UK SAR Harmonisation

[Lost at Sea]

Heard today that Augusta Westland has joined the UK Air Rescue bid for SAR Harmonisation. So that's Bristow, SERCO, Augusta Westland and FBH all in one consortium.

Bad news for CHC/Thales especially with the recent poor press coverage of the S92 and CHC having their $400 million debt rating reduced to negative.

I think that leaves only the two bidders now that Bond have pulled out a few months ago.

[Taff Missed]

I suppose that's good? AW139's here we go. At least it isn't a Westland product.

[jonnyloove]

Maybe with Westland joinning Bristows and FBH & Serco they will be offering the EH-101 & AW-139 as there option. The 101 might have chance then???:)

[Vie sans frontieres]

Maybe with Westland joinning Bristows and FBH & Serco they will be offering the EH-101 & AW-139 as there option.

So that'll be one set of crewmen with so much cabin space they don't know what to do with it and one set tripping over each other to avoid tripping over the casualty. Here's hoping common sense prevails. D'oh!

[Ned-Air2Air]

Lost At Sea - What was the bad coverage they were getting on the S92. Thought it was going well there for them.

Thanks

[WillDAQ]

I suppose that's good? AW139's here we go. At least it isn't a Westland product.
You are assuming Westlands don't have other plans for the fleet, rather than just shipping something in from the Italians.

[detgnome]

Unless Air Knight have pulled out as well, surely there are 3 bidders?

[leopold bloom]

Yes, still 3 consortiums: CHC/Thales, AirKnight and UK Air Rescue. AW have rejoined the fray with UK Air Rescue. I hear that the IPT are looking for expertise from the front line to help assess the bids. Will Crab be one of those "Volunteered" to assist? A nation holds its breath.:ok:

[T4 Risen]

which bidding group was lockheed martin with?

[leopold bloom]

LM along with VT and BIH form the AirKnight Consortium.

[Return to sender]

I hear that the IPT are looking for expertise from the front line to help assess the bids.

That's a bit radical... actually asking the guys who are going to use the equipment and operate the service what they think. :rolleyes:

Have they been drinking...??? ;)

[leopold bloom]

UK Air Rescue welcomes AgustaWestland to the team

UK Air Rescue, the British consortium of Bristow Helicopters, FB Heliservices and Serco seeking to run the UK’s Search and Rescue Helicopter (SAR-H) service, is today being joined by AgustaWestland, a global leader in helicopter systems and training.

The addition of AgustaWestland to the team further strengthens the credentials of UK Air Rescue. With an established track record of working together, each company brings specialist experience and insight to the consortium, creating the ideal partner to deliver unfailing, lifesaving search and rescue services over land and sea.

Between them, the founding companies of UK Air Rescue have extensive SAR experience spanning over 35 years, a deep public service ethos, commercial, technical and training expertise, a track record in innovation and a total focus on assured service delivery.

Allan Blake, Director of UK Air Rescue, said: “We are delighted to have AgustaWestland on board. AgustaWestland design helicopters that perform search and rescue operations around the world in all manner of situations and conditions. UK Air Rescue will combine their invaluable experience with the extensive SAR capabilities and experience with other helicopter types already within the partnership to ensure that our solution delivers exactly what the customer needs and what the public deserves.”

UK Air Rescue is currently one of three bidders who have been selected to participate in a dialogue and subsequently offer a solution in competition, which will be assessed jointly by the Ministry of Defence and Maritime and Coastguard Agency.



Notes

1. UK Air Rescue is a British consortium of Bristow Helicopters, FB Heliservices, Serco and AgustaWestland.

2. Bristow is one of the largest providers of helicopter services worldwide. Bristow’s extensive SAR experience over 35 years includes operations in Norway, the Soloman Islands, and the Netherlands as well as direct SAR support to the global oil/gas industry. Until July 2007 Bristow was the current SAR provider to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency with UK SAR experience dating from 1971. In that time Bristow has flown in excess of 40,000 SAR hours, carried out over 10,000 missions and rescued more than 6,500 people.

3. Serco brings the public service, operational and commercial experience essential to the delivery of a harmonised SAR operation. Serco is trusted to deliver highly sensitive, safety first, efficient services on behalf of the UK government. These include a wide range of key support services at military bases across the UK, state-of-the-art simulated mission training to military helicopter pilots and operational support to the Armed Forces, including engineering support to both rotary and fixed wing platforms. In addition, Serco has several successful PFI projects to its name, including the flagship Joint Services Command and Staff College at Shrivenham.

4. FB Heliservices, a Bristow and Cobham joint venture, brings unmatched experience of commercial and military SAR operational training and SAR service support. At the Search and Rescue Training Unit (SARTU) at RAF Valley, FB Heliservices provides SAR training for all military multi-engine Advanced Rotary Wing students and intensive training for pilots and crewmen specialising in search and rescue. SARTU is manned by a mixture of specialist SAR military and civilian instructors, providing the continuity and depth of experience to the instructor cadre as they are all highly experienced SAR aircrew; all are ex-military and many have extensive civil SAR experience.

5. AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is one of the largest helicopter companies in the world. The company offers an unrivalled range of helicopters, training and support solutions to satisfy the requirements of civil and military customers. AgustaWestland has its primary operations in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Under the Sea King Integrated Operational Support (SKIOS) aircraft availability based contract, awarded in November 2007, AgustaWestland is supporting the current UK military SAR aircraft fleet that provide around the clock SAR cover for the UK and Falkland Islands. AgustaWestland has the most extensive range of modern SAR helicopters in its product range including the AW139 medium range and AW101 long range helicopters.:D

[Vie sans frontieres]

Mmmmm. All very impressive until the bottom line.

