mention - for both sides of the PARTNERSHIP.

Folks, thats what we are talking about here a PARTNERSHIP if we cna afford it. IF not, it may be an all civilian op, what it is almost certainly not going to be is the current system with new ac.

The devil is in the detail of the contract. None of us, I suspect, have seen that IF it is even writen yet!

JTIDS

25th Jun 2005, 15:49

Vecvechookattack, could you explain where your coming from as am a little confused from your posts. Would you like to see Mil Sar remaining as it is, the CG taking over the contract entirely, or a new contract which hands over SAR to a civilian company (Mil, and civilian) in toto? Can't ever imagine a situation where we have a Civilian SAR contract, but still keep a couple of military cabs for just whilst the jets are flying, which is what I think you might have suggested.

Apologies in full if have mis understood what you were getting at.

[email protected]

25th Jun 2005, 19:02

Exleckie - is the outfit and contract you are referring to 84 Sqn by any chance? Not UK based with about 1% of the jobs of a UK flight and no overwater night capability beyond that which the Wessex had. Not exactly a fair comparison. It is an SH sqn with a very limited SAR remit and as far as I am aware, the number of engineers has been increased to maintain the contracted serviceability levels.

exleckie

27th Jun 2005, 07:22

Crab.

I am not at liberty to say where or what the operation to which I refer is, but you are dead centre on target.

Limited SAR remit? The primary function of the operation is SAR, be it overland, overwater, night and day, however, you are correct that there is a limited night time overwater capability.

Yes I agree that the compared to a UK SAR flight, The number of call outs will be lower per annum. This does not make the SAR operation any less valid than any other.

True, the operation does have an SH role, but it is not an SH sqn.

Lastly though, you are way off mark with the the assumption that the engineering staff have been increased to maintain servicability levels. The establishment of engineers has remained the same from the start of the contract to the present day. The "additional engineers" (all 2 of them) you may be paying reference to, were brought on board to bring the engineering contingency up to full strength iaw CAA requirements, so, essentially, the operation was 2 men down whilst still providing serviceable cabs.

In over two years of operation, it has been a very rare occasion that a sortie has been missed due to aircraft unserviceability.

As I have previously stated 4 aircraft, 10 engineers, 95% seviceability, 24 hrs a day,7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Which means

Happy crews who fly till their hearts are content because the level of service given to them is over and above the contract itself.

Which means,

Value for money without any erosion of operational capability.

Exleckie

Role1a

27th Jun 2005, 13:14

Exleckie

I think you have missed the point of the thread, yes civilian owned military run contracts can work well as you say, and though I cannot speak for your outfit, it does work well at Shawbury.

However, the point (I think) of the thread is about contractorising the whole shebang Aircrew an all.

2 extra engineers to bring in line with CAA regulations, what other corners have been cut in the name of profit over the last two years?

I will balance that as the military are no different when it comes to cutting corners to save money , just as long as they get that next glossy magazine out!!

R1a

PS Doesn’t all the flying stop at lunch time where you are? Hardly apples is it.

exleckie

27th Jun 2005, 16:57

R1a

I haven't missed the point of this thread (considering that I started it!). What you may have missed is that over the course of the last few weeks, a lively debate about the possibilities of the future of SAR from different standings and viewpoints has ensued.

Engineering wise, no corners have been cut. The two engineers employed were brought on board eons ago. This was in reply to Crabs comment that he believed the establishment had been upped to maintain serviceability levels.

As far as saving money is concerned, read previous posts, plus, because of the initial investments made on said contract by the civ company, costs are kept down whilst allowing customer driven development programmes to run alongside at minimum cost.

As for flying / working after lunch time is concerned, well, it simply is not true. Maybe it's true for all the daisies out there but not for the operation and other shifties on station.

SARREMF.

You are correct and I agree wholeheartedly that the word PARTNERSHIP should be understood more.

Exleckie

PS Sorry if I sounded too corporate there, I am beginning to disgust myself

:yuk: