SAR privatisation

[harrogate]

Anyone know where I can read more about the arguments for an against?

I'm particularly interested in coverage and whether it would likely improve or otherwise, post privatisation.

I know coverage for the UK is total, but was wondering if capacity would likely go up in the private model.

Potential equipment for private sector contractors also interests me.

On a lighter note:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=275720

There's clearly a skills shortage in the private sector!

[HAL9000]

I believe the SAR privatisation is known as the SAR(H) programme in procurement (or is it acquisition?) circles.

I am also fairly sure it is a PFI programme. The outcome of other PFI programmes, speaking from personal experience, does not bode well so I would put money on post SAR privatisation coverage being worse. Unfortunately, the holes in these projects only usually appear once it is too late.

Of course the establishment will have nothing but praise for privatisation and there will be no hint of it being anything other than a complete success. To paraphrase a young lady from the 60s, 'Well, they would say that wouldn't they.'.

I stand to be corrected on all the above as my involvement with military procurement, and it was definitely 'procurement' then, ended a few years ago. Also, I was not directly involved with SABR(SAR)/SAR(H) but close enough to pick up on the concerns of some of those involved.

HAL:ugh:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I have a number of reservations about SAR ops being conducted by a comercial operator. The Operator will always have a duty of care for the aircrew and I think it is inevitable that they will not make the extra push we are accustomed to from Mil crews. This may or may not be an example of that possibility BBC Friday, 19 May 2006, 12:21 GMT 13:21 UK

It was deemed "too dangerous" for a winch to be lowered from the Portland Coastguard helicopter.
A Portland Coastguard spokesman said: "There were horrendous conditions which made it very difficult for the our crews. "They are not normally afraid to do what is needed but in this situation we had to take precautions because we do have to think of the safety of the search and rescue teams as well." The full story is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4997654.stm

Don't misunderstand me; I am not suggesting that the SAR crew at the time shrank from the task; far from it. I do suspect, though, that commercial and civil liability factors may result in avoidance of risk that wouldn't be a military concern.

[Cabe LeCutter]

Please don't start any more threads that degenerate into backbighting about SAR, we have had those already. Look in the archives. Jon don't bite, it looks like a troll.
Head down, look out for the flack.

[harrogate]

With the greatest respect, what the **** do you mean by that?

Can someone not ask a question without the paranoid minority jerking their knees?

And who gave you permission to stifle discussion?

I've read the previous threads, that's why I asked for another source.

If someone wants to PM me in response to my question, in light of the SS patrolling the forums, please feel free.

BillyGoat
x

[SAR Boy Anchor]

Is that SS as in NAZI party organisation or SS as in SAR Standards???????????????????????

[Max Contingency]

And who gave you permission to stifle discussion?

And who gave a self confessed journo permission to trawl on a forum clearly marked as "for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground" ?

:hmm:

[Wader2]

On a neutral note, the Air Ambulance and the RNLI are both successful civilian, albeit charitable, organisation where a can do attitude prevails.

With the proper contract there is no reason why a civilian SAR organisation could not operate with the same effectiveness as military SAR.

The recent RNoAF cliff rescue was carried out by the crew not withstanding directives that that particular type of rescue was too dangerous. The final decison will always rest with the captain of the aircraft.

[cokecan]

ever so slight tangent...

can anyone say whether the civilian S-61N's or the current RAF SAR Sea Kings are 'better' for SAR, both military and civil?

i assume that the S-61 can carry more passengers, but what about range, sensors, weather restrictions, availablity, cost or any of the other 99 things i've no knowledge of but which are vital?

i've no real position on privatisation, just the knowledge that PFI tends to be an expensive disaster, however given the pressure on the RAF SH fleet and the fact that we don't do CSAR (in the way the US would understand it) suggests that SAR might be a bit of an expensive Cul-de-Sac in military terms.

[samuraimatt]

Everything you ever wanted to know about SAR Privatisation but were, or in this case weren't afraid to ask.

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-hmcg_rescue/mcga-hmcg-sar/dops_-_sar_helo_harmonisation.htm

[letsgoandfly]

Just curious, but I thought that the military SAR fleet was primarily for the rescue of military personnel and had the secondary role of rescuing civvies. If things did get privatised, would that change? For example, would they come and rescue people shot down if there ever was a war around the UK or would it be too dangerous for them to fly? I know the chance of that ever happening is miniscule though! :)

[samuraimatt]

I know the chance of that ever happening is miniscule though!

I think you have answered your own question.

[[email protected]]

Cable Cutter - - -bite....me????a man with my reputation....:)

Harrogate, this has been done to death and the answer is in waders post - 'with the right contract' etc.

Whether the political and financial will exists to create a completely civilian SAR structure without the strengths (and some weaknesses) that the military brings to the party, remains to be seen.

It will be a very sad day if and when military SAR ceases to exist - our track record speaks for itself and there are few if any other countries in the world that can boast the same capabilities.

[SARREMF]

It will stay .... just a bit different from now.
It might even be better than now with best practice from both sides, better availability, military and civil harmonised into one cohesive force ..............................
Ooooh I was off for a moment then! No, it will be better . honest

[Wader2]

Again, slight tangential.

In the old DEW Line days the DEW Sites were in remote and inhospitable places. At Goose there was a 'cowboy' flying for Ogginawa (sic) helicopters. I believe he had some battered old Sikorsky IIRC. He had the contract to fly to the sites and said because the conditions were too bad for the regular military types.

So contractors can, and do, do things that the military cannot.

[leopold bloom]

Having been on both sides of the fence I have to say that my experience is that the civvie operators are better funded and equipped. They also have a much leaner management structure and are free of the dead hand of IPTs/Air Staff and the colossal "tail" that military SAR is cursed with. As for capability civvies are no less courageous or determined than their military counterparts simply because they don't wear a uniform. When it comes down to it we all do the same job for the same reasons. Have look at these links to see what a civilian organisation can do;
http://www.vtol.org/temp/webrelease14.html
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/publicservice/govt/9846.html

[Wader2]

I clipped the following from Leopold's first site:

The Captain William J. Kossler , USCG Award is given for the greatest achievement in practical application or operation of rotary wing aircraft, the value of which has been demonstrated by actual service during the preceding calendar year. This year’s winner is the Hong Kong Government Flying Service (GFS). During the course of Typhoon Prapiroon last August 3, 2006, the pilots and crews of the GFS carried out a major and heroic rescue operation in the South China Sea that saved 91 lives from two sinking barges. The demonstrated professionalism and skill of the crews and their AS332 Super Puma L2 helicopters, in the face of extremely hazardous weather conditions, were truly remarkable. Despite wind speeds of up to 100 knots, waves of close to 65 feet, turbulence, low visibility and the violent pitching and rolling of the foundering barges, the GFS crews were able to carry out this most challenging search and rescue (SAR) mission and bring 91 people safely back to land.

[Mr-AEO]

I can imagine that this is a very complex thing to sort out, what with a Joint MCA & DE&S IPT, various locations, aircraft types, currently operated by different units/services etc. Coupled with the fact that the RAF SAR is being civilianised as from 2008, deciding what is in-scope and out of scope will be a real headache. For example, does anyone know if Cyprus is likely to be in-scope?

[Wader2]

Would Cyprus be considered a joint-user SAR? On that basis would a Cypriot or other nation commercial operator be able to tender?

Under EU rules it may not be possible to lump Cyprus with UK if the UK SARO was a reserved contractor.

[SARREMF]

Cyprus is outside SAR-H

Falklands inside SAR-H

RAF SAR engineering is contractorised from 2008 not aircrew.

Its been fun so far!

[vecvechookattack]

I have to agree with Leopold. The MOD retaining a SAR force is too costly, inefficient and because of the immense and complex way the MOD does its business military SAR is untenable. For instance.

Lee on Solent operate a civilian SAR helicopter doing a very good job. They operate

1 aircraft
9 aircrew
6 engineers.


771 sqdn here in Culdrose also do a very good job..
They operate

5 Aircraft
30 pilots
18 aircrewmen
4 SAR divers
8 RNR pilots
5 RNR Observers
6 RNR aircrewmen
4 Engineering Officers (nearly 1 per aircraft)
136 engineers
6 RNR engineers

Try and justify that to the treasury.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Vec

Are you sure?

9 aircrew for a 24-hr service with a crew of 4 sounds a bit unlikely.

And don't 771 do other stuff besides SAR?

Sven

[vecvechookattack]

OK....maybe 12 Aircrew....15 at a push. But nowhere near the 71 that 771 have to pay.

I totally agree, 771 do other things other than SAR, BUT that isn't up for privatisation. (yet)

[6Z3]

I hope you are not seriously comparing the two units.

If you were to remove 771 Sqns SAR committment altogether, you would make no (or at least very little) difference to their Aircraft numbers and Scheme of Complement numbers.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Vec

The military SAR Flt I'm sat on right now has 18 aircrew on the books, of whom one is long-term sick and one is in the Falklands. That makes 16 equivalent to Lee (who don't do dets and would get rid of non-effectives). Out of that 16 is provided one crew 24/7 (as at Lee) and a second crew daylight hours (definitely not as at Lee). Fairly comparable with Lee's "15 at a push", don't you think?

Not that I don't agree that Mil SAR drags a huge and unwieldy tail around. Just that the argument should stand on its own merits - it doesn't need exaggeration.

Sven

[tucumseh]

Almost exactly 20 years ago I was packed off to a meeting in Empress State. The annual SAR policy beano. Rafts of RAF people, a token civvy representing the Senior Service (who had more SAR capable a/c, but we won’t go there).

Routine stuff – CSAR progress (excellent, first batch ready for conversion!!), role limited a/c, not enough kit, etc etc. Then Chair announces that he’s been told to allow a guest 5 minutes to present an idea. In walks a very youthful looking beancounter. Puts up a map that looks like it’s been nicked from Mr M. Fish of the BBC (same year – think about it) with all RAF SAR stations highlighted. States that Wessex can fly XX miles out and XX back on a full fuel load, and flips down an overlay with XX radius circles around each station. “Where there is overlap, we’re closing down one of the stations. Thank you for your time”.

To be fair, the RAF got in first, but most were simply silently aghast at the brain numbing stupidity. “Time on task” was the cry. A few shouts for “night capability”. Then someone mentioned a Sea King could fly further. Wrong thing to say. Compounded by, “What about the Navy stations?” Wrong again. He hadn’t the slightest clue that the RN did SAR, or that we had Sea Kings. His eyes lit up, and he went away to re-draw his little chart, count more beans and shut more stations. (Gannet made a big difference).

You know the rest. No CSAR to speak of. Decimated SAR capability. I happen to be on the retention side of the fence. I’m no expert, but I imagine CSAR requires more intensive training and experience than “normal” SAR, and that experience, training and general sustainability must come from somewhere. I may be wrong there, but I relate this to highlight none of these decisions are capability or duty of care based – purely financial. Dreamt up at a surprising low level with no appreciation whatsoever of the practical impact.

[SARowl]

As ever there is not a dissimilar thread running on the 'Rotorheads' section. I have put a more accurate break down of staff numbers on there.
Dear All,
Just to clear up a few points.
1. All present Bristow/MCA Helo Units (excepting 12 hour only Portland) have 24 staff, comprising:-
8 x pilots
8 x crewmen
7 x engineers
1 x secretary
1 x labourer/odd job man
Cleaning is by contractor.
2. There are four SAR/LN450 S61s (one each base) plus two 'standard' S61s as spares. One spare is at Lee, the other is in Sumburgh. Because of maintenance requirements the spare aircraft are regularly on line with little diminution of the proffered service. Crews regularly train - yes, even over decks on pitch black nights - on the spare aircraft to maintain proficiency.

[Sven Sixtoo]

SAROwl

Thanks for that.

That implies that Bristows run with 2 engineers on a shift + 1 on days.

This is the big difference - A mil SAR Flt has engineer shifts of 6 +/-, and has two SNCOs on days / on call for oversight, plus 3 x SE fitters, plus 3 x Ops staff, plus 2 x MT / Suppliers, plus fire crews at the non-airfield bases.

I can remember when a Mil SAR Flt ran with 4 crews (16 aircrew), 3 shifts of 7 engineers, 1 SNCO eng boss, and nobody else.

Still far more engineers than the civvies use.

There are some reasons for this - I will guess that Bristows contract out their SE support 100%, and lease their vehicle(s) off some company that does that stuff, and get Jeppesen or some such to provide their documentation, and take the risk on fire crews (there's probably a good quality extinguisher and the engineers know how to make it go).

Also the RAF take people off the street, put them through a course, then work them up under supervision in the job. I suspect Bristow's engineers arrive fully qualified and with considerable experience. That still doesn't explain the differing levels of supervision / oversight (Licensed engineers don't need oversight if I understand the priveliges of a civil licence correctly).

So do the mil over-engineer, the civvies under-engineer, the civvies have a simpler machine, or some combo? Plus, how do we get the military contractors to contract in a sensible way?

[[email protected]]

The engineering of the mil SARForce (with the exception of 771) is going civilian over the next year with 78 Sqn in the FI the first to change. Augusta Westlands in partnership with Vosper Thorneycroft will provide the same aircraft availability (if not better according to their team) as exists at the moment - ie a first standby aircraft 24/7 and a second standby for a minimum of 80% of the time. To provide this they will have 4 shifts of 5 engineers including a shift boss and one Flight Manager.

This highlights that the military aircraft are over-serviced since a civilian company requires almost as many engineers as the military have used and a lot more than a civilian SAR flight.

But the comparison is still of oranges and apples since the military aircraft fly far more hours, especially on training ( approximately a 4 to 1 ratio for RAF SAR flt to MCA SAR flt).

This is one reason a civvy SAR flt looks cheaper - they just don't fly as much - it's not rocket science. And they don't have to hold a second standby aircraft.

When all the engineering is civilianised will people still be trying to claim that mil SAR is expensive? Yes, but only because they don't understand SAR.

[NRDK]

I guess I will give you your due and bow to your obvious skills, given that the Mil SAR units have a 4 to 1 ratio on training hours with which to keep your crews up to speed and the SK3's all worn out (hence all the engineers you have)
After all the MCA units only have 45 hours dedicated monthly training so about 1.5hrs per day, whereas you have 180 hours of monthly training so your 6 hours per day must keep you on the ball.

I only wished that we could have got those sort of hours on the RN SAR units when I was waiting around for the cabs to be serviceable, in between SAR taskings.:D

[leopold bloom]

Which begs the question, "Why so many training hours?":confused:

[Hummingfrog]

LB - There is an old adage that:-

"The more you train the luckier you get when doing it for real"

The SAR flights also allow the copilot to train in the RHS so more hours are used to train the up and coming pilots.

HF

[leopold bloom]

Which brings us neatly back to the real reason for privatisation, it's cheaper.:ok:

[SARowl]

Civilian companies are able to keep their costs down in many ways. Use of commercial airfields, you only pay for what you use, you don't have to personally man it 24/7. Ditto transport, catering, cleaning etc. There is very little training requirement ie you buy your experience, you don't train it yourself. Staff have to be more flexible, we all wash and clean the cabs, the engineers marshall, re-fuel, ground handle, fix the aircraft and provide fire cover.

[toddbabe]

Sar Owl you said "Staff have to be more flexible, we all wash and clean the cabs, the engineers marshall, re-fuel, ground handle, fix the aircraft and provide fire cover".
Are you referring to Civi SAR? Be cause mil SAR do all that already and have been for years.

[HAL9000]

The discrepancy in training hours reflects the different roles in that, to give just one example, the mil SAR chaps conduct low-level, overland NVG ops. If civvi-SAR took on that particular specialization their training bill would rise accordingly.

The whole problem with the civvi vs mil SAR debate is that you cannot just directly compare what the current units offer. Most people are completely ignorant of this but wade in with their ill-considered, and usually incorrect, opinions anyway. Unfortunately, the result is the usual slanging match that ensues.

Hopefully, both the mil and civvi boys and girls at the coal face know enough about each other to be able to ignore the tripe and get on with the valuable job they all do.

[vecvechookattack]

Thats very true but you have to justify that to the bean counters. Why do Mil SAR have to practice Low flying when the Civ SAR don't. Why do MIL SAR have to practice NVG when the Civ SAR don't? those are the questions the treasury are asking.

Toddbabe. The point the previous poster was trying to make was that in the civvy world they Cleaning, refuelling, ground handling, fixing, marshalling etc is done by one bloke. Whereas at Culdrose those jobs are done by lots of blokes.

[3D CAM]

Now for my threepunce worth.
Civvy SAR units, at the moment anyway, operate with two engineers per shift, and one on days plus a labourer, on a weekday that is. At weekends there are just two. They are usually, what used to be known in the mob as self supervising for component replacement and aircraft checks, namely Licensed Engineers. If a flying or engine control is disturbed then another Licensed Engineer, or two depending on which flying control it is, has to carry out what is known as a duplicate inspection. They also carry out all the tasks mentioned by SARowl, and a few more come to that.
That is were your cost saving comes in! Two compared to how many on a Mil. SAR unit? That is not a dig!! In the dim and distant, I was on a MIL. unit so have seen both sides.
You cannot cut down a four man crew so the aircrew are pretty safe unless the beancounters decide that the front seats can be filled by lower ranks. ie. Less pay.
The military also has to train more, as previous posts have pointed out, for what ever reason, right or wrong!

[Mr Point]

Why do MIL SAR have to practice NVG when the Civ SAR don't?
...because the civvies do not fly on NVGs. Mil SAR helos conduct around 50% of jobs overland and away from coastal areas, compared with the MCA helos who conduct exceptionally few rescues inland. Stornoway is the only MCA flight that carries out mountain flying training and this only happens during the day.

A rescue or search in the hills at night will only be carried out by military crews and, funnily enough, these skills require training! :ugh:

This is the side of SAR that the treasury fails to comprehend. The civvies could do a very good job of taking over UK SAR BUT they would need a massive amount of training in skills they do not currently possess. They would also require continuation training to maintain these skills. Current MCA SAR helo costs cannot be used to project future SAR-H budgeting because their tasking is significantly different from that of the RAF and RN.

[NRDK]

The MCA unit at Stornoway does fly night mountain taskings has always done so, just like the pre NVG days of 819SAR @ Prestwick and Lossie etc. (On a dark Sh1tty night how do the useless NVG's get you there? Back to the good ole days eh!:eek:) Almost all of the MCA crews have been there done that in the Military, :rolleyes: so you can not claim that ONLY the Military crews can do it.:ugh:

The MCA units also use a safe, common sense training limit based on A/C performance when 'practising' with emergency services i.e MRT members and so yes they will often explain this and decline to 'play' on some occassions. That said, for 'real'; I know that they have also had some well deserved praise for turning up and getting the job done under extreme conditions. Inland taskings are secondary work and sourced via ARCC. When it becomes all part of their remit under SAR(H) then they will do the job just like Crab and his mates.:}

[SARowl]

Meat

A case in point was the other day during a face to face the civvie MRT leader mentioned how glad he was the helo on scene was yellow. Ask the boys at the ARCC what the get ASKED for by the guys on the ground......and you'll find it's not white & red.


Local rescue organisations and populace are accustomed to the service and the service provider that they already have. People are naturally conservative and distrust anything new or different. For example, people stay with the same Bank/Building Society for years although they could get better and cheaper service elsewhere. Rescue Oscar Charlie, the Bristow/MCA helicopter based in Shetland is engrained into the local community; no amount of persausion would alter the local fishing fleet's love of the white and blue cab that many locals owe their life too. Ditto Lossie, Chivenor etc...

[Mr-AEO]

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons for a second. Is not the reason for contractorising the engineering personnel that there is a drawdown in service manpower under MTWS? Whilst this is saving money, it is manpower money and not support costs per se. So the driver is not to reduce support costs, it is to meet the Manning Authorities targets. Also worth pointing out that a number of the civilianised posts are mandated as being reservists.

[[email protected]]

NRDK - you are right to pint out that Stornoway does a sterling job in the mountains at night but I have yet to see a dark and ****ty night where not using the goggles improves the situation. The picture might get a bit speckly but it is always better than pitch blackness which is what you get without goggles. If you used NVG in a previous life you would notice a huge improvement with the Gen3 tubes that we have now.

The only time goggles are useless is in twilight, looking into the setting sun - once it is properly dark they beat reversionary(mortal) hands down and before you ask, yes I have done both.

45 hours a month for 8 pilots and 8 rearcrew is less than 3 hours per crewmember per month - if you think that is enough to maintain competence in the wide range of skill sets required for a SAR crew and allow time to train co-pilots up to be captains then fine (personally I don't)- it certainly won't be if NVG for overland tasking is introduced - then your training bill will get closer to ours.

[SARowl]

8 Pilots + 8 Aircrew = 4 crews

45 hours = 11.25 hours/crew (usually more because of sickness/leave)
4 crews

Therefore each person gets a minimum of 11.25 hours training per month (probably more) + jobs.

Do you need GCSE/O-level maths to join the RAF?

[SARREMF]

Children.

Stop fighting. This is getting sad and tiresome and is not helping anyone. For goodness sake you need your legs slapped!

Yes, the military do more training, but the entry level is much lower for military reasons and requirements i.e. they take people direct from training at about the 250 hr point. The civilian side have mainly experienced [not essentially SAR just higher hours] or people who have licenses and then get SAR training. Its different but overall has a lower daily requirement to train. Yes, I know if you look at some of the, shall we say, older populated flights they have an equivalent number of hours. But hey, lets take YOU. Do you need 4 hrs every shift to maintain your SAR skills - not your QHI skills - your SAR skills? No you dont! You need less because your experienced. I bet you even give up some of your training to bring on new people? So, imagine a system where they are all experienced pilots [not SAR but flying] and you only do the minimum training to achieve the aim. Oh, is that called value for money?

Crabb you have led people to believe that the military fly 6 hrs training per shift. Horse muck! It used to be 4 hrs then was reduced. Not every shift flys 4 hrs training as some will be on Rescues and some you will be ops only because of the state of the SK. You are painting a picture which is doing the military NO favours what so ever.

The civil ladies and gents do it differently. Currently, they are not formally tasked to do the same as the military. When they are, SAR-H, they will be trained accordingly. End of.

Stop trying to cause angst when none needs to exist. SAR-H will bring change. Accept it, embrace it and work to help it come in gathering the best practice from both sides.

But stop this stupid pointless bickering. Its gone way past funny and is dead ahead 40 for sad!

Get with the programme

[SARowl]

The civil ladies and gents do it differently. Currently, they are not formally tasked to do the same as the military. When they are, SAR-H, they will be trained accordingly. End of.


It will be interesting to see how the training regime does develop, the MCA are the current 'client' and money is quite tight. As time equals money, I'm not sure how much extra training, if any, the MCA would be prepared to swallow. Would you then end up with a 'harmonised' service with varying levels of capability depending upon which uniform you wear?

[Wiretensioner]

SARREMF

So eloquently put. Spent time in mil SAR at the finest SAR flight going (Not far from Kinloss) and now looking to move across to CHC in the near future. Your words and experience speak volumes. No doubt though the kids will start agin no probably on another thread.

Fwd 40, Winching out, Steady:cool:

[[email protected]]

SarOwl - your maths is too simplistic because we don't use constituted crews(and I don't think the CG do either). Therefore each shift is likely to be with a different co, radop or winchman who may or may not have done the same training as you and the rest of the crew. Therefore there is much duplication, hence the extra hours.