AgustaWestland has the most extensive range of modern SAR helicopters in its product range including the AW139 medium range and AW101 long range helicopters.

See my previous post (11th Jan) They'll need to come up with more suitable aircraft than those. They need a rescue helicopter, not a helicopter bastardised for rescue purposes.

[leopold bloom]

They need a rescue helicopter, not a helicopter bastardised for rescue purposes. Surely that has always been the case? Is there an existing helicopter that was designed specifically for SAR?:confused:

[bpaggi]

See my previous post (11th Jan) They'll need to come up with more suitable aircraft than those. They need a rescue helicopter, not a helicopter bastardised for rescue purposes.

Vie sans frontieres your comment looks really ridiculous! Both 139 and 101 have a specific SAR variant and both are already operational in such roles.
Bastardised is such "out of context" word that could even sounds offensive in this case!
Are you a little biased on Agusta products?

[Geoffersincornwall]

How about this then:

http://www.agustawestland.com/products01_02.php?id_product=29&id=29

When are you guys going to realise that there will never be a 'perfect' SAR machine.

Generally speaking the old favorite in design principles prevails. That is the design philosophy behind the 'SKIP' (known as the DUMPSTER in the US). ie. What will hold a lot will hold a little). Of course you will need smaller craft for small jobs and medium for medium jobs but please, gentlemen, head out of the sand, we live in the real world and in that real world we make do as best we can. It's bad enough trying to get manufacturers to get helicopters that are good at one job let alone the multitude of tasks that they are now asked to perform.


G.

:ok:

[Vie sans frontieres]

With a cabin height as low as that, I would have thought the average employment lifespan for the crewmen will be about three years before their dodgy knees and backs get the better of them. (Ask a Puma crewman!)

[Hilife]

I thought they were looking for a civil platform solution, isn’t the AW149 a militarized AW139?

[leopold bloom]

I thought they were looking for a civil platform solution, isn’t the AW149 a militarized AW139?
It doesn't work like that, it is up to bidders to provide the solution, whatever that may be. A civil servant on the IPT even stated at one meeting that "the solution doesn't have to be a helicopter". Raised eyebrows everywhere! As Geoffers says there is no perfect SAR helicopter, adapt, adopt, improvise is the name of the game. What is really needed, I think, is a Sea King size replacement, High Cabin NH90 anyone?:ok:

[3D CAM]

Now for my two bobs worth!
As has already been stated, this is the opportunity to get things right from the start. Whatever machine/s is/are finally decided on, it/they need to be able to do the job from day one! Not six/eight months after taking over.:ugh:
The aircraft is going to be used purely for SAR, not troop lifting, underslinging or anything military! Well not yet anyway. So get it right now!!!
Yes, it really needs to be something S61/Sea King size, not AW139, which I am sure is a very useful machine, but would not have been able to do the job off Dorset on Sunday night without help from elsewhere! Yes, I know there are bases elsewhere, Lee(139 from April) , Chivenor, Culdrose but if the Harmonisation team don't get it right, then they will probably be 139s as well! (Everyone seems to be obsessed with speed, not lifting ability and range. Is Jeremy Clarkson on the IPT?)
If the IPT need expertise from the front line then so be it. Only don't forget that Crab is not the only expert,:) there are some pretty experienced Crews on the MCA contract as well!!!:ok:
A bit more than two bobs worth but I needed to get that off my chest!
3D

[Justintime80]

Well said 3D Cam

Have to agree with you on most of what you say but I would one step further.
I would like the IPT to canvas ALL SAR crew on ALL SAR Bases (Airforce,Navy and Coastguard) on what they would like to see in this new contract.

I think there is a place for a 139 and that place is either Portland or Lee on Solent but not Both they are the only two bases so close that you could have one backing up the other with a larger Helo if needed


Justin

[Vie sans frontieres]

Can't see both Portland and Lee surviving anyway. One of them'll have to move east. Surely the people of Sussex, Kent and Essex deserve better coverage than they have at present.

How about ............................................................ .......Manston!

Now there's an idea.

[leopold bloom]

The aircraft is going to be used purely for SAR, not troop lifting, underslinging or anything military!
You might want to re-examine the ITT again to see the flaws in that statement.
I would like the IPT to canvas ALL SAR crew on ALL SAR Bases (Airforce,Navy and Coastguard) on what they would like to see in this new contract.
Ask 4 aircrew and you'll get 5 opinions! Do you really think a multi million pound contract is going to be awarded on the opinions of the workers?
If the IPT need expertise from the front line then so be it. Only don't forget that Crab is not the only expert, there are some pretty experienced Crews on the MCA contract as well
Have the MCA or RN been approached to supply expertise? Stop picking on poor old Crab.;)

[[email protected]]

I did have my name in the frame briefly for the SARH scoring team but perhaps my contentious views in the past might have queered the pitch in some peoples view-never mind, it sounds like it is going to be far from a barrel of laughs. And, since the mates of mine who are involved have generally similar viewpoints and experience, it won't affect the price of fish much and common sense will prevail.

There is a high probability that whatever aircraft end up filling the contract, they will be COMR (contractor owned and military registered) so that they can be crewed by both civvy and mil crews and can operate to military rules and regs (NVG for example). This solution is easy to achieve (the precedents already exist) and saves tedious battles with the CAA trying to work out how to marry the civilian rules to the SAR needs. With COMR you just adapt existing mil SOPs and crack on - you can even winch for training without being safe single engine!!

The problem with basing your aircraft selection on just one SAROP is that the next one will inevitably need the exact opposite - I think all the bidders are unanimous that a mix of large and small aircraft is the solution.

[detgnome]

I think there is a place for a 139 and that place is either Portland or Lee on Solent but not Both they are the only two bases so close that you could have one backing up the other with a larger Helo if needed

And I think you have neatly summarised the case for not having 2 bases so close to each other...

[[email protected]]

The Western end of the Portland patch is covered by Chivenor at night anyway-it wouldn't be difficult to do during the day as well:)

[Rescue1]

Haven’t the Coastguard just built 2 brand new huge hangers at Lee and Portland if so I can’t see either of them moving any time soon.
Better idea would be to put the S92 into Portland and close Chivenor :)
Don't think that would upset to many people crab and you could always redeploy to a war zone and do what your trained to do.

[[email protected]]

What??? they have Sky TV and a locker full of chocolate in war zones?? I'm off:)

[3D CAM]

Crab said.

The Western end of the Portland patch is covered by Chivenor at night anyway-it wouldn't be difficult to do during the day as well:)

O.K. I'll rise to the bait.
When Portland receive their new faster aircraft, the 139, maybe they will be in your 'patch' a bit more often during the day?:) That is presuming ARCCK do not do their usual protectionism bit when considering taskings!:ugh:
Now for my bit of bait.
Harmonisation sees both Chivenor and Culdrose closed and replaced by a unit at St. Mawgan/Newquay.:D This will allow a new unit to be formed at Manston and push Wattisham up to Great Yarmouth.:D:D
Rescue 1
Yes, new hangars at Portland and Lee. Milllions of pounds worth!! If the military are to be used as role models,then they are both for the chop.:eek:
S92 at Portland? Gets my vote.:ok:
Lee do not need a large aircraft seeing as they spend most of their time acting as air ambulance for the Isle of Wight.:)

[jeepys]

If we use the military as a role model then the SARH team had better base the new contract on supplying 36 aircraft.

Make that 48

[[email protected]]

3D - who will cover South Wales then? 50% of Chivs jobs are there and that is a really long way from St Mawgan, even in a super-fast whizzy new helicopter. Then what happens if the St Mawgan aircraft is up in the Brecons and a job happens somwhere on the SW peninsula? Pretty poor response times I would suggest.

There look to be savings when basing is considered and the easy option is always to close one because it saves money - the balance sheet versus the service to the public......hmmmm probably the balance sheet will win every time.

As far as the current basing goes, it seems to work well and the only logical changes would be to move Wattisham to Manston or thereabouts and close Portland - (daytime only SAR...how quaint):)

[3D CAM]

Crab said

who will cover South Wales then? 50% of Chivs jobs are there

Scrub the Chivenor move to St. Mawgan, howabout Brawdy??:) Back to your roots??(The Flight that is.)

Portland - (daytime only SAR...how quaint)

Not quite right there I'm afraid!(As you already know.) 0900-2100 actually.(2359 on "Ice Prince" night. A bloody long day!:ouch:) 24hr. with, if not before, harmonisation! As I have said before, 24hr will be welcomed with open arms!:ok:
3D

[jeepys]

Crab,

Portland - daytime only.

In fact it's 9 til 9 and that means in the winter months it's not daytime for the whole 12 hours. Perhaps the job they did the other night extracting the crew of the stricken vessel sw of Portland may help you to see that. That job went through to about midnight.

And yes it's daytime only certainly in the summer where there are shed loads of divers and holiday makers around Dorset getting in the ****. A fast response SAR machine such as Portland saves many idiots. If the mil covered this patch poor little johnny would be fish food by the time they got airborne let alone arrived.

[Vie sans frontieres]

If the mil covered this patch poor little johnny would be fish food by the time they got airborne let alone arrived.

How do you work that out then? Isn't everyone on RS15? Or are Portland on RS5?

[3D CAM]

How do you work that out then? Isn't everyone on RS15? Or are Portland on RS5?

15 minutes, the same as everywhere else. I think the point was distance from military SAR units, Culdrose & Chivenor, to the extremities of Portland's patch, not scramble times!

[Vie sans frontieres]

Every patch has extremities and if you happen to be in need of rescue in one, then that's just bad luck, just like it's bad luck if the weather's sh!t or if the helicopter's engaged in another rescue. The word on the street is that it'll be 12 bases come 2012 so there's always going to be somewhere that has marginally poorer coverage - that's just a fact of life. You can't base aircraft everywhere. Does little Johnny in Dorset have more right to be saved than little Jimmy in East Kent? Of course not and when you look at the present geographical spread of bases, especially in southern England, it makes no sense at all. Face facts, either Portland or Lee will have to shift eastwards. My money's on the one that's only needed 50% of the time at the moment. Bye bye Portland.

[jeepys]

Jimmy does not need rescuing. He's just learnt to swim.

[3D CAM]

Face facts, either Portland or Lee will have to shift eastwards.

Since when do facts and common sense apply to government decisions?:rolleyes:

The word on the street is that it'll be 12 bases come 2012

Yes, as there are now. Plus The Falklands! Making 13.
It would be a very brave move to even suggest closing any SAR base. Portland went through that a few years ago and in fact the local M.P. even used it as part of his election campaign. Got in as well on the strength of it!

[[email protected]]

12 Military UK SAR Flights with new shiny aircraft - fabtastic, bring it on:) - tell you what, since there is already a civvy heli set up in the Falklands, you can have that one to keep you happy.

If you follow my logic re COMR aircraft then Military supervision will be required to ensure Mil rules and regs are being complied with and Mil standards will be doing the checking and training. We might let a few civilian crews come and share but only if you take your fair share of secondary duties and second standby:):)

Standing by for incoming;)

PS good job on the Ice Prince:ok:

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Mil standards?? Have they got any?:D:D No way am I lowering mine!:)
Oh. and who said anything about shiny new aircraft?
Military Flights? My uniform won't fit anymore, it's too big??? And you may have to salute me.;)
Ice Prince... yep. the boys dun good didn't they.:ok:
Rumour has it that ARCCK turned down the MCA request for Culdrose to launch as well, to back up the S61.:hmm: It would appear they think two lifeboats are as good as a Sea King! (NOT my opinion I hasten to add.) Although the lifeboats did a great job as well!:ok:

[[email protected]]

3D - you just can't see our standards from way down where you are:)

Saluting?? in the RAF......Are you mad??

I suspect the ARCC may have turned down the request for Culdrose because other jobs were brewing - and anyway, you are always going on about how good the 61 is - why would you need help on such a nice, easy, big deck like that?:)

[jeepys]

Crab,

having myself come from the mil into civvy SAR I am probably better placed (as with many people on this forum) than the out and out mil guy to pass judgement on comparing civvy and mil issues.
Crab, I dont know who you are and I really dont care but I suspect by the way you conduct yourself that you are either an old fart mil SAR driver who cannot accept change or a young wipper snapper who's maturity leads him to think that he is the only man on earth who can do the SAR job. When you eventually leave the mob and go civvy please continue with your mil only attitude as it would be a waste to let it go.

From seeing both sides of the fence I can honestly say that both civvy and mil could learn a bit from each other. The difference being that it's a lot harder to implement change in the mil. But one thing that must be corrected is that civvy standards both in and out the cockpit are no way below the mil standards. Seeing that many civvy SAR pilots are ex mil anyway I cannot understand why you go down being the **** route.

[3D CAM]

Crab
What??? No saluting?:)
You'll expect me to believe that there are no more Brylcreem issues next.:D

[jeepys]

okay okay, so there are a few civvy f***wits around but there are just as many in the mil eh Crab.

[[email protected]]

Jeepys - you might like to note that the extensive use of the smilies in my posts (and 3Ds) is intended to convey the lighthearted nature of the banter in which we are engaged. This is because people like you read literally into posts which are written in a jocular way and jump to conclusions about the nature of the poster which are wholly inaccurate.

3D - can't get Brylcreem from Supply Sqn any more:)

[jeepys]

Just for you Crab.

[SARREMF]

Just a very small correction, and I think you need to consult the ITT, but the last time I looked you couldn't shut or move Portland and Lee.

Crabb. What second standby under SAR-H? Its 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call.

Said it before I'll say it again. Stop it with the Civ bashing! The rest of you, play nicely! Lets all share and get along!

[[email protected]]

SARREMF - the statement about 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call implies no seconds at all and is therefore a clear contradiction to the 'no lesser capability' requirement for SAR H.

I don't believe the basing of any of the flights is sacrosanct, however, moving will cost money and is therefore unlikely to happen.

I think you will find I haven't been 'civvy bashing' - just plain old bantering:)

[leopold bloom]

Just a very small correction, and I think you need to consult the ITT, but the last time I looked you couldn't shut or move Portland and Lee.

Crabb. What second standby under SAR-H? Its 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call.
I have just read the ITT again and there is no mention of any number of bases. The ITT simply specifies a response time:"1 on state airborne system to any specified location, within the relevant risk areas, within 60 min of take off." There are other qualifying clauses regarding the types of risk area but if the contractor could meet those requirements from a single base on the moon using a pan-galactic space hopper then that would do. None of the present bases are sacrosanct nor is there any mention of 12 bases. The whole point of this sytem of tendering is that the contractor comes up with the solution and is not constrained by the present arrangements. That said, with cost being a major factor, I don't think that the solution will come up with bases that are too far from their present locations. Anyway it's raining (again) here at Sunnyvale and I must find something more interesting to do than re-reading ITT's, any thoughts SARREMF?:ok:

[Tallsar]

L B - I suggest you re-read page 4 of the PITT and you might wish to amend your previous comments.
Cheers!

[leopold bloom]

Tallsar, still can't find it, maybe I have an out-of-date copy, care to enlighten us?:confused:

[Tallsar]

Hi LB - you are assuming I have a copy to hand, my friend!:) I'll use other means.:hmm:

[leopold bloom]

Thanks Tallsar, I stand corrected. There will (probably ) be 12 bases. Back to the crossword for me.:*

[3D CAM]

According to todays press, well, The Mail at least, the VT, LM, British International consortium have binned the idea of using airborne ROVs (not sure if that is the correct description) as part of their bid!:hmm:
"Big Brother" will be most peed off!:)

[[email protected]]

The big question is why, if there are going to be 12 bases each with circa 4 x 4 man crews giving a total of 192 aircrew, is the MoD funding 70% of SAR H and only getting 66 aircrew places? With the way the MoD budget is being squeezed currently it seems rather odd to throw money (£3 -5 Bn) at something you get very little benefit from, especially on a pro rata basis.

[leopold bloom]

Another good question is why, in the 3 additonal solutions proposals, all of which must have as a minimum 8 of the present 12 bases, the 4 present MCA bases are in that 8? Not really starting with a clean sheet or a level playing field is it? :confused:

[[email protected]]

Sing along now "There are more questions than answers.....do be do be do etc".:)

Leopold - this is business ethics ie there are no ethics in business and having a level playing field is just handing the advantage to your competitors:(

[leopold bloom]

That's not really my point though, if we are to have a new multi billion pound SAR service why constrain the bidders by imposing restraints on them? Surely they should be allowed to come up with the solution unhindered by the legacy of the past, I thought that was what the new bidding system was all about.:confused:

[Tallsar]

I think its understandable that each of the present SAR "owners" wishes to have a say in which bases remain in the new service. While these vested interests are not always helpful, many of the "mandatory" bases are not neccessarily in conflict with the need to provide new SAR-H bases in those locations anyway. There may be exceptions however, and its a fact of life that our elected politicans have their vested interest too. After all - they allocate and vote for the money to be spent.
A blank piece of paper would of course been an ideal starting point, but no project of this size and scale can ever start with such a blank sheet - irritating as it is for those who might have an optimum solution in their heads!!
Cheers

[[email protected]]

Maybe one of the bidders will realise that if you ignore the MoD figure of 66 military personnel and construct a bid where all the crews are military then you will have a cheaper solution with far more flexibility. Capitation rate for a Flt Lt or equivalent is 68K whether he/she be co pilot or captain - what's the going rate for a civvy SAR captain? 75K plus or thereabouts?

That is without going into things like surge and concurrent ops, respite tours for SH mates, national security and homeland defence etc etc etc.

SARH was supposed to be a 'blue sky, thinking outside the box' project but the politicians and the MoD have insisted on putting ridiculous constraints on it and we are now on a runaway train that runs the risk of going right off the rails. Maybe there is someone on high who can stop it but, as ever in Britain, we have lots of interested parties pulling in different directions with no clear guidance or vision of what could be achieved.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Crab - I think those simplistic numbers you have used are a trifle naive. When presenting any business plan you also have to apportion a fair share of the basic overhead and you can bet your bottom dollar that the overhead for any military organisation is going to be very large (given its fundamentally different raison d'etre) when compared to any profit oriented commercial operator.

How many Captains/Group Captains, Commodores/Air Commodores, Air Marshalls and Admirals are there in UK forces?

How many aircraft/ships are there?

QED

G

:ok:

[Artifical Horizon]

There is a lot of argy bargy on this site about whether military or civil standards, procdures are best. Someone wisely said that there was good on both sides and that both can learn from each other. Some of the vitriol is surprising as there has been a good deal of move from the mil to the civvy side of late.

One area where there is a big difference though is NVG. If the SARH units crewed by commercial operators cannot use NVG then that would be a big reduction in capability. Are they going to be allowed to use them?

60 Sqn at Shawbury have some civilian crews and use NVG but that is due to the COMR arrangement I understand. NVG are not black magic but the rules need to be in place.

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - there is a very good paper written by the SARF Commander that has more financial detail in it and shows how much it costs to run the SARF at the moment. I don't have the figures to hand but it certainly comes out a whole lot cheaper to have an update to the Sea Kings and have all mil crews doing UK SAR than the billions of pounds that will be spent on making profits for industry.

AH - the COMR route is the easiest way to get round regulatory and licensing issues so it will probably work out that way.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
£75k? Not all civvy pilots are on anything like that figure. Granted though, some probably are. SFO's, who make up a good proportion of the crews, are nowhere near even your Flt.Lt.'s figure.
Anyway, judging by an article in today's Torygraph, "10per.cent shortfall in aircrews for Iraq/Afghanistan,"I would say that their airships are looking for bums on seats from the SAR force. If not now, then certainly in the not too distant future!(Keep a low profile and they might not notice you all!)
Update the Sea King? To quote yourself, "Are you mad.":) More money down the Wasteland drain!!:ugh:This is supposed to be a 20/30 year project so spend a lot of money now and that saves having to do it later, once at least!!
BTW. a source within the new MCA contractors was heard to say that maybe the 139 is perhaps not the right choice afterall!!:hmm: A bit late for that I would suggest! Also the first 139 will be at Portland not Lee!! Evidently the full autopilot/autohover will not be certified in time to provide full 24hr. cover for Lee. Keep the S61's at Lee until it becomes available.
To judge by the same Torygraph article,(and I can only take it at face value, though they are allegedly MOD figures), the money would be better spent on getting the frontline aircraft sorted out first. "Tommy" would rather see a Chinnook coming over the horizon than know that the folks back home have got a nice updated "Yellow peril".:hmm:

[[email protected]]

3D - the problem is that bums won't go to SH seats - people will leave because there will be a demand for SAR pilots to fill all the seats that had been military. Generally speaking, those that are on SAR are there because they love the job and have zero interest in going to war. People are already voting with their feet which is why we have a shortage of SH pilots in the first place. If you make all SAR military you have a huge pool of crews to rotate through SH and give the guys on the warfighting frontline the respite tours they are not getting at the moment. It is a win/win situation for the MoD but they just can't see it.

One of the reasons is that their financial horizon only seems to be 3 or 4 years ahead and money won't start changing hands until 2012 at the very earliest and the full charge won't be felt until about 2017 when all the flights would have changed over. Staff officers spend lots of their time trying to magic money out of nowhere and robbing Peter to pay Paul but they are mostly concerned with the here and now and not 10 years in the future when we will be really hurting, coughing up £ 3 - 5 Bn for 66 aircrew.

Upgrading the Sea King would defer the need for a new aircraft until 2025 and, with a big fleet all brought up to the same spec, give deployability options with hot and high lift as well (Carson blades would be part of the upgrade)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Crab

You have missed the point. The costs of running the SAR Force may well be quantifiable but you HAVE TO take a contribution to overheads - (Whitehall etc).

Imagine for one moment that every role in the RAF was put out to tender. If nobody paid for the dozens and dozens of senior officers and the HQ admin support then they would have to find somebody else to work for. The fundamentally difference between the Military and the Civvies is that you have to go to war in the first wave. We may possibly end up joining you but only in extremis - I hope!!

G

:ok:

[Tallsar]

Can't agree more with you Geoffers (long time no speak by the way!). As for updating the SK fleet - surely it can be done (Carson etc...) - and who knows maybe at least one of the bidders has considered this too? However, everyone has to step back and remember that MoD has virtually no cash at the moment other than some comiited to long running programmes and ops. And crab my old friend - not all the £3-5Bn is coming from MoD - the DfT has a signifcant input here, and it is going pay for a lot more than just the 66 mil aircrew of course - even Lossie might a new hangar ( at f****g last!!! ;)) Even some of the sacred cows might be up for the chop in the near future which is causing much angst in all 3 services. Whats for sure in my mind is that finding the cash for a SK3/5 update and then keeping it mil manned is not fianancially or politically feasible at the mo without chopping something more precious off the (underfunded) front line fighting capability - and that ain't gonna wash at all.

[[email protected]]

Jungly - it's not an either / or situation - if guys know there is a respite tour available then they are less likely to leave.

The military can post people where it likes so you can end up on SH whether you want to or not. But if you have a bigger pool to choose from and there is an increased opportunity to get back to SAR after a couple of tours SH, guys are far more likely to stay in and see their full careers out rather than banging out to civvy street.

Mil SAR is a fantastic PR tool and an excellent recruiting medium - you overstate the costs which are lower than civilianising it. The argument that SAR skills were transferred to the SH world was a weak one and should instead have been replaced by highlighting the highly professional nature of milSAR - emphasising that the same personal and professional qualities expected in any military flying were demonstrated by the SAR force 24/7.

Your belief that anything non-warfighting should be shed is why we are up sh*tcreek at the moment since our retention and recruiting across all 3 services is poor - why? because not everyone joins the military to go to war and if that is all you offer, they will go and get their kicks elsewhere.

If budgets are so important why are we agreeing to fund 70% of SARH???

[Tallsar]

Hi crab - the 70% comes from both the historic funding norms (and both Depts agreed not to challenge this norm otherwise neither would move forward with a new programme) - and the top level responsibility that placed aero rescue on the MoD (rememebering that its not just rotary that the MoD contributes to that, plus the ongoing requirment to have deployed mil SAR capability - hence MoD sees a need for long term investment in the UK SAR force. We all know too that numbers notwithstanding (ie 66) - the money also pays for continued good PR for the mil. OK - we can argue (quite rightly) about whether its the best Value for Money route thats been chosen - but for sure its the only game in town at the moment. By the way - have you seen the post on Mil A'crew saying SAR-H has been scrubbed - who'e that provocative gentleman then?

Cheers
TS :uhoh:

[leopold bloom]

because not everyone joins the military to go to war
Oh dear, now you'll get it in the neck!:E

[Geoffersincornwall]

why would MoD be willing to pay 70% of the costs?



At a guess I would say that MoD would love to see the back of this costly part of the service - at least the 'bean-counters' would. You see, when you are down to your last bullet, PR can't dig you out of the sh*t.


G
:ok:

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Didn't join up to fight?? Isn't that what the armed forces are all about?:confused: Things really have changed since I drew the Queens shilling!!
Anyway, what about the thread on the Military forum, RAF pulls out of SAR-H. You proffess to be in the know so come on, spill the beans.
Cost cutting??:hmm:

[[email protected]]

3D - the thread on mil forum seems to be exactly what I was suggesting - keep it all mil and crack on:)

[3D CAM]

Crab.
...or civilianise the lot!!:D:D

[Geoffersincornwall]

I think it was King Canute who thought he could hold back the tide. Since the first HMC unit came on stream the tide has only been going one way. It seems that no matter how black and white the evidence, emotions can play games with your judgment.

To avoid any more heartache I suggest that Crab bows to the inevitable and concentrates on ensuring that those many excellent aspects of MilSAR we have grown to respect are able to play their part come the inevitable.

I suspect that many of us ex mil guys who have also dabbled in civSAR enjoy the banter and the friendly rivalry but come the 'New Order' we just have to make the very best of what we have.

Many years ago I was part of a team trying to sell a 3-base 'Turnkey' SAR package (based on S61s) on behalf of Bristow to the Chinese government. There was a defining moment after our presentation to State Economic Council Officials in Beijing in which the 'head-man' asked if the proposed system of dispatch, command and control, was the same as we use in UK. Of course nobody given a blank sheet of paper would have copied the crazy, turf-war based, fragmented, unjoined-up system we used at that time so we said "NO". Well, we instantly lost credibility and that was that. They knew our system by reputation and if they weren't going to get a carbon copy then we were not welcome. Little did they know!

This joining of forces may be the first step in making our SAR setup 'joined-up'. Now we have to focus on getting the rest of it right.

It's a bit like getting ambulances and fire brigades to join up and offer a truly multi-skilled service to our population. That will raise some hackles I guess but it will happen one day.... it has to..... its the only way to go, but first you have to fight off the vested interests, the bigots and the turf-warriors.

G

:ok:

[SARREMF]

Well said that man!

Sorry, been away for a time.

Leopold. You need to read the entire document set! But I think you have by now. And yes there are much better things to do.

Crabb - not joined to go to war! I am trully surprised at people allowing that one to go with only 1 comment! And as for that thread on the mil forum! Tosh tosh and double tosh. ................................................ring ring. ring ring "whats that SAR-H cancelled? Oh b***er!"

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - you make some valid points and I know to some extent I am p*ssing into the wind but your comments re Police/AA/Fire show how civilianising things doesn't make things joined up and how the civilian turf war warriors are even more protective of their empires. CHAS nearly died a death because the civilian operators couldn't agree with each other and declared UDI.

With a fully Military outfit, you have proper command and control and standard kit, procedures etc. If things go pear-shaped and there is a need to operate in hazardous conditions (nuclear, biological etc) you can order people in to those areas.

Command and control doesn't seem to be part of the SARH bid - the ARCCK isn't part of it and I'm not sure the MCA are ready to manage all the inland jobs (50% of our tasking). So the grand plan doesn't seem very joined up right from the outset does it?

SARREMF - I think the going to war comment has always been true even though you and I joined when the threat was from the Russian Hordes - you didn't go SH and, apart from NI, nor did I.
We would both have fought had we been asked to but spent the rest of the time rescuing people, it didn't make us less military.
Joining up to defend your country is one thing - joining up to exercise flawed foreign policy is another - if that is all we offer people, they won't join.

Yes the mil thread is bollo*ks but at some point there will be questions asked about the military paying for so much of SARH. A new building here and there won't compensate for the disparity in funding. I know it all comes out of the same big pot of public money in the end but using MoD budget for 'non-core' business doesn't seem to fit the dogma that we are constantly being fed from above.

[BRASSEMUP]

"war Dodger"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Geoffersincornwall]

I'm pleased to have found some common ground but please note that I did not mention the cops. Until we have a national police force and 43 forces all sing from the same Hymn Sheet we are wasting the effort.

Yes, an 'all military' solution would offer some uniformity but the military system itself has some devastating shortcomings. The ravages of the 'Peter Principle' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle) have more scope to work their evil magic in an organisation that relies on regular rotation or posting. It has been my experience that the encumbant dreams up some 'mega-plan', sells the idea to his superiors, gets a good promotion out of it and then the poor sod taking over the position is left to implement it. He had no idea why this mega-idea was introduced because he came from some other obscure part of the military machine.

Sorry Crab, in my 40 years in this job I've learnt that the most efficient units are those that are driven by profit. Somehow loftier ideals breed a nauseating bureaucracy and the 'my-way-is-best' mentality stifles initiative and innovation. If your only experience is within the RAF then you never have experienced the vitality of the civilian world and if that's the case you cannot criticise it - not justly anyway.

G
:ok:

[HAL9000]

Apart from the inevitable smattering of bickering , this has been quite a good thread!

In order to reassure the cynics, mostly military I suspect, could those who favour SAR-H (H=Helicopter by the way not Harmonization) please give a short list of previous PFI programmes that have been successful. By successful I mean remotely close to being on budget, on time and delivering the required capability. Please do not quote Government sources, they tend to be a little biased.

Once we have the list, we can look forward to a wonderful new UK SAR service. If no examples are forthcoming, could the SAR-H fans elaborate on what they base their unbounded optimism on.

HAL

[Tractor_Driver]

HAL9000,
Good idea.
And just for balance, lets have a list of recent defence procurements, with the same parameters.
TD

[HAL9000]

TD, I am not a fan of major defence procurement projects either. Your suggestion is valid and would result in a 0-0 draw! SAR-H would appear to be double b*ggered.

HAL

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - I see where you are coming from but promoting people to their level of incompetence is hardly exclusive to the military. The flip side of the civilian world (from friends who are there) is that people in positions of power can get to stay there longer and jealously guard their jobs by stifling innovation and change. People who might bring new procedures and change just don't get interviewed or shortlisted - at least if the people are forced to change their jobs every 2 -4 years, that scenario is avoided.

The problem of handing stuff on to the next guy is far less of an issue in the non-management aviation world and tends to have far more impact at the strategic/management level - notably in the military at Wg Cdr/Gp Capt where the Peter Principle seems to appear frequently.:)

The reality of SARH is that it won't be a vital/synergistic/self improving system - it will meet the terms of the contract and no more. If the contract says a winchman doesn't have to do night wets more than once every 6 months then it won't happen.

Whilst some things are easier to change in the civilian world - anything that adversely affects the balance sheet is going to be difficult to sell to the management.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Another amusing contribution to the debate of management techniques

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle

Make of it what you will in these contexts. The problem with trying to apply 'general' rules of thumb is that don't fit all situations. In the FAA we used to see Mr Peter and Mr Dilbert at work at squadron level.

If you think that, in the military context, a change of strategy that costs money would automatically be taken up just because it is 'better' then you are living in a different world to the one I live in.

It's coming guys, whether we like it or not. Lets try to make the most of the situation, think positively and sueeze the very best deal we can out of the situation we find ourselves in.

