Sea King too old and putting Lives at risk. [Archive]

SARREMF

12th Nov 2007, 21:45

bolkow.

The fleet was added to with the Sea King Mk3a - the main differences to the crew being the avionics [much better apart from a little thing called the force sensing links, however, I believe these were re-worked eventually and they are better now - Crabb??]

Eric Ferret

The SAR-H competition does raise the bar somewhat from what the current Sea King and S61 fleet can offer - strictly speaking from the Sea King/S92 and AW139 comparison as it is this that is used as the bench mark not what we had at the beginning of 2007]. So, its not because they are old - although that has to be a factor as the older they get the more expensive it is to maintain - it is a capability based competition and thus looks to improve on what we have now.

It is open to debate on how to improve on what we have now. As I have said before, there are a lot of people in many of the the consortia who recognise the value that the civil side bring to the party AND the value the military bring to the party. It is finding that balance that they are all trying to do right now to offer solutions to the IPT making the selection.

Q Crabb.

[email protected]

13th Nov 2007, 13:52

Da dadada da daaaaa............it's me - Hurrah:) Apologies to Blackadder.
The phrase 'no lesser capability' is the one that is supposed to ensure that whatever platform is chosen will be at least as good as what it replaces.

Sadly, this now seems open to interpretation and debate so we will end up with a newer helicopter than the SeaKing (not difficult) which will probably have better range, speed and payload; probably better OEI performance as well.

But will it actually have the same or better SAR capability than the 3A (currently the most advanced Sea King in this role)? That will depend on whether or not those making the final decisions actually understand what the current capability is and not what they have heard or what they remember from 10 years ago or what industry tells them we can do.

cyclic

13th Nov 2007, 18:20

Gp Capt Steve Garden, in charge of the RAF's Search and Rescue operations in the UK, said "This year alone we have been busier at Leconfield than we ever have been in the past.
"Such demanding rescues require the aircraft to be maintained once they've been flown, that means they've been taken offline for maintenance more often.
"Don't be worried, the Royal Air Force will provide search and rescue helicopters. The availability we get from our helicopters is second to none.
Busier at Lec than in the past - that's global warming for you!
Availability is second to none - oh please Steve what planet are you on? You'll get your Air Commodore without that kind of unfounded BS.
Demanding rescues require more maintenance? How does the helicopter know what kind of rescue it is doing? perhaps the cabs have started talking to you...

Nice to see PC again and not looking a day older...

ericferret

13th Nov 2007, 22:15

I read on another thread that Bristows availabilty with it's S61's for the coastguard is over 98%. Is the RAF availabilty better than that?

[email protected]

14th Nov 2007, 10:37

No, but we fly more hours and also tell the truth about our serviceability:)

The availability of seconds is none - that's more like the case!!

3D CAM

14th Nov 2007, 12:17

Crab.
That is slanderous!!:bored:
We always tell the M.C.A. if/when we are off line and to suggest otherwise is not doing you or the RAF any favours at all!! Nor the casualty waiting for help!
The more flying bit I will not argue with but, as we have done it to death on other threads, that is a contractual thing, not choice. We would love to have the hours that you guys have available!
By seconds I presume you mean the Stand by aircraft, not the main duty machine? Again, going over old ground, but for the benefit of newcomers and with apologies to those who have read this before, this is also a contractual thing. If the M.C.A. want more crews then they ask for them as part of the contract.
By the way, as part of the non event in East Anglia last week, Portland became a 24hr. unit!! Only for a couple of days but carried out with existing crews and could not have been maintained indefinitely but where there's a will. etc etc.

Vie sans frontieres

14th Nov 2007, 13:42

Slander is spoken, libel is written. Shall we get it right? Pedants of the world unite!

3D CAM

14th Nov 2007, 14:34

Sorry, I rose to the bait too quickly!! My GCE was a looong time ago.:)

[email protected]

14th Nov 2007, 14:47

Very touchy 3Dcam...:)

Not sure why Portland are allowed to be anything but a 24 hour operation but I guess that's down to the MCA as well. Any news on the 139s?

3D CAM

14th Nov 2007, 15:02

Sorry, bad morning at the hairdressers!:)
Portland and 24hr. Same old story I'm afraid, that is what the R.N. did, (12hr.only) so that is what we inherited. Believe me, we would love to go 24hr.!!!! A long search at 2055hrs. makes for one hell of a long shift.
The 139. Ah... the figment of someones fertile imagination! We have heard absolutely nothing other than what you see on this site. When you consider Lee transfer to CHC in just over six weeks time, well...? Don't kiss the S61 goodbye just yet!

Northernstar

14th Nov 2007, 16:24

I find it amazing that a serving member of an RAF SAR unit would suggest lies by anyone. On what grounds do you base such an allegation? Put your money where your mouth is and come up with some facts.
The UK's SAR 61's, or what's left of them :rolleyes:, have occasionally been unserviceable but not anymore than RAF assets yet nobody here, serving member or former serving member of such units, feels the need to engage in a trade of insults.
I'm sure if an interested party had access to MCA records we could publish the times and dates of each unit to compare. Faxes from D watch at Lossiemouth stating "There are no SAR helicopters currently available" are hardly rare....
I personally sympathise with the crews of the units concerned, ready and waiting to then be without a cab. The reasons for such unservicabililty have already been discussed.
SAR is not a competition, SARH is not to be feared. Service will not be degraded if only that none of us will accept such a step backwards.
Let us not forget the immense cooperation shown last April on the night of the Bourbon Dolphin disaster when 4 different SAR helicopter units took part in the subsequent rescue efforts.

'That others may live....'

North

3D CAM

14th Nov 2007, 16:44

North
Well said sir.:ok::ok:

[email protected]

14th Nov 2007, 16:53

Well I guess those stories of S61's being declared on state with an engine out must just have been stories then.........it's amazing what people will make up just for the hell of it.

Our serviceability, or lack of it, is completely transparent and the figures are available for all to see. We have no KPIs to meet and no contract penalties if we are U/S a lot.

check

14th Nov 2007, 17:41

Crab, I guess those stories are just that, because with the current system of COBI etc everyone follows the staight and level. No lies, untruths or missinformation. That runs from the top to the bottom.

On a slightly different note, the S61 is a very good workhorse and from my own experience the more it flew the less it spent on the ground, Literally and metaphorically. Having never flown the Sea King I cannot comment, but my experience in the military leads me to believe that military and civil servicability rates are not comparable.

3D CAM

14th Nov 2007, 18:41

Crab.
Absolute and utter B#""#!*s.:ugh::ugh:
The local M.C.A., and M.C.A. hq. know when our aircraft are off line and for what reason.They can, and very often do, drop in for an unannounced visit. We don't have a sentry on the gate to turn them away because of a "security exercise." Just because the main aircraft, India Juliet or Whiskey Bravo, for the two Bristow units that are left, is having an engine change, doesn't mean that the unit is offline.( Obviously I cannot say what is happening up North because now that is a different company all together.)That is what the second aircraft is for! Hence no second crew.
As "Check" points out, COBI is a big thing now and we are under the threat of death if we breach that code!!!! And yes, the more you fly the "sticky bun", the more it will take!
Take your rumours with a big big pinch of salt. That is all they are, rumours.(Or is someone winding you up??)
And another thing. As I have said before, we are never told when you are off line. Whether that is down to A.R.C.C. or the M.C.A. I honestly do not know.
You accused me of being touchy, well to tell someone, not literally admitted, that they are being dishonest is a pretty good way to wind them up, and you succeeded!

Role1a

14th Nov 2007, 19:08

We have no KPIs to meet and no contract penalties if we are U/S a lot.

Not now, but when skios 2 kicks in watch this space!!! Westland’s cannot be seen to fail, standby for a reduction in flying hours to make Westland’s look good. All in my honest opinion of course.

r1a

Northernstar

14th Nov 2007, 20:52

No matter how many times on previous threads it has been explained, Crab does not understand the concept of the standby aircraft used by MCA SAR units. :ugh:

SARREMF

14th Nov 2007, 22:30

Role 1 A. How many times ....... its AgustaWestland now. The very nice man from AW told me so. However, just to correct a teeny weeny point, I am led to believe the number of flying hours is in the contract as well so..... thats your theory scuppered.
Q Crabb [do you want me to do the music for you on this thread?]

[email protected]

15th Nov 2007, 08:14

To be fair, I am not commenting on current ops and the stories were from the last decade - but, I have those stories from very reliable (and multiple) sources so I suggest people stop being quite so precious.

The MCA second standby has been easy to understand - the 1st aircraft is full SAR spec and the second is usually non-FCS, non auto hover, non-FLIR and without a seconds crew to man it.

The RAF 1st and second standby are both full SAR spec (when they are serviceable obviously) and have a seconds crew at RS60.

3Dcam - if you have access to the RCS, which I believe you have, then you know exactly what our serviceability state is.

Bertie Thruster

15th Nov 2007, 08:29

To be fair, I am not commenting on current ops and the stories were from the last decade

Concur with that; it was "common knowledge" in the early 90's that the civsar cabs weren't declared u/s until a scramble request went in. Then they were "u/s on start".

I thought "everyone" knew that!

[email protected]

15th Nov 2007, 09:55

Bertie - welcome to life above the parapet:)

Wiretensioner

15th Nov 2007, 12:06

Crab

Have you ever actually visited an MCA flight?:cool:

3D CAM

15th Nov 2007, 13:50

Bertie.
"Common Knowledge" ??? By who? If that is true, how come it took so long for the M.C.A. to find out and award the contract to someone else?
Why would we go u/s on start? It is not us who get the big fat salaries/ bonus like our higher management!
Crab.
You still have not grasped the concept of our second machine have you, nor the way the contract is written.
You are correct with regard to the primary machine, but wrong about the standby. The FLIR is removed from the main machine and fitted to the standby as and when required. The wiring is all there, just swap the hardware, takes 10 minutes max. Nor does it have twin hoist capability. Pretty much like your Sea King there! The standby does not have to be to the same standard as the Primary because as you point out, we do not have a second crew on call, and the MCA will not pay for it to be! The MCA will not pay for extra crews to just sit around on standby in the unlikely event that they will be needed. That is not our fault but the way the contract was/is written and paid for. You have other training commitments that mean you need extra crews, something we do not need to do, ie. practice for going to war etc.
RCS... wrong again I'm afraid. I am not even sure of what that stands for but I am sure you will enlighten me.
As WT says, have you ever visited an MCA flight? You should try it one day. You never know, you might catch us waiting to go u/s on start with the MGB and engines out.:)

SARCO

15th Nov 2007, 16:53

Doesn't matter now anyway as both primary and secondary a/c are equipped to the same standard (S92)

ShyTorque

15th Nov 2007, 17:04

Surely a few spare RAF Pumas could be converted to the SAR role?

Oh, no I forgot, there are no spares and anyway they're at least five years older in any case. Oops.

3D CAM

15th Nov 2007, 19:06

SARCO
That may be the case in Stornoway but Sumburgh are not yet on line with the S92, the new year I think for them. Lee On Solent are at least 4months away from seeing the AW139, in one guise or another. Portland even further!!
So actually, it does matter.

[email protected]

16th Nov 2007, 07:32

3D - so, other than the fact that the FLIR is swapped between 1st and second aircraft, everything I wrote is correct - it does not have to be the same spec as the 1sts in terms of autohover etc and it doesn't have a crew.

Guess what - I know the contract isn't written for you to provide seconds - that is why I highlight the difference between what we have now and we may have in the future.

Strangely enough I have a full-time job involving 3 detached flights on my own Squadron without needing to spend even more time in the car to visit a MCA site.

The strength of your defensiveness regarding serviceability is bordering on the edge of Shakespeare's "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" - are you sure you don't have something to hide:)

PS the Irish Coastguard have an RCS feed linked to to ARCCK, why don't the UK MCA SAR flts - unless you have it and no-one has shown you what it is?

Wiretensioner

16th Nov 2007, 14:26

So Crab we'll take that as no then. Such a shame you might learn a few things about civvy SAR. While at Lossie we took a cab up for an overnight visit to Sumburgh (Serviceability was a lot better in '97). Drank a lot and learnt a lot. Since then a couple of exchanges have taken place. But all concerned became more aware of the capabilities of the other lot.

Go on make the time, in fact if you spent less time on these forums you could probably find a day to make a visit.

regards
Wiretensioner

3D CAM

16th Nov 2007, 15:14

Crab.
Wiretensioners reply sums it up, but...
Yes, I am defensive about civvy SAR. Just as you would be if I slagged off RAF SAR without direct knowledge or experience of it. I and most of my colleagues, air and groundcrew have spent lots of time on military SAR so have seen both sides of the coin. We all try to achieve the same result at the end of the day, just using different coloured machines. You do yourself nor the RAF any favours by posting rumours and stories from the distant past.
Why would we not declare we are U/S? We get no rake off from BHL for staying serviceable and take great pride in the service we try to supply to the southwest so therefore when we do go U/S, we cry for help asap!
I understand that you are fighting your corner for the upcoming harmonisation and I wish you luck. We do not want to see a drop in standards either! (We may even get a standby machine at Portland?? Now that would be a novelty!)
Yes, at last you have grasped the meaning of our standby machines. But I emphasise this is not out of choice, we would love a fully equipped spare aircraft but the MCA would not accept the cost to supply them! This will change as and when CHC take over each base. (That will be the time to check on serviceability states.) But Portland will still have to share the spare machine with the premier unit on the South coast??:)
The Irish may have access to RCS??? but I can assure you, our only direct contact with the local MRSC is the scramble phone!!!

check

16th Nov 2007, 16:38

3D, I agree with your post, I also can see where CRAB is comming from, but don't quite agree with they way he goes about it.

Back on 22 Septmber 1988, there was a fire on the Ocean Odyssy where sadly the radio operator died. I was a member of the AS332 that was first on the scene, we were only 10 minutes away when the alarm was raised and were on site 30-40 minutes before the Dauphan from the Forties I think it was, arrived. We spoke to the radio operator who was asking which way he should go, and as the helideck was completely engulfed by fire we moved in closer to see if there was another escape route, however a number of blast occured and debris was blown into the air very close to us. We had to pull back and lost radio contact.

We continued to fly around the area and located a number of people in the water and directed boats to them, we then located the life boat which was now out of sight of the rig and guided a vessel to it. By now more aircraft had arrived along with a Nimrod who took control of the operation. In time the operation was wound down and we were released returned to I think the S701 to refuel and offered to take survivors back to Aberdeen as we were going back empty. We were told it was not necesary as the RAF SAR aircraft would call in later and take them back.

Later that night on the news and in the papers it was all about the RAF recue etc. After the initial reaction of "what the......"we thought about it and realised it was a very good PR exercise for the RAF SAR who were under pressure even then. So I keep this in mind each time CRAB goes on the offensive with what is often garbage and picture a man fighting for perhaps his and his services very existance. I also keep a tub of salt close by and take a pinch every now and then.

3D CAM

16th Nov 2007, 18:42

Check
Thanks for that, I was beginning to think it was just me.:)
Unfortunately, I am easily wound up, as those who know me will testify.
A trip to the salt mines perhaps?

[email protected]

17th Nov 2007, 19:37

Wiretensioner - I suppose I could make the effort if I was invited:) Liaison is always beneficial but it works both ways - do you have MCA guys coming to visit RAF SAR flts to see how we do business before they claim they have the same capability as us?

I know we are all in the same business and we all launch when the phone rings, regardless of the weather and I have never denigrated individual crews professionalism or bravery - it is the organisational issues I have problems with.

3D - It is hardly a case of 'at last' regarding my understanding of your second aircraft - I have known the situation from the start but you have been to busy jumping to conclusions about my posts to notice. Your local MRSC is only your tasking authority when the incident is within 30nm - outside of that it is ARCCK. As such, your flight should have access to the RCS and a direct line to Kinloss - if it doesn't then someone has been telling porkies about command and control of SAR helicopters.

Your comments regarding serviceability are slightly naive, if the contract says you must give 98% availability or there will be contract penalties, there is immediately an incentive to be economical with the truth if you are facing a lot of down time on the aircraft.

As I said before, this 'allegedly' occurred sometimes in the 90's but I am sure would not be tolerated now the big contract is up for grabs. Anyway I thought that CHC were already running the contract in the channel, only using S61 until the 139s appear. Was this not the agreement under the interim contract?

Check - we see jobs done by RAF aircraft get reported in the press as RN and vice versa - it is certainly not a big RAF PR machine and we certainly don't try to take credit for jobs we don't do. It sounds like you did a good job in '88 but if you are still bitter about lack of recognition, I think you probably need to give yourself a good talking to.

3D - I'll await the invite but meanwhile if you would like to come to Chivenor to see what we do and how, I would be happy to arrange it.

SARCO

17th Nov 2007, 23:35

"Your local MRSC is only your tasking authority when the incident is within 30nm - outside of that it is ARCCK. As such, your flight should have access to the RCS and a direct line to Kinloss - if it doesn't then someone has been telling porkies about command and control of SAR helicopters."

Sorry Crab but that's wrong. For an incident requiring an MCA helo over 30nm ARCC are contacted and if confirmed that the helo is 'closest' then the tasking and scrambling reverts back to the MRCC (no MRSC's nowadays!), hence no direct line between ARCC and SAR Flight because it is all done via us here at the parent MRCC. The SAR Flight keeps us updated with their status hence no need for RCS, but I believe it is on the way.

So take it from somone who does know something about command and control of SAR Helicopters.:)

3D CAM

17th Nov 2007, 23:42

Crab.
I am not in the position to invite you anywhere. Contact the MCA. Thanks for the invite to visit Chivenor, but the next few months are going to be a bit frantic with the changeover to CHC etc. We did drop in a couple of years ago on the way back from Swansea, maybe you were off shift.
RCS. Yes I know about the 30 mile thing but that will just start another bun fight. We do not have RCS at the flight, nor do we have a direct line to Kinloss!!! If, and it is if, ARCCK task us, it still comes through from the MRSC. Yes, someone is telling porkies, but, rest assured, it aint me!!!!
There may indeed be contract penalties, I'm afraid I am not party to that info. but even so, we always tell the MCA if we are unserviceable. Those penalties apply to the contractor, not us personally so why should we disguise anything? I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree about this issue.
I'm afraid you are wrong about CHC running things in the Channel. Lee and Portland are still Bristow run. Lee change over at the beginning of January, Portland in April. The 61 will be around down here until the arrival of the AW139????
SARCO got there before me.
In fact, Portland is still an MRSC. As far as I know anyway.

Send'em

18th Nov 2007, 02:34

CRab said; "...we certainly don't try to take credit for jobs we don't do."

Now that is a porky. I went up to the ARCC at Kinloss last year and learnt something that shocked me.

Every time MRCC (not MRSC) Portland launches WB/IJ to a local dive job (without having to ask anyone for pemission), we tell the ARCC when we get round to it later in the day and they stick another pin in their map and tick off another job they have co-ordinated. Totally fraudulent.

I am looking forward to when the ARCC becomes part of the MCA and moves to Southampton in 2012.

Secondly, every morning MRCC Portland calls the ARCC to ask what aircraft are available at Chivenor and Culdrose. So there are people who see both sides of the picture and have a snapshot of the difference between Bristow, navy and crab availability/maintenance

[email protected]

18th Nov 2007, 07:23

Yes, I put my hand up to MRCC v MRSC, I copied 3D without checking. As for command and control, the very fact that over 30nm means checking with the ARCCK is a clear indicator of who has overall control of all SAR helicopters in the UK - Kinloss. That logically leads to them being quite entitled to log every SAR job as one that they have co-ordinated whether they were directly involved or not.

The fact that you don't have a direct line to Kinloss or access to the RCS speaks volumes for how the MCA has tried to keep control of its own part of the empire - you are a UK asset not just a MCA asset.

Disappointed about the invite but I wasn't holding my breath and expecting to be welcomed with open arms:)

3D CAM

18th Nov 2007, 09:58

Send'em.
Sincere and humble apologies, MRCC not MRSC:O:O:O.
Crab.
I never said you would not be welcome. It is just not my place to dish out invites. The MCA are our bosses and say who visits or otherwise. But I would suggest you wait until we get the 139,:hmm::hmm::hmm:, at least that will be something new to look at. I don't know if you would get a trip in one though, rumour has it that there are only 4 seats in the back, including crew seats!!!!
ARCCK.... well, as I said in a previous post, that has the potential for another slagging match and I will leave that to "Send'em" and yourself to sort out.

detgnome

18th Nov 2007, 11:12

Off topic slightly...

Wiretensioner - would that trip to Sumburgh have included a bit of winching on the Old Man of Hoy perchance?!?

Wiretensioner

18th Nov 2007, 15:18

detgnome

It certainly did, but I did not come off the end of the wire!
Also we did some winching with a couple of the Bristow winchops doing the patter. Our pilot (Lossie's flight commander) saw no big difference between the RAF way and the Bristow way.

Crab instead of waiting why not ring up Portland or Lee and ask if you can visit. Take a Sea King, stay overnight. Despite everything I'm sure you will be well received and hosted.

Wiretensioner

IrishSarBoy

18th Nov 2007, 18:04

Ah another civvi vs Mil SAR argument! Well I thought PC was looking well. and I too remember when the whole of the east coast was u/s for a couple of hours. As for SAR H. Well I say all bets are off till 2009. What I would say to all is get a copy of the presentation done by the GC and Mil. It's very funny and if you look through the double speak quite revealling.
Crab, as for 2nds all I can say is agggggghhhhhhhh noooooooohhhh!

Love and light

:)

[email protected]

18th Nov 2007, 20:11

Wiretensioner - take a Sea King........are you mad??? Do you know how many serviceable we would have to have to get an overnight authorised somewhere???:)

check

18th Nov 2007, 20:42

Crab,

You misunderstood my post, I was not miffed at lack of recognician, but the fact the the news was all RAF. We were aware at the time that RAF SAR was under pressure but we did not expect the amount of coverage given.

The report by the HSE states that the survivours were winched by Navy "believed to be Sea King Helicopters", So if they were in fact RAF helicopters only goes to re-enforce your comment.

At the end of the day whoever carries out SAR duties do it to the best of their abilities whether it be Bristow, CHC, or the Military. The individual at the point of rescue won't give a dam who is picking him/her up. Whoever you are you will be the best.

As long as there is interservice or civilian rivalry there is always going to be bragging rights or who has the biggest willy, this is healthy and should be encouraged, derogatory remarks should not.

Wiretensioner

19th Nov 2007, 12:18

Crab

How silly of me to forget a simple thing like Sea King serviceability.

Wiretensioner

Gaspode the Dog

19th Nov 2007, 21:25

Hay Crab I seem to remember the Sea King 3A comming into service and then being taken out of service less than 1 month later because it was unsafe. The S92 is doing a lot better than that! It is not perfect yet, but it will develop into a very good SAR aircraft. It is very early days for the SAR S92!

Send'em

19th Nov 2007, 22:40

Crab Said;

"Yes, I put my hand up to MRCC v MRSC, I copied 3D without checking. As for command and control, the very fact that over 30nm means checking with the ARCCK is a clear indicator of who has overall control of all SAR helicopters in the UK - Kinloss. That logically leads to them being quite entitled to log every SAR job as one that they have co-ordinated whether they were directly involved or not."

You missed my point. We tell Kinloss after the helo has landed at the end of the job. We would like to be co-operative and inform them as soon as possible before lift off but sometimes we are too busy and a second job starts during the first. This leads to a situation where the Kinloss guys congratulate themselves on "coordinating" a job yesterday that they only knew about today.

"The fact that you don't have a direct line to Kinloss ...."

We do. When I hit the button a voice says "Hello Portland". It does not say "This the national coordinator of only 13 assets how may we help you.."
(An MRCC typically has around 40 assets).

The sole purpose of Kinloss is to act as a booking agency that will calculate the nearest and fastest helicopter. As a general guide if the target is within 30 nm of Portland or Lee-on-Solent then it is not worth their time to work out who could get there first.

What I think is a fraud is that an MRCC evaluates the situation, conducts the search planning, coordinates other assets, deploys a helo as minor asset in the search, tells Kinloss about it later and then Kinloss claims credit for having done some work when they did nothing other than stick a pin in a map.

Send'em

19th Nov 2007, 22:59

Crab said;

"3D - so, other than the fact that the FLIR is swapped between 1st and second aircraft, everything I wrote is correct - it does not have to be the same spec as the 1sts in terms of autohover etc and it doesn't have a crew."

Eh ? It does have a crew. The crew are there to fly the available helicopter.
We have a spare so if one breaks the "CREW" fly the other one.

Do you do it differently in the RAF ?
Do you have to wait for someone to paint your name on the side before you will get into it ?
Do you have to wait for the paint to dry ?
After 8 hours waiting for the paint to dry are you not allowed to fly ?

[email protected]

20th Nov 2007, 06:10

Sendem - as soon as you are tasked, ARCC are informed and it appears on the RCS, all of our SAR flights know the state of the whole of the UK because of this system that the MCA won't let you have. Just how many aviation assets does your MRCC have?

Have you ever been to Kinloss to see what your tasking authority does - your oversimplified statement would suggest not.

3D was the one who stated you don't have a direct line - are Portland and Lee operating to different rules?:)

As for your last post, you well know what I was commenting on regarding second standby - you don't have a seconds crew and we do, is that simple enough for you.

And, oh yes, we do do it very differently in the RAF. The difference is mainly in ethos, we constantly strive to be better at our job, improve our capability, improve our equipment, revise our SOPs (ever heard of them). We don't just tick the contractual boxes and send anyone away who has a good idea, justifying that it isn't in the contract so we won't get paid for it.

Gaspode - yes but it didn't have problems with gearboxes cracking and dumping oil everywhere - it just had some avionic issues that should have been corrected at Boscombe Down.

ropedope

20th Nov 2007, 09:09

Post deleted for personal abuse

ropedope,

You do not enhance your username with such posts: no matter what you think of the posts of other Rotorheads, keep your responses civil, or take them elsewhere :=

3D CAM

20th Nov 2007, 10:30

Crab.
As usual, you have not read and understood the whole post. If you check his/her title, I think you will find that "Send'em" is actually a member of the MCA!! (Title is obviously lost on you..) and not a Bristow employee, as I freely admit to being.( Not a dig Send'em.)
We, at the flight, DO NOT have direct access to ARCCK. The MRCC may have. but WE DON'T!!!!!!!! O.K. got that one?????
Second standby. I think we have done that to death!!:bored: The taxpayer, you and I, foot the bill for that.
Now to the nitty gritty.
I think you have just blown away any chance of getting a non hostile reception at any MCA flight with your comments on standards! What an arrogant attitude to start the day with.:mad:
I am amazed you need to practice and have SOPS,(yes we do have them:ugh:) you always put it across that you cannot surpass perfection. That is, I think you will find, the attitude which really p....s everyone off with the whole RAF.
Improve equipment?? Would you care to inform us just how long it took you to get FLIR!!! (Something that MCA aircraft had light years before you even thought about it!!) Admitted, yours is better than ours at the moment but that will change with the advent of the new aircraft.:rolleyes: And do all your aircraft have it now? That is a question, not a dig.
Ropedope.
A bit strong but right on the nail!!!
His post has since been removed but summed it up really what a lot of people think Crab is doing, ie. trying to save a lost cause.( And in the process, keeping lots of people in cushy office jobs.) Not you Crab, I know you are at the sharp end but lots of people at ARCCK are just duplicating jobs that can be, and are carried out at an MRCC.

Return to sender

20th Nov 2007, 13:13

I blame the MCA. How many times have we seen a tasking successfully co-ordinated by the Coastguard being followed by some bloke from "RAF Kinloss" on the telly taking all the credit for it. The MCA just sit back and allow the RAF to trample all over them. Mind you the MCA PR department only seems to focus on the south coast and generally fails to properly inform the media so you could easily mistake the Coastguard for being a English Channel Patrol Group!

[email protected]

20th Nov 2007, 13:42

3D cam - send'em's handle was obviously too subtle for me - does yours mean you are a 3 dimensional camera??:)

It might have been his use of 'we' when stating that he does have a direct line (we were talking about SAR flights not MRCCs)- he did not highlight the fact he was from MCA in his post. If he had then you wouldn't have to shout at me about it - I replied to his statement in good faith.

If it pisses you off that we do things a certain way and are proud of our high standards then watch out in 2012 when you have to start doing all the stuff that we do now. You won't be able to maintain the standards we have now across all the disciplines because you won't be allowed all the training hours (IMC PLB homings, radar letdowns, FLIR searching, NVG, Mountain flying etc etc etc) because it will cost too much and some beancounter will make you try and cut your flying hours because it's an easy thing to do. Look at the Police and AA - it's mostly on-the-job training because otherwise it costs money.

Yes the FLIR took a long time to get but that wasn't from lack of trying and eventually the money was found to enhance our capability without having to make a profit on it.

I may be trying to save a lost cause but until it is proven that civilianising military SAR will do anything other than reduce capability then I will keep going - I'm not doing it to win friends (probably just as well), just prevent the British Public from being short-changed.

It's a shame I missed ropedope's post but I suspect it was long on abuse and short on fact. You seem to think I am in some ivory tower and don't know anyone outside military SAR - I don't make any of this stuff up and many tit-bits come from guys who are doing your job and recognise that the Holy Grail of civilian SAR is not so holy.

If there is arrogance in attitude perhaps it is those who think they can do more with less that have the problem:ugh:

mallardpi

20th Nov 2007, 13:50

Fact - The MCA are advised when RAF/RN bases are off state. SYY MCA call the SYY SAR unit to say that Lossiemouth are off state and SYY have to cover their area, it also happens elsewhere.

FAct - MCA units do not have RCS (and I know what i stand for)

Fact - The Mk3A did not go out of service after a month. Introduction was delayed due to the avionics/autopilot problems and when they were sorted, then the aircraft entered service.

Fact - the only capability differences that exists at the moment between the RAF and CHC/Bristows aircraft are:

1. Lack of NVG.
2. Lack of autohover on the standby aircraft.

The RAF wins on both these points, but, that is all. There's not much between the two services and in any case the gap will diminish with once CHC have taken over Portland. Then its only NVG and that will be sorted out with SARH (wont it?)

Hercules of Hera

20th Nov 2007, 14:42

The Crab said: If there is arrogance in attitude perhaps it is those who think they can do more with less that have the problem.

Then clearly you do not deny the accusation dear boy. Rightly so in my book, from what I have read here and elsewhere. You really do not think that there are others out there in the real world who can do just as well as you perceive yourself to do. Well that is how it reads IMO.

Pride comes before a fall and you'd do well to enjoy your career, I suspect it will be difficult if not impossible to replace out here. We refused an ex Squadron Leader last year, just wouldn't fit in, far too arrogant to adjust, felt it was not necessary.:}

Good luck ginger.

Wiretensioner

20th Nov 2007, 14:42

And lets not forget twin winches on both aircraft on the MCA flights:cool:

Night Watchman

20th Nov 2007, 15:20

Admitted, yours is better than ours at the moment but that will change with the advent of the new aircraft.

Already has up North.:ok:

Poor old Crab, at it again. He's a bit like Napoleon - just keeps coming back! Mind you, Napoleon was eventually defeated in the Battle of Waterloo albeit only after the timely intervention of the RAF...... and you all thought it was the Prussians!!! ;)

[email protected]

20th Nov 2007, 17:06

Have it your own way chaps, we have already been round all the buoys several times and it is getting very tedious - I have said my piece and if you don't like it or don't agree with it, that's your choice. Time will tell.

Calli - yet again you think I am digging at the individual crews which is not the case. You miss my point in that you say you can choose when and how you train (do you really do 4 hrs plus a shift?) but our training is mandated to ensure that we keep topped up on all the disciplines. As for kit - how is your Polycon doing ?

I do worry that many seem to think the adoption of NVG ops will be simple and straightforward.

3D CAM

20th Nov 2007, 17:06

Crab.
Wow, you really have wound up some people this time!
Wiretensioner.
Sorry, forgot about the dual hoist!
See Crab, that's the differance. Civvies can react to an accident, in this case the very sad loss of Billy Deacon, quicker than the military because we don't have to go through the likes of Boscombe Down! You are still waiting, I believe, for your equal capability dual hoist. Mind you, that's probably a good thing if you have to get Wastelands involved!

[email protected]

20th Nov 2007, 19:25

Speechless2 - Why is it always assumed that the civilian way of doing things is new, better or cheaper? I defend my service and the job we do robustly because we are going to be sold off for the sake of convenience and a dwindling MoD budget, not because we aren't any good or can't launch for SAROps because the aircraft are U/s. If you don't understand my frustration at this then so be it, if you want to see this as poor CRM or arrogance then so be it. You make so many unfounded assumptions about me without knowing me that I am rather glad not to be working for you.

As for visiting an MCA flight, I am still waiting for an invitation - but how many MCA pilots have visited an RAF SAR flight recently to see how we do business, it's not a one way street you know.

3D - we have been carrying an emergency hoist for many years now and it has yet to be used in anger. I do seem to be quite good at putting peoples backs up, maybe I should write a book about it.:)

Northernstar

20th Nov 2007, 19:56

Then Crab, you must curb your frustration for you are either misinterpreting or just not reading posts properly or in their entirety.
Yousuggested a lowering of standards if RAF SAR assets form part of a civilian organisation in the future and no matter how much others explain to you that this is not accurate you stick to your guns.
Your unwillingness to accept the justifiable criticism levelled at you (not all of it was justifiable) for any number of reasons is testament to pure arrogance and does not bode well for career prospects should SARH mean you have to apply to a civilian operator to remain in SAR in the south west. Many management personnel within the 2 main competitors for SARH read and sometimes post here, they won't be responding to your CV any time soon.
I agree with many of the posts here and it is testament to many of the comments that some of the criticism comes from those former members of the same service....
N

[email protected]

21st Nov 2007, 06:28

Calli - I am well aware that the introduction of new aircraft will improve overall capability providing they are specified correctly. However, the S92 came without HF and has a sat tracker that is not compatible with the ARCCK system - I don't know why but a cycnic would say it is the continuing parochial attitude of the MCA to retain direct control of its assets and keep Kinloss out of the loop. I visited MRCC Falmouth in 2001 and the Oic was happy to point out where the military guys would sit when they were embedded in the organisation - they have always sought to have command and control over all SAR assets, hence the drive towards SARH.

We will have to wait and see how the 139 turns out.

I didn't say NVG was a black art but training up crews who have never used them will take a lot of hours which someone will have to pay for - this takes profit out of the contract which will need to be recovered from somewhere else.

I don't know where you were based but there is little underflying on training hours, despite some serviceability issues, so guys do seem to be getting most of their 4 hours a shift.

Northernstar - I do keep trying to reiterate that it is not the crews professionalism that is in doubt in any way shape or form, it is the reality of having a SAR service which needs to make a profit (why else are big businesses bidding for it). When the bottom line is the driving force, where is the incentive for management to make any concessions to improving standards, equipment or training? The only things that will force change after the contract is let will be legislation or, as in the sad case of Billy Deakin, an AAIB report. The military has proved itself wholly inept at contract writing and management in the past assuming that gentlemens agrrements still exist - they do right up to the point where the lawyers and accountants get involved. SARH needs to be as watertight as possible which is one reason I keep banging on about real capability as opposed to assumed or predicted.

Bertie Thruster

21st Nov 2007, 08:08

hhmm....head above the parapet again,this time on the other side I'm afraid ,Crab!

NVG's intro'd to the RAF Seaking. 92/93. One (2hr) conversion sortie by visiting NVG qual'd QHI.

After that we (the operational crews) just integrated the use of NVG's into all our normal night training.

The NVG SOPS came years later!

ericferret

21st Nov 2007, 12:11

Maybe part of the question should be why does the airforce carry out the SAR task anyway as nearly all the rescues are related to civvy incidents.

Purloining info from the Meteor thread on the military forum the following figures are representative of the number of aircraft and lives lost by the airforce since the war in non combat related accidents.

1946....1014 a/c....677 fatalities
1956.....270..........150
1966.....62............33
1976.....33............20
1986.....19............10
1996.....21............2
2000's average 8 aircraft a year

Having a dedicated SAR when the airforce lost more aircraft in accidents than they have on strength today made sense.

However the military justification for a SAR capability in home waters no longer exists.

I would like to see a dedicated combat rescue helicopter purchased for military use.

It might save the marines having to go into action lashed to the sides of Apache's.

This might also get the SH people to take the SAR a little more seriously.

[email protected]

21st Nov 2007, 14:20

Bertie - do you think the CAA would let that happen now though? They still won't let D&C Police operate into unrecced sites despite their experience levels.

Eric - the rescuing of downed/ejected military crews is our primary task but only counts for about 2% of our rescues which are, as you rightly say otherwise civilian in nature.

The UK Search and Rescue Region is enormous, reaching way out into the Atlantic where, for the moment, only the military crews go because we have better range than the S61. The Government is responsible for providing maritime and aeronautical SAR assets in whichever way it sees fit and has, for many years, taken the option of using the military to provide the majority of this cover. The SRR includes the landmass of the UK which is primarily covered by military SAR as well.

If you want as right, riveting read, have a look at the IAMSAR manual - the bible of modern SAR - and note that in volume 1 it states that military assets provide very effective SAR cover due to manpower and poor weather/night capability.

Rumour has it that a major player in the civvySAR world didn't even know what IAMSAR was:)

3D CAM

21st Nov 2007, 15:39

Crab.
Only military crews have the range to go out into the Atlantic?? Hmm... down south maybe but not sure Stornoway would agree with you there, even with the S61!
Take your point about the standby hoist but your Wasteland hoist is obviously more reliable than the Goodrich one. We have been more than thankful for the dual fit at least twice. One would have involved a thirty mile hover taxi back to base, with the winchman performing cpr, on a casualty, in a stretcher, on a bloody awful night!! He was well chuffed for the dual hoist, the heave ho would have been impossible!!

Vie sans frontieres

21st Nov 2007, 16:08

with the winchman performing cpr, on a casualty, in a stretcher
Why put him in a stretcher when CPR is required? That must have taken a while. Why not just double strop him and get him to definitive care quicker?

NRDK

21st Nov 2007, 16:12

Crab
I AM SAR, U R SAR what’s the difference?? :ok:
Calli & Northstar are quite correct in what they say in general
It’s not about making a profit by civilianising UK SAR; true, a PFI will make money but the bottom line is the tax payers will pay less for the privilege of having a first class world leading rescue service. At the same time it will give the tax payer or more importantly the MoD more funds to spend on those areas that really need the funds, not expensive second line jobs and associated costs.

Most civilian SAR crews don’t need to visit the Mil SAR bases because they left them in the first place. Yes we too defended our ‘Own Service’ once, but the path to the dark side is strong (not to mention less boll*ks, more cash). I’m sure the Portland/Lee units would be happy for your ‘bird’ to drip some OX38 on dispersal for a few hours while talking shop and cross pollination. You may even get a West Country visit by a 139 in the New Year to see the next generation medium sized aircraft in full SAR fit. ARCCK can watch real time skytrac info of the S92’s up north on a PC or log onto the AIS system…why use a HF sounding like a Dr Who ‘Dalex’ when you can talk on the ‘phone’. Also the S92 out ranges the Sea King now!
Keep up the good work in the meantime as we love the ones that ‘fight/bite/kick and scream’ to the end. Don’t roll over and go belly up on us yet Chivenor, Pprune Rotorheads would be too quiet.:}
VSF- Have you done SAR or just curious?? I'll let 3D answer that one

3D CAM

21st Nov 2007, 17:19

VSF
Arrested on the way up!!! (Must have realised it was a nasty white machine, not a yellow peril!!):):)

mustfly1

21st Nov 2007, 17:35

VSF I will answer your question.

In a normal calm open area scenario, yes I would "double strop".

When I have to get on board a fishing boat in a force 8 and 30ft seas, at night to a crew member below decks in a confined area with no output, who I then have to get back to the upper deck doing CPR as we go, and then get winched to the aircraft, I use a stretcher.

Kind regards

mustfly1

3D CAM

21st Nov 2007, 18:04

VSF
There you go, from the horses mouth!
Alright sog?

Vie sans frontieres

21st Nov 2007, 21:16

When I have to get on board a fishing boat in a force 8 and 30ft seas, at night to a crew member below decks in a confined area with no output, who I then have to get back to the upper deck doing CPR as we go, and then get winched to the aircraft, I use a stretcher.

Waves as big as houses, no doubt! :rolleyes:

[email protected]

22nd Nov 2007, 07:32

3D - the most that is stated on the RCS (ask the MCA for a look) for an S61's Radius of Action is 190nm. Ours is 240 nm using very conservative fuel planning that usually gets you back with 1000lbs of fuel so guess who gets to do the long range jobs? Chivenor and Valley regularly refuel in Eire and proceed out to beyond 15 West because the Irish Coastguard also have S61 with limited range. The Navy have a 205nm RoA and regularly refuel in the Scillies on their way out and back. Stornoway is the exception but I believe Lossie still do the longest range ones up there.

The RoA for the S92 isn't on the RCS even though it is claimed to be 290nm or thereabouts - is this a theoretical figure or has it been proved in action?

NRDK - I am not sure how the taxpayer is going to save money by civilianising SAR - it still has to be paid for and, as we have discussed at length, if the equivalent military capability is to be maintained, a lot more training will be required by the civilian crews. Add in the capital costs of all the new aircraft required and the profit margin for the next 30 years and I don't think that SAR provision will get anything other than more expensive - not less.

As for the MoD Budget - a few Sea Kings won't compensate for the ammunition bill for either Iraq or Afghanistan - the crews will still be employed in other areas and the engineers are already being contractorised - where is the saving there then?

You haven't used the HF in a 3A then - it's not perfect but no more daleks. Why should the ARCCK have to use additional kit to track something that was procured for UK SAR? The MCA partitioning machine at work again methinks.

NRDK

22nd Nov 2007, 08:30

Crab
I yield to your grasp of economics and beg you to petition the politicians and prevent them from spending vast sums of money on SAR-H instead of all those current low cost, value for money Mil SAR units. What are they thinking??:}
The light blue want to play/stay in the game and so will bring over ‘some’ crews (who could/would be better employed in SH now) The whole thing could be ‘civilianised’ albeit using quite a lot of the (‘Ex’) military crews who would be enticed/redundant due to the loss of the UK Mil SAR.
as we have discussed at length, if the equivalent military capability is to be maintained, a lot more training will be required by the civilian crews.
By WE you mean you?? Think you'll find our training is up to the challenge at hand. Besides the extra ex-service crews without the Cranwell lobotomy/chopped at RAF Linton-on-Ouse or Valley ‘SAR god school’ attitude will be welcome additions. Or whatever the present system in the RAF is.
I’ll leave the semantics of who has the ‘biggest one’ out of this for now……that’s ‘range’ I’m talking about! Stornoway can answer that in due course.
Stick to your ‘lightweight’ HF kit, throat mike, WW2 kit if you think it is the way ahead by all means.:ugh:
Every bit extra in terms of ammo & support that can be squeezed into Iraqmanistan will be appreciated by those at the pointy end IMHO.
‘Keep Fighting’:D

[email protected]

22nd Nov 2007, 08:50

NRDK - you do appear have 'ex-RN' written all over you - at least you seem well balanced with an anti-RAF chip on both shoulders. We haven't had an RN exchange officer yet who hasn't had his eyes opened to the way we do SAR - they generally leave rather than return to their mother service:)

You claim your present training is up to the task in hand and then say you will welcome all the ex-mil crews because they will give you the capability you need - make your mind up.

As for old kit, I would rather have a radar (albeit with a blind arc) that can see a dolphin's c8ck at 10 miles than a cloud and clonk radar that can't see a windfarm at 2.5 miles or see the area you are going to turn into.

On that subject I am still deafened by the silence on the question about how you are allowed to operate below safety alt IMC over water - P.S. approach and landing doesn't count because you are not doing either. Just how do you let down to a radar/PLB/FLIR target safely?

NRDK

22nd Nov 2007, 10:39

Of course the Dark side is in Black!:ok:
The poor old RN boys only spend a dog’s watch on SAR and then some ‘dis-appointer’ sends them packing off to a dull front line job so they run off to Civilian Street and the wage of a Group Captain after a short spell. Probably ex 771 NAS SAR crew, who don’t get a lot of eye opening SAR:eek:, unlike the PWK lot. So yes, easily impressed. Especially by the cushiness of the RAF aircrew life and the way everything is geared to look after the aircrew…the RN are poor cousins in that respect.:(

I implied perhaps not clearly enough that the usefulness of obtaining experienced ex-mil crews was an asset (as that’s the area that in the past most Civ SAR crews came from) It saves time and money whilst providing a rapid increase in numbers to fill all the vacancies that would be created by the Mil SAR demise, if the powers to be wanted to axe it completely. There would be a need for many crews that wanted to join, we don't have to have you but it is commercially sensible to use a valuable asset, yes even you my crustacean friend, ahh the banter we could have.

As for the new kit appearing nearby to you/now in use up north. Well, full digital moving nautical charts & Aeronautical maps + OS mapping down to 1:25K scale, AIS display so you can see every AIS registered vessel with all the info, all for front and rear crew. Skytrac, forward facing radar, EGPWS, MX-15i FLIR with slaved Nightsun (FLIR can be presented in the cockpit, TCAS, 4 axis A/P (We would have liked NVG but that’s will be a SAR-H perk) blah blah drool!:}

3D can elaborate on how the front seat crew are able to defied the laws of IMC and get on down to do the job over water (probably with a combination of smoke and mirrors) Some of the ‘Masters’ use the Force:ugh:.

Must dash now but please don’t let the hook go, the fishing is bloody brilliant here.:D

[email protected]

22nd Nov 2007, 14:10

NRDK - I am sure the boys at 771 will love you for that but actually our present incumbent is ex-Gannet and he's not going back in a hurry:)

You make it sound like the only good civsar crews are ex-military which I'm sure will find great favour with many posters here - not!

Frankly AIS sound as much use as ti*ts on a bull for a helicopter - if it's a big boat you will see it using eyes/radar/FLIR and if it's a little boat it won't have AIS. The MCA like it but for SAR use I think it's value is limited.

We have had a 4 axis autopilot for years, nothing new about that and I don't know why you need digital mapping when you rarely venture out of your comfort zone:) Your Skytrac, as we said, isn't compatible with the rest of the SARF (team game remember) and you forward facing radar is still cloud and clunk, not a proper I band (X band for civvies) maritime radar. TCAS and EGPWS is nice but you wouldn't need the nitesun if you had NVG. FLIR in the cockpit is just one more thing to distract the co-pilot when he should be doing mission management, that's why we leave it to the Radop.

Yes the banter would be good and a bit of suck-back uckers might be fun:)

The Force may work but is it legal???

NRDK

22nd Nov 2007, 15:41

771 do a great job, much like Wattisham & Lee; but there is a certain difference of ‘difficulty’ upgrade at Gannet, Lossie, Stornoway. Those who have done both know it. :}

Did not say the only good Civ SAR are ex-mil. Many exceptional Civilian only pilots are now in situ. Did infer that market forces Versus time frame will once again mean that you current Mil drivers with a licence, SAR time and a good few hours will be extremely attractive candidates.:rolleyes:

With regards the kit fit; it is what the client was offered and wished to pay for, the SA picture that you can obtain is what you up front can only dream about for now. In truth the SK is on its way out…face it, realise it, accept it. You will have to either embrace it as we will or fly for Virgin.:O

Venture out the comfort zone….Please.:=

We too hope the EASA/CAA and SAR-H don’t get the bits that count regarding Flying limits, restrictions, dispensations/exemptions etc wrong. Or you will be right that the potential to compromise the level of service may be eroded. We are very aware of this, as we are already hampered to some extent with training limits. As mentioned in previous posts; for Civ SAR ops we have very few, if any restrictions, provided the actions are justifiable.:ok:

An Uckers pigmy like yourself would be an 8 piece mixie blob on my doorstep after a few minutes. Never mind, my young apprentice, you too will turn to the dark side in time.:)

[email protected]

22nd Nov 2007, 17:30

NRDK - oh dear, not another 'if you haven't done SAR oop North, you haven't done SAR' snob:) and people call me arrogant;)

I think I was the one who got the nibble re civvy pilots...

Yup, I'd love to have a new helicopter, but preferably one like the Sea King where you have some options if the MRGB loses all it's oil, unlike the S92.

I have been called an uckers pygmy before, but that was by someone who was good at the game:)

3D CAM

22nd Nov 2007, 19:13

Yup, I'd love to have a new helicopter, but preferably one like the Sea King where you have some options if the MRGB loses all it's oil, unlike the S92.

Crab.
That'll be the S61 then?:):):) I knew you would see it our way eventually.:)

[email protected]

23rd Nov 2007, 06:05

3D - I did say new - your 61's are even older than our Sea Kings:)

Droopystop

23rd Nov 2007, 08:55

Crab,

North Sea crews are regularly decending below MSA in IMC on rig radar approaches, using radars less capable than the ones fitted to SAR machines. And it's legal.

I remember speaking to someone who was dettached from Navy SAR to RAF SAR and like you say, his eyes were opened. He couldn't believe how difficult the RAF made SAR for themselves.

NRDK,

"8 piece mixy blob on the doorstep" didn't you thrash me that way once (or many times) before :{

[email protected]

23rd Nov 2007, 09:06

Droopystop - it's legal for rig approaches because you are on approach and landing and following an approved procedure - not the case for SAR work so how do they get round it? Possibly because the CAA don't know what they do or understand the dangers of operating below MSA over the sea without proper on-board radar clearances - maybe they just make it up as they go along:)

If making it difficult for yourself means doing it properly and safely then I'll take that everytime over simple and risky. See what I mean about differences in attitude?

TorqueOfTheDevil

23rd Nov 2007, 13:23

NVG's intro'd to the RAF Seaking. 92/93. One (2hr) conversion sortie by visiting NVG qual'd QHI.

After that we (the operational crews) just integrated the use of NVG's into all our normal night training.

The NVG SOPS came years later!

Bertie,

Doesn't surprise me that the NVG convex was so brief, but...

Surely at the time, introducing NVG was an improvement to the existing capability, so the fact that it would have taken crews quite some time to get the hang of NVG didn't matter - during that time, little by little, capability was being enhanced. These days, the mil SAR flts have a great deal of NVG experience, and even newcomers, by the time they get captaincy, will have built up a good degree of proficiency at NVG work.

What this means is that, when mil SAR as we know it is scrapped, the time taken for SAR-H crews to get fully used to NVG will be a period of reduced capability as there will be a drop in the standard of what they can achieve compared to what experienced NVG operators can achieve now (whatever training the SAR-H hierarchy provide for their crews cannot instantly create crews fully proficient in NVG use). I would guess (and it's only a guess - please don't hang me!) that it would take longer for civ SAR crews to adapt to overland NVG work than it did mil crews, given that mil crews had done non-NVG overland work before the advent of NVG; a civ crew (through no fault of their own!) will have to learn night mountains and NVG procedures, whereas the RAF crews simply had to integrate NVG into what they already did overland.

No doubt this likely temporary drop in capability will simply be taken on risk...Crab may well be right that there may be a drop in capability for a while, but I don't think think those in charge will get too bothered about it. Oh well!

TOTD

Sven Sixtoo

23rd Nov 2007, 22:21

Hi

I would just point out that I first flew a Sea King 3 on NVG in autumn 1982 (circuits to a man with a cigarette in the middle of Chetwynd), in preparation for a det to 51S 58W or thereabouts.

Sven

edit to add

We probably were putting lives at risk - we just hadn't figured all the hazards. I guess we were lucky. Over time you learn (and you get better goggles). The trick is then that others take your experience and move on.

SARREMF

23rd Nov 2007, 23:15

Chaps what a thread! And to think I almost missed it!

Ok, here we go. Now you all know that I don't normally side with Crabb. Its OK I'm not going to yet. However, a couple of pages ago Speechless said a few things about Crabb that were simply not true.

Firstly, I am an ex mil SAR QHI. I flew both Mk3 and 3a Sea Kings. I know Crabb but rarely agree with his posts. However, to say he is arrogant and lacks CRM etc etc is simply not true. Actually, he is a nice bloke who it is a pleasure to know. He also has a cracking sense of humour and I think some of his tongue-in-cheek remarks and irony he uses are being taken too seriously. He also posts stuff that is in the heat of the moment and perhaps goes a little too far.

Crabb. You have just read the above. Now get yourself to an MCA flight and go see how they do it. No invite, poor excuse! Why don't you call the new SAR-H requirements manager and get her to arrange the visit? Then when you have seen the facts and spoken to the people your posts will take on a different tone. Lets bring some harmony back.

Chaps and Chappesses. Once Crabb has done that, its up to the rest of the civ SAR guys/girls to go visit a mil SAR flight.

I am not making excuses for him, or really defending him .. well OK I am a bit. However, I think he really is trying to rant at the 'System' not the individuals - he does say this a lot. Sadly, when ranting at the system it is easy to get sucked in to generalising every one together and insulting the masses.

A couple of other points. Crabb, you are recounting stories of times past about civ SAR. Similar horrendous stories abound for pretty much all the mil SAR flights - Chivenor..... wheels up landing. That covers both services!

All SAR flights change be they military or civil. People move on and places change atmosphere. What was once nothing better than a flying club becomes very professional and a highly regarded place under new leadership. Change the leadership and your back to demotivated people just turning up for work. Example? Being where you are, you know WHO I mean - not your present flight or Sqn OC!

lets just talk about cost and mil vs civ?

Is it cheaper? Or is mil more? Well, I don't actually think there is a great deal in it now - and boy have I been studying this! In an ideal world Crabb you would get new aircraft and carry on. But, your missing one vital point. Its not all about money, its about people. You see there are a lot of you in SAR, and there could be less military a similar service for very similar costs. The surplus people? Well its back off to SH with you all where you are very much needed.

Its not the civvies who undermined mil SAR, its the MOD. You see your lords and masters decided they only wanted a few to gain these cracking skills - and they are cracking skills. The rest need to be in the thick of the fighting. The concept is that the rotation from SAR will spread the experience throughout [I have my own views on if this will work]. Overall, in the end, the stable community will be the civ SAR people. The turn over will be of mil personnel to and from the SH world [and I include the RN in that [sorry RN!]].

So, how to sum up this last paragraph? The MOD thinks you are a Military helicopter pilot that is miss employed in SAR. Sadly, and I mean that, the writing isn't on the wall, its engraved in 2ft high letters and not much is going to stop it!

SARREMF

23rd Nov 2007, 23:17

Oh, and I got given a set of NVG on an East Coast flight and told to crack on! After 2 months I did the 2hr course!
Still, its what the best dressed man is wearing at night!

[email protected]

24th Nov 2007, 12:42

SARREMF - ...almost brought a tear to my eye...at least someone actually reads my posts - if I knew who you were I'd buy you a pint:ok:

The only problem is people will think it's me supporting myself under a different login:)

You're right that we have been short-changed by the MoD but sending us SH will take years as the OCU's don't have enough aircraft to get us trained up!

Northernstar - the reason I think this issue is important is because it is another of those capability issues; we do have the capability and the authority to do it legally - do the MCA crews? If they don't then something will need to be sorted pronto as there is supposed to be 'no lesser capability' under SARH.

We do clearing turns to check it is OK ahead and you do turns to check it is clear to manoeuvre - 6 and two 3s really until you have to manoeuvre into the coast from the hover in a strong onshore wind, when suddenly a rearward facing radar becomes rather superior.

Out of interest, is the S92 radar x-band and therefore SART compatible and able to see mil Sea Kings with I (x-band) transponders - rather important in multi aircraft ops.

ShyTorque

24th Nov 2007, 16:04

I would just point out that I first flew a Sea King 3 on NVG in autumn 1982 (circuits to a man with a cigarette in the middle of Chetwynd), in preparation for a det to 51S 58W or thereabouts.
Sven
edit to add
We probably were putting lives at risk - we just hadn't figured all the hazards. I guess we were lucky. Over time you learn (and you get better goggles). The trick is then that others take your experience and move on.

So you never had to fly on PNGs? What a revelation NVGs were after those evil devices. Probably more likely to crash wearing them and unable to wear a helmet, only a cloth inner. One tube had to be focused on the instruments and one tube outside due to no peripheral vision whatsoever; and the tubes used to mist up....

And we had to go back to using throat mikes while using the goggles, which didn't help. :eek:

I got funny eyes now... :8

steve_oc

24th Nov 2007, 16:40

Crab - yes to your question (Honeywell Primus 701).

running in

24th Nov 2007, 17:12

Crab,
Can also see all aircraft with transponders, not just I Band, with TCAS I.
RI

Droopystop

24th Nov 2007, 17:19

Even the S61s have a SART compatible radar.

Send'em

24th Nov 2007, 21:25

Crab, It would help if you read the posts.

Now, leave the gate barrier alone for a while and listen.

You said ;
"Sendem - as soon as you are tasked, ARCC are informed and it appears on the RCS, "

I am not tasked. I do the tasking . I SEND THEM. Clues as to the user name ?
The ARCC are informed When I get round to it. When I feel like it. I try to be prompt but sometimes it is after landing. What pisses me off that our helicopters fly a SAR mission, I tell the ARCC after the helo has landed and the ARCC puts another a pin in its map for a job that they "coordinated".

Crab Said;
"Have you ever been to Kinloss to see what your tasking authority does - your oversimplified statement would suggest not."

I was there 1-2 November 2006. As an ex-cavalry officer; your officer's Mess would be unacceptable to the Lance Corporals in my regiment. Grow-bags in the dining room ! And the food !

Crab said;
"As for your last post, you well know what I was commenting on regarding second standby - you don't have a seconds crew and we do, is that simple enough for you."

Our pilots/crew can jump into the spare helo and fly it ; without an erck having to paint their name on the side and waiting 8 hours for it to dry.

You may have a second crew but when I call the ARCC every morning I discover there is not a second helo for them to fly.

[email protected]

25th Nov 2007, 09:14

Send'em - you seem proud of the fact that you are often tardy in informing the tasking authority for ALL UK SAR helicopters that you have launched one of their assets - that sounds very professional - not!

You seem to typify the MCA protectionist/partitionist attitude - are you the guy who only as a last resort calls the ARRCK to get Chivenor or Culdrose in, especially when Portland are at home overnight and your only asset is Lee?

I have met and worked with many cavalry officers and generally they are good (if slightly pompous) chaps but it is an interesting change of direction from Army to MCA - perhaps your underlying attitude to RAF aircrew is given away by your comments about the Offs Mess at Kinloss and erks painting our aircraft:)

No seconds every morning? Now you are being fatuous - even during our worst periods the availability is still over 80% - can you read the RCS through your tainted glasses?

Droopy and Steve, thanks for the info.

Running In - don't confuse ATC transponders with I-band transponders - TCAS won't alert to an I band one. The I band ones show up on an I band radar so that in multi-aircraft ops, everyone with compatible kit can see all the others, esp at night or in poor wx. So the S61 and S92 radars will only see aircraft ahead of them - our blind arc is only 30 degrees, theirs is 240 degrees (assuming 60 degree sweep either side of nose). Knowing exactly where the aircraft is means not having to take TCAS avoiding action when it detects the ATC transponder - that would be a pain in the backside when you are trying to conduct a search.

running in

25th Nov 2007, 10:37

Crab,

It is you who seem confused. TCAS gives you 360 degree coverage and it displayed on the pilots' screens so that they can see traffic at all times - it is not linked to the radar it is a separate system. With the Sea King's current arrangement you can only see I Bands when someone is in the "shack", so no cover when winching etc. TCAS also shows you when non SAR aircraft get in the way!

The world has moved on since the Sea King, wake up and smell the coffee.

RI

3D CAM

25th Nov 2007, 11:04

Crab

You seem to typify the MCA protectionist/partitionist attitude

Now that is a bit rich. You are not the only one who is keeping a list of taskings from ARCCK, and their positions to the most suitable,available asset !?:hmm:

[email protected]

26th Nov 2007, 08:56

Running In - I think you are over-egging the capability of TCAS somewhat - it will tell what quadrant another aicraft is and issue a TA if the altitudes conflict but it is not much use when conducting a multi-aircraft search at low level in poor vis/night when you need to know exactly where the other aircraft are - TCAS doesn't have that level of accuracy.

Frankly having the TCAS alerting all the time during such an op would be very distracting. And since I am talking about searching, the Radop would always be in the radshack. In fact the TV screen with the radar plot on is easily visible from the cabin door when winching - maybe you haven't seen what the latest fit looks like.

I'm not saying TCAS wouldn't be nice for general ops but in specific situations the I band radar wins.

3D - I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - if you mean the ARRCK might task a military asset instead of a civ one then it is possible but only for good operational reasons. The advantage of having the RCS is that you can see at a glance what the other flights are doing and whether they are closer to a job because they are airborne on training. You can also see how the serviceability affects the UK cover as a whole and choose not to send the obvious flight because it would leave half the UK with no SAR cover.

Still waiting re IMC below MSA:)

JimL

26th Nov 2007, 12:49

Crab,

There could be several reason why no-one has replied to your question on descent below MSA (although I did several months ago - probably on a PM) and that is because the regulation establishes that it can be done but does not spell out the method of compliance. It is left to the operator to submit a proposal. Any reply could therefore reveal the company of the poster.

Firstly bear in mind that the MSA (LSALT) over the sea is 1,300ft (usually rounded to 1,500).

Apart its obvious use for an en-route descent - e.g. to avoid an instrument approach to a complex environment (where the approach and go-around directions are not clear of obstacles); it can be used as a fall back procedure in Coastal Aerodromes procedures; and a descent in compliance with Limited Icing clearances. Here is the content of the rule:

JAR-OPS 3.365 Minimum flight altitudes(See IEM OPS 3.250)The pilot flying shall not descend below specified minimum altitudes except when necessary for take-off or landing, or when descending in accordance with procedures approved by the Authority.Any applicant would have to submit a safety case establishing the extent and limits of the procedure together with requirements for equipment; accuracy of height would require the RADALT and obstacle clearance in the descent sector, the airborne RADAR.

The more specific of any application would be that submitted by a SAR operator for whom limits would be directly associated with their operational constraints and the demands of the task.

Such a procedure would be in the Operations Manual (or, for the SAR unit, the SAR Appendix).

Jim

[email protected]

26th Nov 2007, 16:09

Jim, I see where you get 1300' from but not 1500' - we use 1000' and don't overfly any radar contacts below that.

The normal Non Representative Allowance added to terrain overland is 300' and the Maximum Elevation Figures on our maps reflect the maximum terrain plus the NRA. Over the sea with no other structures, this figure becomes 300' and does not need to be rounded up further so the MSA over open water would be 1300'. But we base our safety altitude on the highest terrain we are likely to fly over, not the MEF so ours is 1000' over open water. The advantage of a good radar is that it will see any vessel or structure (especially those nasty windfarms) and we just avoid them below 1000'.

All that one of the SAR operators needs to do is post here outlining what they do when letting down IMC to a radar contact or GPS position to effect a rescue or carry out a search -the exemption for approach and landing is not valid in this case.

We have a specific exemption in JSP 550 to operate IMC below MSA over water because we have clearly laid down procedures using Rad Alt and on-board radar for vertical and horizontal clearances - this is why we carry a Radar Operator and have a large radar swept arc 330 degrees.
I know this all seems like semantics but this is a capability that is not matched by the S92 or S61 and needs to be addressed before 2012.

cyclic

26th Nov 2007, 18:10

Crab

I thought we had covered this ages ago. The CAA give an exemption to the 500' rule and authority to carry out SAROps and training to lower heights both in VMC and IMC. The civilian operators have laid down SOPs for let-downs to radar contacts/let downs over the sea which have been demonstrated to a CAA Ops Inspector and approved. In some cases they use the same radar that the North Sea operators use routinely to do en-route let-downs to 500' during the day and deck height + 50' for ARAs with a minimum of 200' (day) in IMC down to .75nm

This same radar is more than capable of holding targets to .25nm quite safely for SAR and this is authorised as part of the exemption by the CAA. I know, I have used it in anger to do this. You don't need a dedicated radar operator if the aircraft is capable of reducing the pilots' workload to such an extent that operating the radar is a minor part of the NFP's capacity. Please bear in mind that ops in IMC over the sea, admittedly only to 200', are a common occurrence with a crew of only two pilots over the North Sea.

[email protected]

27th Nov 2007, 09:22

Cyclic, thanks for the information -I don't think we had covered this before. The radar may be acceptable for holding large contacts ie rigs and supertankers down to .25nm but what about smaller vessels and structures like winds farms and masts? To successfully let down to a target IMC within a limited area, you need to manoeuvre well below 500', we use 200', so that the Trans down doesn't take too much room. We have more flexibility because we can clear turns during our TD, whereas with a forward only looking radar you would be turning into an uncleared area.

Frankly in IMC over the water I would take a well trained Radop over a co-pilot anyday.

Is it possible to get sight of the Ops manual/SOPs?

cyclic

27th Nov 2007, 09:51

The radar will hold small fishing boats if set up correctly. Windfarms don't appear overnight, they get put on maps and I would guess that an offshore windfarm would show on the radar; the one up here does. Masts? Your bound to be able to correct me on this, but with 22 years of flying over the seas around this island including working for one of the oldest navigational authorities in the world, I have never seen a mast randomly placed in the sea.
You clear the area before making the TD. Most boats (masts & windfarms) probably only do a max of 20 kts so are unlikely to sneek up on you and jump out during a TD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Seaking has a blind arc out front of 30 degrees and therefore if a target is in front of you (the place where you are most likely to bump into it) you can't see it unless you continuously make blind arc clearances. When moving towards the target after the let down, having it out front is a distinct advantage. The TD that I have flown in modern aircraft is generally very accurate. Can you home to two military PLBs in a Mk3 yet? Modern SAR aircraft have homers that can track and designate multiple beacons. This is probably more of a concern than having a 330 degree radar and should have been high priority for military SAR. Please tell me where you will put the radar on a S92/EC225/AW139 etc. to gain 360 coverage? Perhaps it should go in an inflatable bag on the side?
You are unlikely to ever see a company's Ops Manuals unless you work for that company. These are normally commercial in confidence for good reason. However, the manuals are written based on the best aspects of all SAR outfits and not just the military. Some of the SOPs would be very familiar to you as they have been created along the lines of military SAR. Some of them wouldn't because they have been written by forward thinking people with an open mind prepared to explore new possibilities. I know this to be the case 'cos I woz there!

[email protected]

27th Nov 2007, 11:02

Do the copilots get trained to set the radar up correctly? Windfarms don't appear overnight but I have encountered at least one that hadn't been added to the mapping. The first thing that usually gets erected before a windfarm is set up is a single mast - again the mapping often lags behind the reality.

Our TD takes just over a minute so the length of time spent on the final run in and letdown into the blind arc is probably less than 3 minutes or so and the whole area would have been cleared in a turn beforehand. We can modify out TD tomake 180 turns if required because the radar can see that area - this gives more flexibility when letting down into bays or in busy shipping lanes. Bristows came up with a plan to put a tail mounted radar on a S61 - maybe that's why they lost the contract:)

You could fit the S92 with a 360 radar, it's just that no-one wants to because they are so 'forward looking'!!!!

You are right about the homers though - the Griffin in Cyprus has the fit we need in UK but the IPT keeps getting in the way. We can do double PLB homings though and it is a quarterly requirement for pilots to practise them - can you say the same?

cyclic

27th Nov 2007, 11:23

I personally don't practice double PLB homings because I don't need to - go figure. I have seen civilian crews practice to more than one beacon as it is part of their contract. I was alluding to the fact that even if you practice double PLB homings, the chances of you being successful when IMC are slim because the kit doesn't work with the newer beacon. If I turned up at a RAF base and asked your Joe average pilot to demonstrate a double PLB homing in IMC to two successful pick ups, I reckon I would be on a safe bet to say they couldn't do it. Not skills, not practice but the one piece of kit you need for a double ejection over the sea, doesn't work. To me this is far, far more important.

My point is that there are always going to be inadequacies with SAR aircraft but some aspects are more important than others and the nose mounted radar doesn't present a huge problem. Having a working homer does. All the pilots are trained how to use the radar as it is part of everyday operations and not rocket science.

[email protected]

27th Nov 2007, 14:11

Cyclic, you are very wrong about double PLB homings - just because the kit doesn't automatically present you with a graphical picture of the locations doesn't mean it is unusable. I give pilots this sort of scenario on their annual check rides all the time, over water IMC, over land or a combination of the 2 and I have yet to see one not completed satisfactorily. The kit does work with the new beacon but not as well as it did with the old one.

We could do it quicker with the Griffin homer but we don't have it - that's why we train hard to fight easy.

As for radar Vs homer - I have done a lot more IMC over water jobs using the radar than I ever have needing the homers - go figure:)

SARREMF - I know who you are now:ok:

cyclic

27th Nov 2007, 14:27

Cyclic, you are very wrong about double PLB homings - just because the kit doesn't automatically present you with a graphical picture of the locations doesn't mean it is unusable. I give pilots this sort of scenario on their annual check rides all the time, over water IMC, over land or a combination of the 2 and I have yet to see one not completed satisfactorily. The kit does work with the new beacon but not as well as it did with the old one.

We could do it quicker with the Griffin homer but we don't have it - that's why we train hard to fight easy.

Crab , I didn't expect to see you admit that there was anything wrong with your precious Sea King and I was right! Perhaps we could agree to differ on this even though I have documentary evidence that blows your argument out of the water. Keep training hard although I thought you boys were lovers not fighters :ok:

Saint Evil

27th Nov 2007, 15:20

Cyclic,
having just left the HAR3 I can say with a degree of confiednce that every line pilot can and does a double PLB homing and letdown in sim IMC. The kit ain't great and more often than not you have to use one of your main radios to acheive a satisfactory homing. Not great but workable - don't denigrate the abilities of RAF SAR aircrew.
Crab,
just because the more modern SAR cabs don't have a 360(or 330 - not including the rear blindarc) radar doesn't mean that they can't let down to the land or ships etc. They will just do it differently. In fact they can probably point at or just away from the target, which may make things easier. Like the HAR 3 and 3As they'll have to do some manouvering to ensure that they will remain clear of shipping etc but essentially they will let down using their kit quite safely.
Please guys get over yourselves. You fly your aircraft to it's capabilities and then work round the deficincies. Crab - a future SAR service as capable as the one we have now doesn't meant that the aircraft must have a 360 radar - it means that people can be rescued in IMC.
Enough already - I'm off to an Oil Rig.:ok:

SARREMF

27th Nov 2007, 15:26

Crabb - Dam!

Cyclic - sorry, making a habit of this at the moment, but I have to agree with crabb. They will be able to do double PLBs IMC with 2 good pick ups.

And crabb, you thought 84's kit was good, you should see the new stuff!

Saint Evil - you rewriting a manual by any chance whilst on the rig?

cyclic

27th Nov 2007, 15:45

SE, I never dared to "denigrate" the abilities of RAF SAR aircrew. I denigrated the poor state of the kit which was what this thread was about before everyone got all crabby. I think we probably know each other.....:uhoh:

Saint Evil

27th Nov 2007, 15:47

yes, you're probably right.

3D CAM

27th Nov 2007, 19:18

Crab
Cyclic is right, you are unlikely to get to see any companies Ops. manual! Commercial in confidence and all that bull! Why so interested anyway, it's not too long ago that you thought we didn't have such a beast?:rolleyes:
Said manual by the way, approves operations down to 40ft, IMC. It is approved by the CAA who witness the safe operation before issuing their approval! The CAA are our regulatory authority and just because Boscombe Down have not ticked the box doesn't make it wrong. And yes, you would be surprised at what you may recognise in our SOP's, but then you think we don't have any!
As for Bristow losing the contract due to lack of 360 radar, well what a load of b******s! Where is it on the winning bidders aircraft??
We all know why BHL lost the contract! One reason is no longer working for the MCA and another is no longer working for the RAF???

Sven Sixtoo

27th Nov 2007, 21:07

If you know why BHL lost, please tell.

I thought that info was rather seriously commercial in confidence.

But of course if you know different ...

Sven

[email protected]

28th Nov 2007, 08:22

3D - I was referring to the lacklustre way they seemed to bid for the contract and laughably suggested tacking a tail mounted radar onto the S61 when their efforts were critcised.

I knew you had an ops manual I just didn't how heavily plagiarised our SOPs were - has someone tippexed out where they say Sea King and replaced it with S61?:)

I vote for going back to the Wessex days - day VMC SAR only - hurrah:ok:

3D CAM

28th Nov 2007, 10:44

Crab.
Bloody hell, we agree on something! Lacklustre is not the word I would use. Complacent, just short of arrogant, is more like it!:sad: And not listening to the client!
Wessex?? No!! Whirlwind9/10.:):)
As for the ops. manual, as Cyclic says previously, I think you will find it takes the best of all worlds, not exclusively RAF. You do not hold the rights to worldwide SAR you know, people have done it successfully before, even the Navy.:)(Oh. and Bristow!):)
Sven
There's your answer. Plus what I said in my previous post.

[email protected]

28th Nov 2007, 13:05

3D - :ok: The only problem with the Whirlwind was that you winched the aircraft down to the casualty because it was so underpowered:)

Bertie Thruster

28th Nov 2007, 14:56

I vote for going back to the Wessex days - day VMC SAR only - hurrah

...Not sure about that; I seem to remember lots of night mountain and cliff training, interesting (pre-NVG) night mountain rescues and one night PLB homing to a wet winching 40 miles out off St Andrews bay (F4 Nav) plus a man in a rubber dingy 5 miles off Chivenor (spotted by the winchman who did have NVG's) and some assorted night deck rescues.

However it was the night mountain work that was always the most exciting! (training limits were 1/2 moon plus and less than 15kt. The ops tended to be in the pitch black, blowing a gale and snowing!)

Droopystop

28th Nov 2007, 15:49

Crab,

So the Griffin has a piece of kit that is better than it's equivalent in the Sea King?

Remind us again who provides that Griffin? FBH? So private finance does have some use in SAR.

Saint Evil

28th Nov 2007, 16:53

just been speaking to a guy who does rescues in offshore wind farms using an EC135.
Takes all sorts - different strokes for different folks and amazingly enough it all seems to work.

[email protected]

28th Nov 2007, 19:26

Droopy - yes but they also provided that aircraft without a night over-water capability so it was as much use as a Wessex - hardly progress and it shows that unless the spec is detailed enough, someone will save a few bucks here and there because it meets the letter of the contract if not the spirit:)

Return to sender

28th Nov 2007, 20:34

I was referring to the lacklustre way they seemed to bid for the contract and laughably suggested tacking a tail mounted radar onto the S61 when their efforts were critcised.

Crab, is that why they lost it? I'm asking you cos you are obviously in the know?

Nice to see your anti Bristow feeling is as strong as ever... Tell me if they win harmonization will you be applying for a job with them or is it just beneath you?

Fareastdriver

29th Nov 2007, 02:44

The only problem with the Whirlwind was that you winched the aircraft down to the casualty because it was so underpowered

At El Adem in the early sixties a Sycamore was the chariot. The winchman would be sent down to strop up the casualty, who would then be lifted and flown back to base. Then they would come out again for the winchman.

pumaboy

29th Nov 2007, 07:25

AH the good old day's :):)

ShyTorque

29th Nov 2007, 07:33

I was once the "casualty" on a Whirlwind training flight out of Leconfield. We were doing cliff winching training on Flamborough Head. Suddenly I was lifted off the cliff, set down on top of the Head and the Whirlwind disappeared on a non-exercise mission. I was eventually "rescued" by the Coastguard from hordes of assorted holiday makers who thought I was a real casualty and couldn't understand why I had been unceremoniously dumped after being rescued. Made the Sunday papers.

They did come back for me eventually... they said they wanted the immersion suit back ;)

[email protected]

29th Nov 2007, 08:32

Return to sender - see 3D's post for the reason they lost - I don't know the details but I think they assumed they would automatically get renewal because they had been the incumbents for so long and the detail of the CHC bid caught them on the hop.

I don't think Bristows will make the same mistake again and yes, if SAR H removes the miltary from SAR, then I probably would apply for a job with the contractors - they are going to have a to find a lot of SAR crews from somewhere and they might even consider letting me in (probably floor sweeping to start with)

When you say harmonisation you actually mean takeover because all attempts at real harmonisation have failed miserably - SAR is done 3 different ways by 3 different service providers with little in the way of commonality.

chcoffshore

29th Nov 2007, 10:28

I don't think Bristows will make the same mistake again and yes, if SAR H removes the miltary from SAR, then I probably would apply for a job with the contractors - they are going to have a to find a lot of SAR crews from somewhere and they might even consider letting me in (probably floor sweeping to start with)

:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::p:phahaha with all the slagging you've given civilian SAR!

leopold bloom

29th Nov 2007, 15:52

The military are not being removed from SARH, the ITT specifies that 66 military aircrew will be utilised in the solution. Hope for Crab yet!:ok:

Hiller

29th Nov 2007, 19:43

Not normally one to get involved but enjoy the repartee. But one question from 3D's post is what is wrong with your Goodrich hoist? By your admission it seems that it cannot be relied upon.
H

Fareastdriver

30th Nov 2007, 01:59

Don't worry Crab, your future is safe. When there is a need there is a need. I've known pilots being re-employed by companies who have sworn blind that he would never cast a shadow in their portals again.

[email protected]

30th Nov 2007, 05:05

Leopold - you and I both know that the figure of 66 is completely unworkable and just pie in the sky from the MoD. The idea that rearcrew will jump through all the hoops of paramedic training, do FI dets every 24 weeks and then be rewarded with a posting to SH is fanciful, to say the least especailly when there will be so many jobs for them outside. The whole argument that we provided crews to go to SH was false, there have always been far more coming the other way!

CHCoffshore - thanks mate - look forward to working with you:)

Fareast - I reckon you are right 'needs must when the devil rides' and all that

chcoffshore

30th Nov 2007, 09:37

Your welcome:};):ok:

leopold bloom

30th Nov 2007, 11:11

:)Leopold - you and I both know that the figure of 66 is completely unworkable and just pie in the sky from the MoD. The idea that rearcrew will jump through all the hoops of paramedic training, do FI dets every 24 weeks and then be rewarded with a posting to SH is fanciful, to say the least especailly when there will be so many jobs for them outside. The whole argument that we provided crews to go to SH was false, there have always been far more coming the other way!
When have facts ever got in the way of a juicy contract? Besides, if you look closely at the figures I think you will find that a 24 week interval for the FI det is a trifle optimistic. Still, surely foreign travel and further education is part of the reason for joining the military? Must go, crosswords just don't complete themselves you know.