Previous threads have stated that MCA crews train 1 hour a day which is where my 4 to 1 (and I did say approximately) came from - if they do 1.5 hours a day then it is 3 to 1 for some flights and slightly less than that for others. (Some flights are allowed 4.5 hours trg per day)

Now to put things into perspective, we don't actually fly 4 hours a day every day on training - that is what we are allowed to do unless jobs, serviceability, weather etc get in the way. Most RAF SAR flts average 100-110 ish hours a month with about an 80/20% split of trg to jobs but that still leaves about double the amount of trg compared to an MCA flt.

But, you have to remember that our crews include a radar operator who has radar skills to keep up, as well as FLIR/MSS and his winchop duties. Then factor in that we expect a new pilot on the Sqn (straight from training) to achieve Operational captaincy in about 18 months which takes loads of training and you start to see why we look so much more expensive.

SARREMF - your comments regarding experienced crews not needing as much training are bo88ocks - ALL flying skills are perishable with IF and night flying being the most fragile. I fly less of my own training because I am always training or checking others and I am painfully aware of my own skill fade.

Having lots of flying experience does not make you a good SAR pilot/winchman/winchop - it helps in some situations but is not a replacement (however cheap) for quality SAR training.

Unfortunately you are typical of the non SAR aviators who think they know best about a job they have never done and get all their top info and opinions from crew room chat.

I am not trying to cause angst - change will come, I am sure of it - but when that change comes it needs to be right, not just cheap. Therefore I will continue to fight our corner and highlight where the 'we are cheaper and therfore better' argument is flawed.

PS - over a 30 year contract, if you don't train your SAR co-pilots up to be SAR captains, where are your SAR captains going to come from?

[Limpopo]

I am not trying to cause angst - change will come, I am sure of it - but when that change comes it needs to be right, not just cheap. Therefore I will continue to fight our corner and highlight where the 'we are cheaper and therfore better' argument is flawed.



Hmmm! I wonder how the CIVIL MCA units have lasted for the last 20+ years then, if they don't get enough training, don't train co-pilots to being captains, don't have enough hours, don't have enough engineers and anything else I might have missed that they don't have? Seems to me that while they would like more hours, they don't appear to have suffered by the lack of them as perceived by some on this forum. What they need are new aircraft and they are coming.

May I suggest that those who have never worked in the civil SAR world consider that thought for a moment before jumping on their high horses about how wonderful the military SAR are?

(Note: I have experience of both worlds before anyone starts going on about "crew room chat" again!)

[[email protected]]

Limpopo - I think you miss the whole point of the privatisation thread - it has never been about 'us being better than them' or vice versa - it is about whether the same capability that the military provide can be procured more cheaply in the civilian sector.

I have been attacked several times for daring to say that the military capability exceeds the civilian but I have only ever been defending our position against those would have us believe that the existing civilian SAR is exactly the same as the existing military SAR only cheaper.

You must admit that the civilian SAR world has relied considerably on ex-military crews (front and rear) and has not had the need to provide a structured progression from co-pilot to captain (and I am not saying there is none, just that there is a lot less). After all there is only a need for a certain number captains on one flight because they get paid more - in the military they get paid the same and everyone is expected to become a captain.

When the 2012 contract is let, there will be a need to poach/recruit military crews to fill many of the slots, to think otherwise is fanciful. Once that surge is over and the military no longer produces SAR crews for itself, all the future crews will have to come from within the new MCA SAR force. I believe this is one area that CHC scored heavily on over Bristows because they were realistic about training requirements.

[Limpopo]

No, I haven't missed the whole point. I just see comments from individuals who think that the civilian world will provide a poorer service than the military, because there wont be as much money put in for training, and that just isn't the case.

I might add there are a number of both crewmen and pilots (including Captains) in civilian SAR units now who have never been near the military. I know that some crewmen have used SARTU (through the FBH links) to be taught the basic techniques and then have returned to their civil SAR units to continue their training and then be brought on line. However, the pilots have been taught without going via the RAF/RN.

Crab, you are right that in the beginning the civil SAR did rely considerably on ex-military SAR crews, but that is not the case so much these days. Many of the units have both pilots and crewmen that have never been near the military other than a short course at SARTU for the crewmen. There are several SAR pilots both in co-pilot and command positions now who have never been in the military. I can think of one unit where they are the majority of the staff.

You say "When the 2012 contract is let, there will be a need to poach/recruit military crews to fill many of the slots, to think otherwise is fanciful." Well, I believe it may be fanciful for you to believe that. At the end of the day, only time will tell, plus of course, whether you can be released from the military!

[[email protected]]

Limpopo, several of the CHC transition team have just left RAF/RNSAR to work civvy and there are also some on the S92 course in July. Many of the rearcrew who are working/will work for CHC are very recently ex-mil.

I am in no way knocking the civilian SAR pilots abilities - expertees in flying is certainly not confined to the military but there are only so many experienced SAR pilots around and, once you have accounted for them, where will you get the rest. If the future capability is to include NVG ops, where will you get the expertees and experience from if not from the military.

In 2012, if all 6 RAF flights and Gannet become civilianised you will need to find 56 SAR pilots and 56 SAR rearcrew - all with the requisite experience - where do you think you will magic them from if not from the MoD?

[Limpopo]

That is assuming, of course, that there hasn't been a review of where the SAR units are located by then and the units cut or amalgamated. Not saying there will be, but it's been done before and who says it wont happen again to help reduce the costs for the MCA?

However, assuming all the units will be civilianised there will of course be some ex-military who will get jobs. However, there will be others lurking in other civil operations around the place who may very well have the requisite SAR experience as laid down by the client/winning contractor and not all will go to guys (and gals) straight out of the military.

I understand your protectionism for you and everyone in military SAR and it is very sad for the military to lose the role. However, don't expect it all to come to you on a plate. You will be competing for employment with everyone else.

[[email protected]]

Limpopo, I don't think any of us are naive enough to think anything will come to us on a plate - we would still need licences and IRs and neither grow on trees apparently:) I still hope that we can retaina big chunk of SAR in the military and not the token gesture that is being suggested at the moment.
As for resiting the bases, none of the competing contractors wants that as it means more outlay to set up a new operation than to assume control of an existing one. The SARH process has looked at it and appears to have come to the conclusion that unless the goalposts are moved (increase response time or similar change of criteria) there is no point in moving the bases.
As ever it will be decided by those who write the jobspec/contract.

[HAL9000]

This thread is getting a little tense. As an outsider I think I have worked out that crab vs limpopo is a mil vs civ contest between two 'insiders'.

So that others might be able to form an objective opinion can you chaps provide the following information.

1. What are the full range of skills/roles that your respective organisations are obliged to perform? That will provide a baseline for comparing where the training hours go.

2. Who exactly trains your SAR crews? Fairly straightforward for the military to answer but I am unaware of a civilian flying school that offers either basic or advanced SAR training.

3. Is there a civ SAR unit anywhere that has nobody with a military background and has trained and progressed its own SAR crews using solely civilian experienced aircrew? If there is then there is an effective counter to the mil assertion that civ units rely on the military to provide SAR outflow. If not then the question of how a civilian organisation will tackle this issue in the 'all civilian' future needs to be explained (and costed).

[MaroonMan4]

It is getting a little tense.

And all wasted I fear and alot of venting of frustrations as this is going to happen anyway (rightly or wrongly, better or worst - it is happening), so it is how it happens that will make it a success or not (and unless you are involved in the contract/project then again I feel that we are all venting our spleen unnecessarily).

But here is one for you (to go off at a tangent - sorry Jevs ;) - if I am looking at leaving H M Forces in about 3-4 years, have about 4000 hours+, CPL H with most rotary SH platforms under my belt (I even did a Junglie exchange many years ago that saw a little bit of overwater stuff - but nothing on the scale of SARTU or 771) - I am starting the planning for a departure date of Apr 2011 and have absolutely no desire to go airlines or rigs, and my 'dream' civvie job would be HEMS or SAR in the South West of UK (Odiham - Benson - Bristol - Exeter area - with Wiltshire being just the perfect location for a HEMS job and Hampshire/Dorset Coast for any possible SAR opening.

What are the chances of me getting a job (even as a co-pilot and working my way up through the company) - how are the future contract civilian pilots going to be trained?

The obvious answer would be to ask Binnsworth for a SAR tour, but sadly I am pretty much locked into this job until I go now.

Also, without diviluging company Ts & Cs, what is the approximate salary that a SAR and/or HEMs would get based on my entry experience.
Sorry to drag off thread a bit - but it may dampen the latent frustrations that are bubbling away, and also help out a wokka mate.

Cheers

[Limpopo]

HAL9000

I am not aware of a complete full civilian unit operated by British companies. However, one unit set up in the last few years had trainers with both an ex-military background and fully civilian. In fact the Chief Pilot and his deputy were civilian through and through, the other two trainers were ex RAF and RN. (Pilots) The crewmen were however all ex-military although they had more civilian experience under their belts than military!

Training is in house on the units. As I mentioned in an earlier post, some new civilian crewmen have been trained but they did use SARTU for an initial basic course, the rest of their training was then done on the unit until up to the standard required (comparable with that required by military SAR units I might add).

I believe in-house training is the case for all UK civilian SAR operators currently, although there were lots of rumours around about a civilian SAR school but these seem to have gone quiet recently. Mind you, a civilian SAR school had been mooted many, many years ago by retiring military staff leaving, but never appeared to happen, except for one that went for contracts in the ME I believe. Don't think it lasted long though.

MaroonMan4

Starting salaries would currently be in the region of (dependent on experience and need for direct entry captains):

Capt: £69-73k (+ allowances)
Co-pilots: £51-54k (+ allowances)

These are at the lower bands of the pay scales I might add as I would think it very unlikely to come straight in at anything above about Year 5 for each scale. However, I am not management nor in a position anywhere close to management. You would be given better details by speaking to the relevant company's HR Department.

Allowances could be anything from accommodation, type/role specialisation, training captain, etc.

Not sure about crewmen, but their salaries are comparable with SNCO/WO salaries plus allowances I believe.

[SARowl]

The starting salaries for Civvy SAR are about right, however I think HEMS pilots are on alot less.

Maybe there's a HEMS pilot out there who can enlighten us?

[Bertie Thruster]

hems, UK; 40-42k.

[SARCO]

Hello guys,

I have followed this thread for sometime from the sidelines and have been interested in the complete lack of unity amongst my fellow SAR friends.

We are all here to do a job. When I request that you scramble to an incident I don't care whether you are yellow,black and yellow, grey and red or red and white. All I want to know is that when I reassure my casualty on the end of the radio or telephone that help is on the way it will arrive in a timely fashion and the 4 crew onboard will be professional and will do the job they are sent to do.

It does not matter whether you are military or not your previous experience is not relevant to me, I don't care whether you have been on detatchment overseas or flying shuttle runs to oil platforms. What I wan't when I scramble you is a capable SAR crew to do the job I ask you to do.

There is no point in bickering about training etc....we know how much training goes on at both Civvy and Mil SAR flights and Crab you are the one talking nonsense.

At the end of the day SAR-H will provide the BEST most PROFESSIONAL SAR force for the UK. If anyone on this thread doesn't agree with that idea then perhaps it's time to move onto other things.

[[email protected]]

SARCO - perhaps you would like to qualify your statement that I am talking nonsense with some facts and figures rather than conjecture. Training is extremely important but you (as a non SAR aviator) seem to know better!

I have stated what RAFSAR flights fly each month and SAROWL has stated what the MCA guys fly - do you doubt our figures?

I don't feel any tension here - we are exchanging views and information which is always good - once everyone has all the correct information instead of hearsay or faded meories of what used to be we will have a clear and balanced picture of what the new contract will have to provide.

[Bertie Thruster]

"Hello guys", Welcome to SARCO, a lurker, (self-confessed) who has signed up today (with a freudian moniker)just to give you all a mild bollicking.

Carry on!

Not you Crab......my office... pyjamas reversed.

[[email protected]]

Pencils up the nose and underpants on the head as well sir?

[SARREMF]

Crabb

Just to set the record straight. Got the T-shirt I am afraid, so your analysis is way off. I am ex military SAR. I am a QHI. I have spoken to you on many occasions using your really name face-to-face!

I have seen the other side and its not as bad as you think or make out. We ALL recognise that enduring training programmes have to be put in place for the future to grow people into Captains. We ALL recognise that there is a shortage. We ALL recognise that the new system will be different because it has to be because change is coming. We are ALL trying to put the best system in place to take over which includes the military so that BEST practice from both sides endures.

For the record,

I agree with your comments about NVG.

I also agree that how I phrased the point I was making about experience and less training sounded like Bo&**lcks.

But what about if I cut your training in half? You state that IF and Night are the perishable - I fully agree with you - so what about if you only train at night? If you can do every thing at night then the day will be easier? Over simplistic but think about it! Perhaps that is what harmonisation brings, difference? Different approaches and change!

SAROWL

I understand your point about the lack of money but I would hope that a harmonised service means exactly that and it will not matter what uniform your wear.

[[email protected]]

SARREMF - this is the problem with using 'noms de pprune' why didn't you just PM me and tell me:) However I thoroughly agree that best practice is the way forward not cheapest practice.

The problem with just training at night is the Summer - yes you could just train during the day for 4 months of the year but if we go down that route we will end up like the AAC who do their IF at night on Gaz and Lynx to save airframe hours, claiming both IF and night flying. It's a nice idea but you are only actually renewing one skill set not both.

But we could reduce our training bill by doing more at night when the nights are longer, I agree - at the moment we don't have to because the hours are there and we have underflown in the last year because of airframe availability. This surplus of hours wouldn't exist in a civilian contract so while we have have got it we will make the most of it

[HAL9000]

At the risk of repeating myself, I have experience of Acquisition (Procurement in old money) but am in no way a SME when it comes to SAR-H or the current provision of UK SAR.

However, some of the posts on this thread, and my own research in the last few days, leads me to believe that some strange things are going on with respect to SAR-H.

Firstly, there have been some very informed posts recently and there was a brief outbreak of sensible debate. Unfortunately, there seemed to be a distinct change in mood when people started to equate training hours with the different roles and responsibilities of the civilian and military SAR units in the UK. That was what prompted my enquiry as to how to compare the civilians and the military in an objective manner, a reasonable question I thought.

At this point, SARCO comes out of the woodwork and decides that we should all shut up because SAR-H will deliver the best and most professional service and that anybody who disagrees is misguided (I am paraphrasing but you get my drift). The thing is SARCO, your comments have 'vested interest' written all over them. If, as you seem to imply, you are a SAR helo tasker, I would have thought that you would have, at the very least, a small amount of concern about such a radical change to UK SAR. I might be doing you a dis-service, for which I apologise, but you are amazingly confident about a PFI programme when PFIs do not have a marvellous track record for delivery. Hence my suspicion about your motives.

As a final point, I found this on the net from a conference held last year:

14:40 Understanding The Case For Civilmilitary Cooperation

SAR-H case study: Examining the viability of military cooperation in the UK’s Search & Rescue Helicopter Project (SAR-H)
Benefits of PFI for major projects
Harmonisation of capability through civil-military cooperation
Future directions in civil-military collaboration John Astbury CBE
Chief Executive
Maritime and Coastguard Agency, UK

The full details of the conference can be found at:

http://www.iqpc.co.uk/cgi-bin/templates/document.html?topic=228&event=10810&document=78578 (http://www.iqpc.co.uk/cgi-bin/templates/document.html?topic=228&event=10810&document=78578)

Having read this my questions are:

1. What qualifies John Astbury (a civilian with no military experience that I have been able to find) to decide what the military's viability in SAR-H is?

2. Surely, as a civilian, his presentation should have been entitled,
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: 18pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt">SAR-H case study: Examining the viability of civilian cooperation in the UK’s Search & Rescue Helicopter Project (SAR-H) ?
3. Given that the MCA have a representative in the SAR-H IPT, should their Chief Executive be allowed to conduct such an obvious 'land grab' on their behalf given that he will have access to commercially in confidence information?

Thank you all for reading this far. I will post more as I uncover it because this is turning out to be far more interesting than first thought!

HAL

[[email protected]]

HAL - I think said individual is a very political and ambitious person who perhaps looked at the US Coastguard and thought the MCA should have similar powers and capability. To be fair, there are not many countries around the world where the military provide what is essentially civilian SAR since about 98% of our jobs are rescuing civilians. There are even fewer where the role is split between 3 different service providers (RAF,RN and MCA).

Although he talked of partnerships at first it soon became apparent that his intention was for MCA to become the sole providers. Quite shrewd really since he involved the military (SAR H) in constructing the argument to (possibly) bring about the loss of military SAR.

As for informed debate - that's what happens when you use facts instead of rumour and hearsay.:)

[HAL9000]

Well, well, well, look what I have found. Follow this link http://www.aerosociety.com/conference/PDFs/553.pdf (http://www.aerosociety.com/conference/PDFs/553.pdf)

if you want to know about the future of Public Service Helicopters. Here is an extract from the first day's programme:


The Future for
Public Service Helicopters:
2007 TO 2016
Tuesday 26th - Wednesday 27th June 2007
No.4 Hamilton Place, London W1J 7BQ, UK

Day One: Tuesday 26th June 2007

09.40 Keynote Address:

Today and Tomorrow - Helicopters in Civil Resilience

John Astbury CBE, Recently Retired Chief Executive, Maritime & Coastguard Agency

SESSION 1: SEARCH AND RESCUE

10.10 The Way Forward for UK SAR

Peter Dymond, Chief Coastguard, Maritime & Coastguard Agency

11.10 The Introduction of New Technology Helicopters & Equipment to UK Civil Search & Rescue

Capt Steve Duffy, Operations Manager, CHC/Thales Search & Rescue Helicopter Bid Team, CHC

11.40 The UK SAR Force: Managing the operational interface between Military & civil operations

Gp Capt Steve Garden, Station Commander, Royal Air Force St Mawgan

There is our old friend, giving the Keynote Address no less, and there is another senior MCA man telling us what the way forward is going to be. Slightly more concerning is the next speaker up, how convenient that he just happens to want a slice of the SAR-H pie and is rubbing shoulders with those able to influence the SAR-H programme. As a token gesture, the commander of 50% of the UK's total SAR effort gets to talk just before lunch to an audience that will already have been given the hard sell.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to suggest for a moment that anything untoward is going on here.

It just gets even more interesting.

Regards,

HAL

[tucumseh]

Good post HAL. I admit unease over a serving officer speaking alongside the Thales bid team, with others bidders not mentioned. It gives the impression that Thales is the preferred bidder. Are they?

Even so, a good commercial officer (in practice the DE&S Commercial Director, a 3*, or one of his staff) would jump on this and demand (as is his right and duty) the good Gp Capt does not attend; in the interests of fair competition.

[Droopystop]

I think you are not reading enough in to the conferences. It strikes me that whatever those at the sharp end think, our illustrious civil service seniors and the politicians have made their decision about the future of SAR. As far as they are concerned, it is not negotiable. What they are doing now is the marketing of the idea - trying to sell it to those at the front line and more importantly to the public. Mr Astbury is the messenger and as such his qualifications (or rather lack of aviation ones) don't matter.

The success or otherwise of Harmonised SAR lies almost entirely with how the contract is set up and more importantly how it is written. It will be very different to the current one. There has been much said about the capability of the future SAR system. To compare the future with the current MCA contracts is folly since the current situation requires Maritime SAR only.

[extpwron]

I trust Gp Capt Sean Reynolds (day two) will remind the audience what the military have brought to the party when the “big ones” happened. (Air India, Lockerbie, East Coast flooding et al)

Also, I think you’ll find that Gp Capt Garden has control over a lot more than 50% of the UK SAR assets.

[HAL9000]

Tucumseh,

I tried to resist biting the bait, honestly, and resist your deliberate misrepresentation :=. What makes it OK for MCA staff to attend but not a military chap? Surely, in the interests of fairness, neither should attend as they are both linked to SAR-H :oh:.

Droopystop has made a very good point. Perhaps this is the start of a very early sales pitch. If so, lets hope the contract is extremely well written.

HAL

PS Aren't smilies great :D!

[PARAFFIN PARROTT]

From a personal interest point of view (forgive me if this moves the thread in a temporarily different direction), if there is a 'black hole' of crews to man the Civil SAR set up, is it a possiblilty that CHC will take on Ab-Initio crews, particularly Rear crew as a stop gap?

[HAL9000]

Gents,

Found this:

http://www.iqpc.co.uk/binary-data/IQPC_CONFEVENT/pdf_file/8430.pdf (http://www.iqpc.co.uk/binary-data/IQPC_CONFEVENT/pdf_file/8430.pdf)

(NB. This conference took place in Nov 2005 ) Mr Peter Dymond took it upon himself to talk about the 'Development of UK SAR Capability'.

Given my experience of Acquisition (Procurement) I really am not happy with what I am uncovering with regard to SAR-H. I have seen the military screw*d over far too many times by sm*rt ars* civilian operators, and I speak as head of a civilian company, to let this rest. As I am sure that EU competition rules have been broken I have written to my MP and MEP. For those of you that are interested, you might wish to note the following:

The task of tracking down and punishing those in breach of competition law has been entrusted to the European Commission, which receives its powers under Article 85 EC. These grant extensive investigative powers including the notorious power to carry out dawn raids on the premises of suspected undertakings and private homes and vehicles. Any undertaking found in breach of Article 81 or 82 EC, may receive a fine pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62 and Article 65(5) EC. These fines are not fixed and can extend into millions of Euros, up to a maximum of 10% of turnover.

I will let you know as, and when, I get a response.

Hal

[leopold bloom]

While I appreciate your concerns about the Military being screwed over, I think you are drifting off the point. The advantage of SAR run by commercial operators is that it's cheaper. If, and this is what agitates Crab, Civ SAR (for want of a better phrase) can provide the same capability as Mil SAR then surely it is better for the tax payer and general public? From my own experience I have no doubt that Civ SAR can provide an equally good, and in many areas a much better (modern reliable equipment, stable workforce, effective management, lack of Service distractions etc), service at a lower cost. But, in the final analysis, it will come down to cost and that is what will attract the attention of the politicians.;)

[[email protected]]

Leopold - I have to say that if the SAR H contract ended up providing a service as good as your Hong Kong one, then I would have nothing to moan about. However, as we keep coming back to, the contract must be extremely well written and the eventual contractor must have the ethos to provide the best service for the money rather than one that just ticks the boxes of the contract requirements.

HAL - I'm not sure why you are unhappy with the SAR H process - CHC are about to take over as service provider for the CivSAR flights as they were awarded the interim contract so why shouldn't they attend and present at seminars alonside the MCA and military? The competition for the full 2012 contract is still open but to suggest that all or none of the bidders should be allowed to present at seminars is pointless. The decision on the contract will be made by reference to the supplied bids, not a few presentations at seminars.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Miracles of miracles, I totally agree with your last post.
Droopy.
Mr. Astbury's lack of aviation experience is incidental. He had the vast SAR experience and knowledge of Carl Taylor advising him.

[[email protected]]

3D - blimey:)

[BananaBoy]

I thought the aim of this privatization exercise was to give the same excellent standard of service that is currently provided by the RAF/RN/MCA but at a much reduced price through the excellent PFI initiatives (Ignoring of course the NHS ones that are now coming home to roost....)?
As a tax payer I am all for saving public money, but wonder exactly how this will be achieved? Firstly, to retain the overall SAR cover, there needs to be a similar basing set up and similar aircraft/crew numbers to provide the coverage, although Limpopo doubts this:
That is assuming, of course, that there hasn't been a review of where the SAR units are located by then and the units cut or amalgamated. Not saying there will be, but it's been done before and who says it wont happen again to help reduce the costs for the MCA?
That seems to go rather against the grain of retaining this excellent (if patchwork) capability that we currently have. And then there is the issue of cheaper. Has there been a study into how much cheaper this will be with civilian rather than military crews, or have we simply assumed that civvies are always cheaper? Again, Limpopo offers an intruiging insight:
Starting salaries would currently be in the region of (dependent on experience and need for direct entry captains):
Capt: £69-73k (+ allowances)
Co-pilots: £51-54k (+ allowances)
These are at the lower bands of the pay scales I might add as I would think it very unlikely to come straight in at anything above about Year 5 for each scale.
Now I imagine that most military SAR crews would love to be earning those salaries, but it rather tips the cost-effectiveness argument on its head! Certainly, whoever wins the contract should have no problem recruiting military aircrew for that sort of money.
So this leaves me wondering if it really will it be a cheaper and better service as promised. Or will it turn out to be a much reduced service and therefore just cheaper?

[leopold bloom]

If people are going to start agreeing with Crab and he is going to hand out compliments then I'm off to another thread. :ok:

[[email protected]]

Banana-Boy, some might say the overall aim of the privatisation was to hand over all SAR assets to the MCA as part of an empire-building exercise. On the other hand there are those that think it is the only way to get modern aircraft onto the SAR front-line since the MoD has used all its beans up on very useful:ugh:Typhoons.

Once the military engineering is contractorised by the end of next year it will be easier to see the relative cost differences between mil and civ.
I do like the sound of £73k plus allowances though;) (but that's about half of what Leopold is on and he's not even a driver!!)

[HAL9000]

Crab,

My unease with the SAR-H process is that it should aim to be as objective as possible. The MCA has an obvious goal to assume responsibility for the entire UK SAR service and they have at least one person embedded within SAR-H IPT. This must be a conflict of interest. There are many forms that future UK SAR could take; from all military to all civilian. At which end of that spectrum do you think the MCA member of the IPT would want the answer to be?

The SAR-H IPT should be totally independent of either military or civilian vested interest and only invite RAF/RN/MCA involvement on an ad hoc basis when they require service specific information. That is the only way you ever stand a chance of arriving at the best answer.

On another subject, you should be able to tell us the capitation rates of RAF/RN aircrew. It would then be very easy to do a quick sum, based on 25 year service provision, and see what the cost differential is. I might do a quick search and work it out for myself.

HAL

PS Still no answer from my democratically elected representatives - what do they do all day?

[Droopystop]

You have to be very careful about using wage levels to compare costs. Ontop of wages you have to add pension provisions, medical benefits, accommodation allowances, meals, travel, etc etc. I have no idea what those costs might be for the RAF/RN personnel although it is not hard to imagine that the cost to the MOD of providing pensions is somewhat greater than that for the private sector. I think the real cost savings will be made in aircraft provision and maintainance, base services, efficiency and supply chain to name but a few. Another important point is that of "commercial risk". With harmonisation the risks of purchase (aircraft) and maintainance lies with the contractor, not the government. That would a great relief given the debacles the MOD have had with buying Chinooks, Typhoons, Merlins, Apaches, not to mention various warships. You could argue that it would be therefore worrying that a private contractor takes the risk, but one thing that will appear in the contract will be heafty damages if serviceability and availability are not maintained. The companies that are bidding for the SAR-H are all companies who over the years have got very good at making aircraft available and keeping them serviceable - its been said they cheat. They don't need to, they know it costs too much to have a machine down so have developed systems that means the aircraft stay properly servicable.

[[email protected]]

HAL - as I understand the process, the MCA didn't have the aviation expertees to simply invite tenders from industry to provide the service; they couldn't ask any civilian companies for impartial advice as this would unlikely to be available as any company with the knowledge and expertees would inevitably be a future bidder. Instead they turned to the Military and asked for some assessment of potential platforms, capability etc and from this SAR H was born.

For a while it was very blue sky thinking (as much as you can get in the military) with pretty much any option (helicopter, balloon, fast ship etc) open to a feasibility study to see if it could become the future SAR platform.

Eventually common sense and reality kicked in and it became a competiton initially to provide the interim contract and now the full 2012 contract using (surprise, surprise) helicopters based in the same places as they always have been (unless there is a last minute surprise for all of us).

The MCA have to be an integral part of the process because they will control part or all of the final structure ( unless there is a radical move to make it all military:)). Despite the empire building aspirations of the previous Chief Exec, I think the MCA will accept whatever the outcome is of the process.

On the pay question, the problem with trying to tie down military pay rates is that the job can be done by a first tourist Fg Off on £40k or a PA Sqn Ldr on £65k - both can be SAR captains or co-pilots whereas your civilian Captain and FO rates will be more rigid I suspect.

[SARowl]

Crab,
I apologise in advance for my pedantry, but don't you mean expertise not expertees?

[Mr Point]

Mr. Astbury's lack of aviation experience is incidental. He had the vast SAR experience and knowledge of Carl Taylor advising him.

Oh really. Exactly how long did he spend in the MRCC Operation Room before moving on to managerial roles? His intention regarding UK SAR Helicopters plc have been apparent for years.

Could the MCA take over the control and coordination of SAR-H and be effective? Not a chance. Single helicopter overwater and coastal taskings, yes. Search management for maritime incidents - hell yes, but as a future management agency for the UK SAR-H Force, I don't think so.

Any honest MCA staff would agree.

[[email protected]]

SARowl - yes, and I spelt competition wrong and used 'as' too many times in the same sentence:)

I could be really sneaky and edit the post then no-one would understand yours.... but then you'd just remove that post and everyone would continue to think I can spill properlay;)

[WasNaeMe]

VT Group is drawing up plans to monitor Britain's coastline with unmanned aircraft equipped with high-power lenses. VT has teamed up with Lockheed Martin to bid for a contract to create a UK search and rescue service. Unmanned patrols would patrol the skies over coastlines, looking for boats or swimmers in trouble. At present, search and rescue around Britain is a joint MoD and Maritime and Coastguard Agency responsibility, but vessels from the Royal Navy and RAF are also used. This system is to be streamlined with the introduction of new private services. Other bidders include Thales, AgustaWestland and Bristows/Serco.

[[email protected]]

And so much cheaper than lifeguards, coastguard lookouts, lifeboats and helicopters - I'm just not sure how many people you can actually rescue with an RPV;) But the bean counters will love it.

[3D CAM]

Mr. Point.
Sorry, the point of my reference to C.T. was lost on you!!
Also the M.C.A. will not be managing SAR-H. That will be down to the winning bidder, whoever that may be?
The M.C.A. will be the tasking agency pretty much like now. Unless A.R.C.C. decide otherwise of course, but then that is another story entirely.

[HAL9000]

:D :D
I'm sure everybody on Pprune will join me in congratulating the RAF SAR boys and girls on their magnificent response to the flooding yesterday. I was glued to the Sky News coverage watching those yellow helicopter crews doing their thing. If the residents of Sheffield and others rescued by the RAF yesterday were made aware of SAR-H what, as tax payers, do you think their opinions would be? I was unashamedly pro-military SAR before the recent floods and I do not see anything that makes me want to change that view.

Does anybody know the final tally of numbers rescued and does this represent the largest helicopter evacuation ever undertaken on the mainland UK?

To return to a previous post, I have not had an encouraging response from my MP or MEP. Probably to be expected as they are both Labour.

Yesterday's events underline the value and professionalism of the service that the government is, unnecessarily, putting at risk.

Well done again the RAF.

[WhiteOvies]

HAL - Believe the biggest evac is still Boscastle 04 but am happy to be corrected. Once again the importance of SAR is shown to the general public. Shame the people who make decisions in their name don't recognise it. I'm sure we wouldn't be privatising SAR if we could afford to keep it military.:*

[cyclic gal]

With the greatest of respect to the boys and girls in the yellow helicopters yesterday, this has got to be the worst "reason" I've heard for retaining Mil SAR. Do you not think that if Navy or Coastguard Helicopters had arrived on scene in Sheffield that they would have done the same magnificent job?

[timex]

With the greatest of respect to the boys and girls in the yellow helicopters yesterday, this has got to be the worst "reason" I've heard for retaining Mil SAR. Do you not think that if Navy or Coastguard Helicopters had arrived on scene in Sheffield that they would have done the same magnificent job?
Don't forget that one of the Military's other roles is Aid to the Civil Community. This job Just like Bocastle was one such occasion, would the same number of Civil SAR be available?


Shaun

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Sorry if this seems an idiot type question but who in the MCA would task (and fund?) a Private SAR element to respond to deep land-locked incidents? Am I alone in foreseeing "rice bowl" arguments?

[cyclic gal]

My point was that a single SAR job was a poor argument for retaining Mil SAR. I'm actually all for it. However, surely whichever organisation eventually becomes responsible for UKSAR, even the MCA, they will have to cover inland areas as well. They already carry out a significant number of jobs "inland", 60 yards or 60 miles inland, does it make much difference?

[SARCO]

HAL9000 I am sorry but I miss the whole point of your reference to YELLOW SAR helicopters, what has that got to do with the price of anything. Could the Navy not do the same job, could HMCG not do the same job like they did in Boscastle? It is only by pure chance that their were three YELLOW helicopters available yesterday, what if there had not been? Would you have been shamed and embarrassed if a grey and red one turned up?? Incidentally one of your prized YELLOW helicopters went u/s and had to be replaced, luckily for you with another YELLOW one.

Would it help when SAR-H is agreed and decided if we paint all the cab's YELLOW. Would it...really?

[BEagle]

I imagine that's 'yellow' as in 'not green' - i.e. dedicated SAR rather than SH?

Yellow, grey-and-red, midnight blue or sky blue pink, dedicated military-operated SAR has always been an essential military asset - and should continue to be.

[HAL9000]

:=

SARCO,

Please do not put words into my mouth. Read my previous posts carefully and you won't find anything derogatory about any of the UK's SAR helo units. The people at the coal face are magnificent, civilian and military. What's more, they have demonstrated the ability to rise above petty politics and work extremely well together when the public need them.

My beef is with the procurement process and the vested interest of those who, in my opinion, are too close to the decision makers. I also feel that the efforts of RN/RAF SAR is not recognised by the MCA hierarchy in order to facilitate their own ends.

HAL

[SARCO]

Those were your words my friend and your's alone.

You are quite right you are entitled to your own opinions and I respect that.

If you are a member of the SAR community then you will appreciate that we are all here to do a job to the utmost of our abilities regardless of what role or form that takes.

If you are not a member of the SAR community then I fail to see why you think it is so important to have such a biased viewpoint. PFI such as the SAR-H programme is here to stay. Live with it.

One other thing := means nothing to me, I am not a child.

[Mr Point]

3D Cam: The M.C.A. will be the tasking agency pretty much like now

No 3D CAM - YOU missed the point! I am perfectly well aware that the MCA is not coordinating the SAR-H project. My concern is the fact that that the MCA may end up coordinating the UK's SAR helicopters.

This is NOT... pretty much like now....because, as has already been said, with the exception of the Stornoway flight, the MCA helicopters very rarely travel more than 20 miles inland. This is by no means a slur on the S61 crews, who are very capable operators, but a reluctance to task them to anything away from the sea.

The MCA does not have the experience, nor expertise, to take on the role that is currently carried out by the ARCC.

[SARREMF]

I have resisted commenting for a time but....
SAR-H is a service provision PFI for the entire UK. Not just out to sea but for the entire UK.
The replacement service will be "no less capable than the current service" thats a requirement not a request.
Neither the SAR-H IPT, the CG or military will task assets(ok not strictly true when you read the next bit). That still falls to the ARCC as this element is OUTSIDE the scope of the project. SO.....
calm down!
As for Sheffield, well done all. Yellow, grey red and white all could do it, all have done it all will do it in the future. The H in SAR H is harmonised i.e. all capable of completing any rescue. Not 60 yds or 60 miles inshore but anytime anyplace anywhere - actually thats quite catchy for the new service. Lets call it ... well for those old enough you know what I mean. For those that dont , go to bed its way past your bed time!
And one other thing. There is military in SAR-H, just less than currently is in the SAR service. So get off your soap boxes.
As for having a go at the MCA rep in the SAR-H IPT, why, the chap has a job to do and is doing it. I notice none of you mentioned the 2 uniformed military chaps or the fact that the IPT civil staff are part of the MOD civil service [if there is such a thing]. Stop looking for conspiracies! You need to look behind you more first!
Now can we all calm down and get back to the serious job of getting Crabb to bite again.
So, the new paint scheme, what colour. Takes step back, takes cover and retreats to corner.
Mind you Crabb will be at the SAR conference I bet.

[extpwron]

Slow news day in Cornwall?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7062143.stm

[Fay Deck]

SARREMF,

The H in SAR H stands for Helicopter not Harmonised. If you read HAL 9000's post, he/she does state that there should be no embedded MCA or military personnel within the SAR H IPT in order to ensure objectivity.

Good to see Mike Trace, one of the nicest chaps ever to serve in the light blue, pointing out the deficiencies in the SAR H requirement.

Must dash as I definitely need to get out more.

Fay.

[jonnyloove]

Has there been any mention about what type off aircraft they are intrested in going for??? EH-101 ??:}

[viking25]

7 SAR helicopters attended the Boscastle incident. Slow news day in Cornwall, but not in Scotland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/default.stm

[[email protected]]

Jonnyloove - there will inevitably be a mix of aircraft - I think most bidders will have 2 types in their fleet, one for long range/big lift and another for short range/coastal work. The Interim CG contract is using S92 and AB139 but there are all sorts of other combinations that may be offered, including 101s.

As for impartiality in SAR H, you would have to start the whole process over again and achieve nothing by doing it. Whatever the best theoretical solution is, the actual result will be driven by politics.

SARREMF - yes I was there and yes, my head did hurt the next day :)

[MaroonMan4]

Crab,

You seem to be the man in the know and also one of the more passionate posters on this thread. Unashamedly fishing for a potential second career, but how does a non-SARTU (but experienced ex-military operator) get his foot in the door with the civilianisation of SAR.

Will it be a simple case of one day people in one uniform and the next day, all civvie - or will there be a shortage of SAR pilots and those outside of the current SAR aircrew pool will be open to apply for SAR positions/and SAR training.

Any advice/guidance?

[chcoffshore]

Depends on your experience! Give the team a shout a CHC. They have taken on alot of x SAR but not all are! But i'm not sure if they have all they need for now thou.

[[email protected]]

Maroonman4 - whatever happens will be determined by the eventual make-up of UK SAR; if there is less military involvement (very likely at the moment) then the pilots will have to come from somewhere.

However, those of us in the military job at the moment should not delude ourselves that CHC or whoever will come knocking at our doors offering rock-star wages just because we are self-proclaimed SAR gods. The fact is that cockpits can be filled with less experienced and cheaper pilots as long as the job description allows it. Who will write the job description? The CAA, the MCA, the contractor or the Home Office? Who actually knows enough about the role and required skill-set for a SAR pilot?

If there is a shortage of SAR pilots, then either the military will give them up (not willingly I'll wager, we have enough retention problems at the moment) or those who are not SAR experienced will magically become so thanks to waivers/experience in other relevant fields etc.

RAF SAR requires completion of SARTU (at some stage) the SK OCU and then 18 months as a co pilot before becoming a SAR captain - doubtless many will claim this is a gold-plated, over the top requirement but it has worked pretty well for many years.

Is it possible to produce a SAR captain in less time and with less training? Probably, but will the product be as good? Air Ambulance and Police pilots don't get role training, just type training and everything else is completed 'on-the-job' - that is the harsh commercial reality when pennies are being counted and I won't be surprised to see the same attitude prevailing if and when SAR is completely privatised.

I'm guessing you are ex-AAC from your location so you have as much chance as any - apply (if you have your licence) and see what they will give you.

[leopold bloom]

Depending on the consortium chosen, now down to 3 as Bond/Westlands have withdrawn, the aircraft proposed are: S92 + AW139, EH101 + AW139, EC225 + AW139. Whoever gets the contract it will at least mean modern reliable helicopters, that's got to be a good thing. As for crew training, it certainly wont be the gold plated but arguably wasteful Service standard but the bidders aren't stupid or incompetent and they have been providing a good service for quite a few years (Bristows, CHC), so they are not likely to employ incompetents.

[extpwron]

Privatised SAR based at St Mawgan maybe?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7062908.stm

[[email protected]]

Leopold - but they don't have experience of NVG ops, especially overland and it is this area where lack of knowledge or experience from regulators and operators could prove problematic.

[leopold bloom]

There is no "They" yet, when there is "they" will probably consist of quite a few ex-mil sarboys/SH etc who will have the requisite experience. Besides we all started with zero NVG experience and managed not to kill ourselves. If a commercial company needs a particular skill-set they will simply buy it in. The companies in the running for SARH have quite a few ex-mil personnel on their books and they are very aware of all of the problems and concerns.

[SLATHE]

Looks like St Mawgan is out given the current move to an all new facility at Valley! Anyone else heard about the SK 3 simulator instructor jobs being privatised? If so any details?

[Fay Deck]

Leopold,

Would those ex-mil SAR boys now championing the ability of civvy SAR contractors be the same ones who were the most vociferous in their denunciation of civilian SAR in their previous lives?
I wonder what has happened to change their minds so completely?
If only their views when in the military could have been recorded for posterity. It would be great to see them having to explain their about turn.

Fay

[leopold bloom]

I love easy questions - the answer is money, lots of it. Next quesion please?:)

[Sven Sixtoo]

Hi Leopold

Just confirm that Westlands are out as SAR-H bidders? That's fairly major news.

I heard a rumour today that the IPT have downselected to 2 bidders - anybody know if this is true?

Sven

[leopold bloom]

No, proposals go in end of December, final 2 bidders announced about April time.

[MaroonMan4]

Crab,
Me - ex-AAC - how very dare you :)
I know my location might lead you to that conclusion - but no I am not!
But back to your advice - and I am due out very shortly, licence in the bag with twin SH experience, and few other qualifications (hence my interest)...
So you reckon it is as simple as send my CV to CHC HR department through the links/contacts on their web site?

Thanks - sorry to be so dim but after spending 20+ years in the military this whole CV malarky is new to me and I would really like the option to explore a SAR career.

What is the outsiders best guess for a live 'switch on' of the civvie SAR capability or like most projects with IPTs this is a moveable feast that may slip.

If am coming across as dull then apologies, I am!

[SARREMF]

FayDeck,

Whoops! Just re-read the front cover of the SRD! So much for studying that then! Still it was supposed to be Harmonised! My point stands just the way I got there!

Down to 3 bidders now.

[[email protected]]

Maroonman4 - sorry re AAC but I get all my best exercise from jumping to conclusions:) However re CV, yes I think it is that simple (I haven't done it myself so I can't say for sure). I think I would ring them up first and check exactly who you should send it to since CHC is a big outfit with heli ops all round the world and you want to be part of a relatively small section of that outfit.

I think there is a big pile of Mil or ex mil CVs in not only their intray but others, just waiting to see what happens. Good Luck.

[Winch-control]

Oh dear, how does the real world survive. SAR experience? So as a new boy on the block, just out of SKOCU as rear crew, who helps out when the phone goes ring on my first job at my first unit? Everyone starts somewhere, and those first few jobs are pretty scarey, but you get on with them and learn from experience. No different to most jobs really! Your argument is totally invalid. Apply the theory and build the experience, same as anywhere....

[[email protected]]

winchcontrol - it only works because you have had sufficient training to allow you to be let loose on your own. Imagine not having had the benefit of SARTU, the SKOCU and Sqn acceptance to prepare you - I think that is where Vie-s-f is coming from.

[detgnome]

Does anyone have any more info on AW dropping out? A quick search has drawn a complete blank.

[MaroonMan4]

Jack Ryan,
If that is how you feel you obviously miss the whole point of Prune - this is a 'crewroom' and I can honestly say that I have learned a lot from my Fast Jet and AT bretheren on their threads by purely 'lurking'.

And on this particular thread, being a non-SAR boy/girl then the open and free discussion is very interesting - including the coffee/bar style banter disagreements. Especially if I am looking for a second career in that direction.

If we didn't have the full open discussions that take place on Prune, serious through to the banter (and even the ridiculous on occasions) then (a) we might as well not have any discussion and ready the official documentation/publications (b) how dull it would be.

I freely admit I need a life on a Saturday night and am now departing, but please lighten up Jack - no damage is being caused to potential contracts and no secrets being passed on.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Crab - correct.
Winch control - catch up!
:ugh:

[6Z3]

[Imagine not having had the benefit of SARTU, the SKOCU and Sqn acceptance to prepare you
What, you mean like wot we do in the RN SAR units?

[3D CAM]

6Z3.
Brilliant!!! Words out of mouth and all that stuff!

[Winch-control]

Sorry, JackRyan, obviously my brain is gone from working in OZ! for the last 6 months.. so I'm not just next door, but about 8000 miles away!However I do have an affinity with the argument and regardless, given the number of winchman that pass out of SARTU per year, whilst the training is excellent, It is still scarey day one on your own, first cas..!!!

[No Vote Joe]

Winch control, my dear chap, didn't know this was you!! How are things "Down Under"? Bought a Post Office yet to keep you occupied?! :ok:

[JackRyan]

MaroonMan, I think you missed my point. Both Winch Control and Crab have locations which suggested (wrongly on Winch Control's part) they both work at the RAF's elite top secret SAR base between Barnstaple and Braunton. Being at the same physical location would afford the lucky couple the opportunity to bypass what some might term 'the middle man' and have a face-to-face chat since they seemed to share the same crewroom. I was not implying that any of this shouldn't be discussed here...

[extpwron]

The case for replacing the Sea King?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7082053.stm

[[email protected]]

Paul Coleman is a fine chap and has told it like it is.

Would the RAF spokesman like to tell us why there are no oleos in the spares system, why we are changing Main gearboxes like it is going out of fashion and why it is going to get worse as the groundcrew are civilianised and replaced with inexperienced technicians. Some of the guys going to the FI, finish their Sea King course (provided by the RAF) 2 days before they fly down South!

DARA can't cope with the depth servicing so HMF is going to be re-invented at Leconfield and Westland are too preoccupied with sorting their presidential 101 fiasco out to keep their eye on the UK ball.

The fact is that we won't fly unserviceable aircraft so availability, or lack of it, will eventually force a solution. SAR H in 2010 anyone?

[extpwron]

The spokesman was no less than the SAR Force Commander – just seen an excerpt from tonight’s programme on BBC News 24.

So who do you believe?

[SARCO]

Not him thats for sure!! :cool:

Only last week Lossie, Boulmer both off along with Prestwick....leaves us a touch exposed wouldn't you say.

Tell it like it is Crab, 100% correct! :D

[extpwron]

For those that are interested:

Inside Out, BBC One Yorkshire, Wednesday at 1930 GMT.

Sky Channel 976

[leopold bloom]

Good for PC, in my experience the single biggest difference between Mil and Civil SAR is the serviceability of the aircraft. Modern reliable aircraft make the job so much easier. It's just a shame that those at the top are in denial.

[Mr Point]

An RAF spokesman told people not to worry and said the availability from its helicopters was "second to none".

I think this must have been a slip of the tongue. When speaking about the number of available aircraft, he must have meant "seconds [2nd standby crew] have none!"

[Artifical Horizon]

The ancient ac slant is a trifle misleading. The S61s that have been used on civilian SAR contracts for many years are also old. The news reports imply that the RAF SAR Force is failing due to poor serviceability. This may be true but are we comparing their stats to those achieved by their civilian counterparts. How many days do the contractors have ac off state? If their like for like serviceability is higher than the RAF or RN then the argument based on the age of the ac alone falls down.
Does anyone know the stats for the civilian contractors?

[Justintime80]

I did read somewhere that Bristow had a 98.8% serviceability with the S61n in the 23 years they had the Coastguard contract.:D

Makes you wonder why they lost it and who they upset:confused:

[Winch-control]

"You're on your own from day one in the cabin and proper, frontline military SAR experience at a full-time SAR base should be a pre-requisite."
Hmm now there is one opinion!
So the argument is that the training civilian counterparts at bases such as Waterford, (run by ex mil instructors), is not comparable (in terms of standards) to Sartu and Skocu?
Time to let go me thinks and go pick up a druggie in Perth.....

[Mr Point]

If the contract states that the service must be the same then yes, as civilian SAR crews are not trained in NVG ops and have less overland SAR experience. This is due to their tasking, not their ability, but is still a fact.

Even the Stornoway crews have a relatively small number of mountain jobs. You would not consider taking an ab-initio Wattisham crew to Lossiemouth, so the balance of experience must be a factor for consideration for SAR-H.

[chcoffshore]

Chaps,
Take a good look at the SAR H crews, there is some serious experience there, infact it could be new RN squadron. Alot of the guys/girls are very happy to be working for CHC and if mobile phone calls from old mil work buddy's are anything to go by then there are alot of chaps/chicks hoping to gain a civilian SAR job in the next few years.:}Wake up and smell the coffee its going to happen!

[[email protected]]

This is a classic case of a non-story being used to push up viewing figures by eager journalists.

Paul was only echoing the sentiments of many of us who feel frustrated at the thought of losing military SAR to the cheapest bidder.

Many of those who peruse these pages know that Sea King serviceability can be poor - given the number of hours they fly compared to civilian counterparts this is not completely surprising. However, no-one elses serviceability figures come under such close scrutiny as ours - partly our own fault maybe for being too honest!

The bottom line is that we do achieve a very impressive serviceability level despite the fact that it is an old aircraft and we continue to serve the British public in the same professional way we always have.

Yes it would be nice to have new aircraft, but you can blame the Govt for using up all the money on bigger and better toys and playing world domination.

[AonP]

Inside Out reports on air sea rescue on BBC One, 1930GMT, Wed 7 Nov (NE/Cumbria and Yorks/Lincs regions only), D-Sat channels 975/977 or at the Inside Out website below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/content/articles/2007/11/05/yorkslincs_seaking_s12_w8_feature.shtml

[VitaminGee]

reveal that in the first nine months of 2007 the RAF base at Leconfield in East Yorkshire did not have a serviceable helicopter available for 300 hours.


9 months = 6600 hours (approx).
300 hours = 4.5%
Availability = 95.5%

Not perfect, but not wrist slashingly awful either, is it?

But they are flying aircraft designed to last 10,000 hours in the air

SK's were not 'designed' to an hours based life. I hear that AW reckon the airframes are good for 20K+. :eek: ;)

[[email protected]]

10,000 hours is a standard military life for an aircraft, it is less than you would expect from an equivalent civilian aircraft because of the battering that we tend to give them completing military ops.

However, I think as long as the Design Authority are happy then this life can be extended indefinitely - no doubt at some ridiculous cost.

[leopold bloom]

because of the battering that we tend to give them
GH or night drums Crab? Stop battering the poor old Sea King:ugh:

[SARoperator]

The SAR force is dead in its military form. It commited suicide many years ago when it decided it was far too pretty to go to war. The civvies have been queing up ever since.

Lets not talk about saving it: there's little point.

The reality of SAR is that most operaters are virtually civvies anyway. They work civvi (its a job not a lifestyle),think civi (whine about going to the oh so dangerous falkland islands) and mostly even dress bloody civvi (bright red jackets; rank tabs and head dress optional).

The only thing left to make civvi is the paperwork. Save those who still have a sense of miltary purpose and employ them effecively in a deployable role i say. Scrap the rest.

If you dont relish the prospect of visiting a battlefield in the near future hang up your helmet and sign a different contract.

There's plenty of skill in this line of work but virtually no sense of service.

[chcoffshore]

Ahhhhh the truth at last:ok::ok:

[[email protected]]

Ah SARoperator - another one who just doesn't understand that SAR and combatSAR are 2 completely different disciplines:ugh:

There are plenty of us with more than enough military ethos in the SAR world - some with numbers of medals that would make your eyelashes curl.

I know of several SAR boys facing OOA dets with more to come - none will shirk it.

The reality is that we operate mainly in a civilian environment and as such have to try to fit in or they won't understand what we do.

If you don't understand why the rearcrew wear bright red kit in the hills then I can't be a8sed to explain it to you.

Sense of service is a generational thing - the youth of today joing HM forces are not motivated by the same things as I was and in 20 years it will be different again - it's not only the SAR world that has this problem, look around you.

[Mr Point]

And there was me thinking SAROperator was another bitter SARTU failure!

[SARoperator]

I'm quite aware of the spectrum on which UK SAR rests but you hit the nail on the head with the comment about the civilian environment. Clearly deployed sar (and above) cannot be done with the current frames, with the current training and role but my point is that their is no appetite for it.

People will not shirk OOA watchkeeping because they can't (clearly).

However if you take the average sar guy out of their little civvi corner and put them into a more military environment, they really show how out of touch with the modern airforce their discipline is. (notwithstanding a few ex SH ledges around the place).

Red jackets for operating - fine. Around camp - wrong. FACT.

[Mr Point]

Red jackets for operating - fine. Around camp - wrong. FACT.

SARoperator, at last something we can agree on.

[SARREMF]

SAR Operator,

You must get lots of exercise making those sweeping generalisations!

Put a SAR guy into SH and he flounders. Interesting comment. Thinks of SAR to SH transfers........ without naming anybody...... Tries to think of those who floundered .... nope cant think of any floundering over the last 15 years..... Oh perhaps those would be the few SH ledges you mention - i.e. the SAR chaps who transfer across and do well?

Ah, are we close to the truth here? Are you a wanna be? Or are you on Sh flying with an ex SAR chap who you just don't get on with? So perhaps you tar all with one persons mistakes?

Something doesn't add up about your posts.

However, sadly, there are 2 points that I must agree with you on. Red jackets right and proper for the hills, wrong for SHQ. And yep, they did commit suicide 10 years ago.

[onevan]

Presently - 12 bases so 12 duty a/c.
Future - ? bases and locations but still 12 duty a/c to cover same areas in same time constraints.
66 military personnel to be provided to sucessful bidder ie 16 crews so that SAR expertise does not degrade in frontline ops.
It is up to the bidder how he deploys those military personnel around the UK and how he uses the crews ie mil crews / civvi crews or mixed.
Where those mil guys come from and at what stage of their career is up to the mil, after all they are still paying for the service.
Now go argue some more:E:E
(ex mil SAR/ QHI/ NVGI/ now enjoying the greener grass)::cool:

[Artifical Horizon]

There is much on this thread about the SAR Force committing suicide and not being suitable for war and some questioning of the personal ethos of those involved. While I would take the point of view that the SAR F is not a part of the warfighting RAF I would not do down those who serve in the SARF because of it. The people in the SARF fulfil the role and mission which they are ordered to fulfil. The government has chosen to operate a SAR organisation in this way, not the boys and girls in the yellow helicopters. They have done and still do a great job. To denegrate their professionalism or commitment on the grounds that they have somehow dodged a duty is crass and unrealistic. As are the claims that SAR people cannot transfer to SH and be a success. There have been plenty ex SAR guys who have gone succesfully into SH and vice versa.

[drugsdontwork]

SARboys in SH struggle??? You check your facts mate. Two of my good mates have gone across to SH and shone. An SH mate has just left SAR after a year, and if you care about checking the truth you may find that the workload and skillset required is significantly greater than you realise.

I for one dont relish stopping my primary role to sit behind a watchkeeping desk, and I would expect anyone else to feel the same. Never mind the dubious politics involved in such watchkeeping, there is nothing dubious in taking people off hills with serious injuries and it gives a satisfaction that watchkeeping never will.

Listen the people who have done both, they are the ones who know. I, and you, have not, so dont be an arrogant s**t and assume you know it all. You make yourself look bitter and/or stupid.

[SARREMF]

Drugsdontwork.

Well said that man!

[Winch-control]

Watch keeping desk????? err having done both, which seems to be a requirement for you, I think you miss a huge amount. Both sides play important roles. Both have a purpose. Neither is better than the other, simply the skill set is different. Too hard to accept by some, but having done 10 years SF and 7 years SAR, believe me I do have an opinion, and yes I am ex service, come third man with me anytime in Perth and you will start to understand just how good in the Sar world we are in certain areas!
Rant off....

[doris day]

Yes but how is your post office ?

[[email protected]]

Well done Doris - the post office remark helped the penny drop on who winch control is:)

[Rico1903]

Do the RN take ab-intio pilots out of training and stream them SAR or is it normal practice to expect them to do a tour elsewhere?

If a pilot was SAR and it then went private would you be able to be re-deployed elsewhere in the RN or do you get privatised as well?

Currently applying to the RN and SAR is where I would prefer to go- but not if it means having to enter civi street again after a few years out of training!

[[email protected]]

Rico - generally the RN see SAR as a rest tour from the frontline-I don't know if they put first tourists there or not.

There is supposed to be some military presence left in SAR post SAR H but the numbers and concept of ops just don't work.

[vecvechookattack]

Rico - If you particularly want to be a SAR god then don't join the RN.... (except to learn to fly Helicopters). There are just 2 SAR units in the RN (although ALL RN aircrew are trainined in basic SAR procedures).

[Sven Sixtoo]

And if you want to be a SAR God don't join the RAF either.
We do a job, as well as we can within the resources we are given. Persons with god delusions are not appreciated (especially by those down back if the "gods" are up front)
Sven


PS
To be fair it was VVHA who came up with SAR Gods, not you. If you want a deeply demanding and satisfying career in flying, welcome. Just don't expect it to last forever or for the RAF to take much notice of your preference.

Sven

[Razor61]

AgustaWestland Awarded €660 Million (£470 Million) - SKIOS Phase II Contract
Friday, November 30th, 2007

AgustaWestland is pleased to announce that Phase II of the Sea King
Integrated Operational Support (SKIOS) contract has now been launched
following the signing of the contract by AgustaWestland and the UK Ministry
of Defence on 29th November 2007. SKIOS Phase II introduces payment by the
flying hour arrangements, emulating the successful IMOS contract for the UK
MoD’s fleet of Merlin helicopters signed in early 2006. SKIOS Phase II also
includes an aircraft availability output responsibility for UK military SAR
aircraft that provide around the clock SAR cover for the UK and Falkland
Islands. The value of the contract for the first five years is € 660 million
(£470 million), with the potential of rising to €1.12 Billion (£800 Million)
over 10 years. The contract is expected to run for the remaining service
life of the Sea King fleet.

Under the contract the UK MoD will transfer responsibility to AgustaWestland
for Sea King Depth Maintenance located at DARA Fleetlands and the Second
Line Workshops activities located at RNAS Yeovilton. AgustaWestland will
also be responsible for providing 1st Line Maintenance Services for the SAR
Sea Kings at eight bases comprising Wattisham Airfield, RAF Lossiemouth, DST
Leconfield, RMB Chivenor, RAF Boulmer, RAF Valley, HMS Gannet and Mount
Pleasant Airfield, Falkland Islands. Transfer of responsibility for the
above activities will take place over the next six months as part of the
SKIOS Phase II transition plan. AgustaWestland will continue to provide
technical and spares support services introduced under Phase I of SKIOS.
Graham Cole, Managing Director – Business at AgustaWestland said “SKIOS
Phase II is another example of Strategic Partnering between AgustaWestland
and the UK Ministry of Defence delivering a contract that will bring
significant benefits to the front line squadrons and at the same time
significant cost savings. The success of the SKIOS Phase I and the IMOS
programme show that AgustaWestland is leading the field in delivering
through life support services to the Ministry of Defence.”
Baroness Taylor, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said “The
contract represents another deliverable of the Helicopter plans set out in
the Defence Industrial Strategy, strengthens the partnered relationship with
industry, and maintains aircraft availability levels but with reduced
through life costs. Overall it provides better value for money for the
taxpayer.”
The UK MoD’s fleet of Sea King helicopters totals almost 100 aircraft
comprising the Royal Air Force’s Mk.3 and Mk.3A SAR aircraft and the Royal
Navy’s Mk.4 and Mk.6CR amphibious support aircraft, Mk.5 SAR aircraft and
Mk.7 Maritime Surveillance and Control aircraft. The SKIOS Phase II contract
will sustain at least 270 jobs at the SAR bases and create 40 new posts with
AgustaWestland throughout the UK. AgustaWestland has also partnered with a
number of key aerospace and defence companies to deliver SKIOS Phase II
including VT Aerospace, Serco, Thales UK and SELEX S&AS.

[Jackonicko]

Two vaguely SAR-H related questions.

1) It was said that:

"This year marks the start of the first phase of its SAR Harmonization project, with CHC Helicopter taking over the Maritime and Coastguard Agency contract for civil services from Bristow Helicopters after 20-plus years. That five-year contract, which CHC is fulfilling with new SAR-configured Sikorsky Aircraft S-92s and AgustaWestland AW139s, was a wake-up call for operators and manufacturers that the United Kingdom is changing the way it does business."

We've heard a great deal about the first two S-92s, but when will the AW139s enter service in the SAR role, and where will they be based?

2) Six bidders went to four, and then to three.

We know that Bond/AgustaWestland dropped out to leave:

Airknight team (Lockheed Martin/VT/British International Helicopters)

CHC/Thales

UK Air Rescue (Bristow/SERCO/FB Heliservices)

who were bidders 5 and 6?

3) Which bid team is offering which helicopter combination?

a) S-92 and AW139
b) AW101 and AW139
c) EC225 and AW139

[Jackonicko]

and what was the aircraft combination offered by Westland?

[3D CAM]

We've heard a great deal about the first two S-92s, but when will the AW139s enter service in the SAR role, and where will they be based?


Lee on Solent from April 1st.ish with 2xAW139s.:hmm:
Portland from June 1st.ish with 1xAW139.:hmm::hmm:

Hopefully someone else knows the answer to your other questions. I did know at one time but those brain cells have long been destroyed, sorry.
Over to you Crab!;) Please be charitable, it is Christmas afterall!:)

[Jackonicko]

Thanks 3D, most helpful.

Sounds as though the 139 is going as planned?

[Hilife]

I heard that Glintek & Evergreen were 5 & 6.

Combinations? Somehow can't see 101 as being a low cost solution and not sure about the others.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks!

Never heard of Glintek.....
:uhoh:

[leopold bloom]

I doubt that the exact combinations proposed by the various consortiums will be revealed on here, Commercial-in-Confidence probably. However, I can say that there are likely to be more aircraft types in the mix than are mentioned in your list.

[Jackonicko]

In Post 112, on 26 October, you, Leopold, said:

"What sort of helicopter?
Depending on the consortium chosen, now down to 3 as Bond/Westlands have withdrawn, the aircraft proposed are: S92 + AW139, EH101 + AW139, EC225 + AW139. Whoever gets the contract it will at least mean modern reliable helicopters, that's got to be a good thing. As for crew training, it certainly wont be the gold plated but arguably wasteful Service standard but the bidders aren't stupid or incompetent and they have been providing a good service for quite a few years (Bristows, CHC), so they are not likely to employ incompetents."

What made you say that, then, and not now?

[leopold bloom]

As Harold Macmillan put it "Events, my dear boy, events":)

[Jackonicko]

Oh come on, stop teasing me and give us all the benefit of your expert analysis.

What's your feeling as to what types are being offered, and by whom?

[leopold bloom]

I'm no expert but I have heard that NH90, EC145 and renovated S61s are in the mix, don't know from which consortiums though.

[Jackonicko]

Holy cow! Now that's a puzzler on at least two out of three counts.

[leopold bloom]

Don't worry, I am sure those clever people at the IPT, with their years of experience in SAR, will pick the right "solution". BTW is Crab on leave or is his computer broken?:ok:

[Jackonicko]

The lack of input on this is surprising. Is the IPT already on Block Leave?

[detgnome]

NH90, as I understand it, is not certified for civillian use and I would think it extremely unlikely that any of the consortia would be able to use it. Just a guess, but delivery times may be too long as well. Would be even more surprised if S61s were being offered - way too old and being phased out of a lot of commercial operations.

[Jackonicko]

And isn't the EC145 a tad small? How many survivors can you get onto a 145?

How far can it go?

[detgnome]

I don't know much about the 145, but I would agree. I believe there is a bigger Eurocopter in the offing, but I imagine that the AW139 is a more logical choice as it is in production and has already been chosen for the MCA interim contract.

[leopold bloom]

NH 90 could go on the military register and the S61 could just be an interim measure?

[detgnome]

Given the lead in time of around 3 years from contract award, I can't see why you would need a legacy ac in the form of the S61 to stopgap. Yes, the NH90 could go on the mil register, but it is still not clear/announced whether the ac are going to be civvy or mil reg. You will have to wait another 18 months or so for that to decision....

[sarboy99]

You won't find anybody from the IPT on here, they have no interest in aviation!:E

[Jackonicko]

Before Xmas, I asked "Two vaguely SAR-H related questions."

The first was answered brilliantly.

The second remains. On the off-chance that some of our missing chums are now back, I'll re-state it.


2) Six SAR-H bidders went to four, and then to three.

We know that Bond/AgustaWestland dropped out to leave:

Airknight team (Lockheed Martin/VT/British International Helicopters)

CHC/Thales

UK Air Rescue (Bristow/SERCO/FB Heliservices)

Were Glintek & Evergreen bidders 5 and 6?

3) Which bid team is offering which helicopter combination?

a) S-92 and AW139
b) AW101 and AW139
c) EC225 and AW139

What were Westland/Bond offering?

Are there more types being offered, as Leo Bloom suggested? What are they?

[detgnome]

There will be those who know what is going to be offered, but I doubt you will get anyone to state on here what their bid is going to be. Of course this is a rumour forum, so you will get plenty of conjecture...

[keepin it in trim]

given that chc are operating S92 and AB139 for MCA, I would guess their bid will be that, commonality and experience of the types. Bristows have a couple of 225s at Abz, and lots of experience operating the L2 in the North Sea environment (and G-Jsar was theirs) so I think they might bid with that as part of their combination. Lockhead are involved with providing the 101 for the US presidential helo so I think they may be offering that, especially given that chc and bristow do not already operate the type.

139 should be a good choice for a shorter range aircraft, the USCG did a study of their rescue stats a couple of years ago and came out with a figure of 3 as the average number of people rescued in a single event. Yes we could have an arguement about what capability you should aim for, but if you accept that a mix of 2 types carries some benefits, and finances are not infinite, then a highly capable, smaller, shorter range aircraft is probably appropriate for some locations. The key is to get the basing mix of long and short range types right. A lot of work was done on this in the past using historical data on rescues, so it should not be beyond the wit of man.

As to the longer range type, the S92 and 225 would possibly be better in the overland role, the 101 is a big beast and while very nice to fly, I am led to believe that like many rigid/semi-rigid heads, it is a hard ride in turbulence. The L2 seems to be doing an effective job for Bond on Jigsaw, so I see no reason for the 225 not to work, also S92 is now online for MCA, so CHC should have a good feel for how that is working now.

My major concern about the 101, and perhaps one of our Canadian cousins could shed some light, is position of the hoist, the door is a LONG way back, the aircraft hovers very nose up, which increases in stronger winds because of the nature of the moveable staiblizer (so I am told), I know this caused some issues when the canadians first took them on, especially as westland mounted the hoist at the rear of the door (allegedly for structural reasons, despite being told by various prospective customers that this was not the best location). Put a very heavy helo with intense downwash over a small boat in a rough sea with the hoist a long way behind the pilot and the front end are not going to see the target at all, (equals no hover references and a high hover). The AHT had better be good, along with the winch ops!

Personally I think a combination of either S92 or 225 with AB139 probably offers the best mix, allowing a sensible mix of range and payload for both longer and shorter range types. Don't know if this helps any of Jacko's questions, but there you go.

I have been out of the SAR world for a few years now, but I greatly enjoyed my time there. I just hope that whatever is chosen works out well for those who will end up operating it, enjoy:)

[leopold bloom]

Winching from the 101 is not a problem, there were some minor issues initially but they were solved - the downwash is a major consideration, but, as when the Sea King replaced the Whirlwind, you learn to cater for it. The AHT is a excellent, flew it in Canada and it was without doubt the best I had ever used, I don't know for sure but I was told that it ran off an IN platform rather than Doppler. Anyone out there know for sure?
I don't think we will get any reliable info on the aircraft mix until the IPT have seen the offerings first.
Haven't any info on the Glintek Evergreen questions but I would have thought that AW/Bond would offer the 101/139 combo?

[Vie sans frontieres]

the downwash is a major consideration, but, as when the Sea King replaced the Whirlwind, you learn to cater for it.

There becomes a point though that the rotorwash (let's avoid using key words, shall we?) becomes too fierce and unmanageable. There's only so much positioning of the rotorwash that can be achieved when it's that strong. If the 101 is chosen, it'll only be a matter of time before someone is blown off the cliff they're clinging to. No doubt it'll be chosen though because it's got a nice cockpit. :ugh:

[Richard G]

I know I am a dinosaur, but prefer full time military SAR crews and machines to civilian contractors. What happens when another conflict errupts - send in the civilian contractors and their machines? Whats going to happen to the military SAR skill set over the years, it will be lost. While we are on it lets get civilians to fly combat missions in the fast movers - privatise the whole lot, we will save lots of money.

[leopold bloom]

Richard you haven't been paying attention:
a.Your preferences don't count - it's all about money.
b. SARBOYS (and girls) don't do wars.
c. 66 military personnel will be involved in SARH.
d. Care to make a bid for fast jet combat missions?
:cool:

[Richard G]

Agreed its all about money.

As for SAR dont do wars:

1. may not have the luxury of choice;
2. rely on the USAF.
3. Care to ride shot gun on an Apache?

[MightyGem]

All is not well, it seems as the UK led contender withdraws:
£2bn search-and-rescue sell-off plan under threat after UK-led contender withdraws its bid | Mail Online (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1080611/2bn-search-rescue-sell-plan-threat-UK-led-contender-withdraws-bid.html)

[Sook]

Must have been a slow news day, this was announced a month ago:

UK Air Rescue Team quits SAR-H Contest - Flight (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/22/316249/uk-air-rescue-team-quits-sar-h-contest.html)

[Tallsar]

There is a long running thread on Rotorheads - SAR-H to go???? - which has included this old fact in its deliberations as well as other matters - well worth a view for those interested I would suggest. (Maybe even HRH will take a view too given he will be part of the UK SAR Team soon!).

Cheers

[Hilife]

UK led contender?

With AW being owned by Finmeccanica and Bristow’s part of Olog (Houston), I sense a touch of spin and sniping on behalf of the outgoing consortia via the Mail on Sunday.

That said I think their proven helicopter and SAR experience made them a worthy candidate for this bid, so a shame to see them go - for whatever reason.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Well a conspiracy theorist would have you believe that the Lehman Brothers collapse, two days before their withdrawal, was a factor. :E