G
:ok:

[Biggles225]

As my old brain recalls, the S61 (Sea King to me) was specifically designed by Sikorsky as an SAR helicopter, with an on water t/o and landing capability.:ok:

[Droopystop]

As we have agreed before Crab, SAR H depends on the quality of the tender document sent to hopeful contractors and the subsequent contract. Just out of interest, who sat on the committee that wrote those documents? If it was written properly, then the country will get what they deserve, regardless of profit. And do bear in mind that the contractors involved in this bid made their money independently of public money's, thereby being different from almost all other private financed contracts. These companies have got very good at keeping aircraft serviceable and they don't have to lie to do it. At the end of the day, an aircraft lying broken in the hanger is costing a fortune. You don't become a huge mulitnational company by a) taking a gash approach to serviceability and b) having a lumbering bureaucratic maintenance philosophy.

[DanglyBob]

I thought the Seaking was designed as a sub hunter, though I'm pulling on my schoolboy knowledge here..

[[email protected]]

Droopy - I agree that it will come down to the contract - the tender document was, as I understand it, constructed by the MCA with assistance from the MoD in the shape of the SARH IPT. The fact that constraints were placed on the content of that tender will have shaped the bids and flawed the process from the start.

A fundamental problem throughout has been the reluctance of the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to have anything to do with the process, despite the fact that the outcome has huge implications regarding emergency services and homeland defence/security. There isn't enough left in the military pot to do the latter once you disable military SAR and such elements are not included in the SARH bids. It's your country - you decide what you think is best.

I have not said that Bristows or CHC could not run an efficient SAR operation - they have already proved that they can - we will see if civilianising our engineering (SKIOS 2) this year improves our present serviceability and demonstrates Westlands ability to deliver.

[Clever Richard]

HAL9000 asked for a list of successful PFIs to support the optimism that some hold for SAR-H. Just thought I would bring this topic back to the top of the list to see if there was any news.

[Tallsar]

Here's a list (and by no means comprehensive!)

AWE (Aldermarston)
DHFS
Brunei
84 sqn Cyprus
DFTS (all MoD comms)
MoD white Fleet
HMS Clyde
Flagship
LAFT
Tucano/Linton

Not all strictly PFIs but all having many of the principle ingredients.
I will now retire to the bunker now - as some measure success in many different ways! :ugh::)

PS - An Mod (RAF) officer/pilot drafted the operational requirements not the MCA - although clearly they are stakeholders (along with the RN), and the wider bid requirements were covered by specialists in commercial, legal, infrastructure etc etc etc - it ain't just about airframes!!

[skyepup]

Crab wrote "I'm not sure the MCA are ready to manage all the inland jobs (50% of our tasking)."

The MCA is already working inland and something tells me that their 17 MRCCs might just be able to cope with your inland work.;)

Afterall, many MRTs are now working with them, plus, consider the % of the MCA work that doesnt involve MIL SAR aircraft.

Oh, there is also the small if not slightly hot topic that is forever following this project around...............ARCCK and one of the 17 MRCCs being on a joint location:eek:

[Vie sans frontieres]

If the contract says a winchman doesn't have to do night wets more than once every 6 months then it won't happen.

It won't be that often. Delete the words, "more than once every 6 months" and that'll be closer to the mark.

[SARREMF]

Clearly anyone wishing to get back at the rear crew community might just slip the pen and put down every 6 days for night wets! Trouble is they would love it!

I do believe Tall SAR has a point! The airframe requirement is just one small part of the total package required by the competition. To say its MCA or its MOD just isn't true. What you can say is that it covers all the areas the current service does and, depending on choice of platforms made by the bidders, could cover a lot more too.

Crabb always assumes that the bidder will give the least amount? With 3 bidders still in the race, something has to put blue water between them so that eventually one gets selected. With a 30 year PFI, doing night wets every 10 days or 20 days will not alter the price of fish much! So, some will offer services that exceed the contract and offer value-for-money. That's a competition. The clever bit is getting the IPT to turn that into a contract so the higher level service is delivered for the lower level money! I think thats why its taking such a long time!

[[email protected]]

SARREMF - I hope it won't be the cheapest bid but in order to offer more and make the package attractive (and high scoring on the review) there may be a temptation to skimp on the core issues (platform, training etc) and window dress with some other fashionable elements.

One reason for the legth of time taken is that each bidder can put in one main bid and 3 further subsidiary bids making a total of 12 to wade through and evaluate.

Sadly there isn't an MOD bid in the pot as it would make for interesting comparison and might put to bed the myth that contracting will be cheaper and better.

[Clever Richard]

Crab,

You say there is no MoD bid in. However, my understanding of the acquisition process for programmes of this size is that there has to be a Public Sector Cost Comparator (I might have the terminology slightly wrong). The function of this is to ensure value for money by making sure it can't be done cheaper by the public sector (eg the RAF assume responsibility for all UK SAR).

If the SAR-H IPT has not done this comparison it is in serious breach of regulations and the whole programme is on thin ice. Can you shed any light on this matter?

[Clever Richard]

Have just found this definition of Public Sector Comparator (PSC):

Definition of the term: A comparator is a benchmark against which value for money is assessed. A PSC is constructed on the assumption that the procurement is undertaken through conventional funding and that significant managerial responsibility and exposure to risk is retained by the public sector.

[[email protected]]

All good management type speak but as far as I am aware (and I have no contact with the IPT), the actual costs of running the SARF by the MoD have never been established let alone any proposed costs for taking on all UK SAR.

One inequality, I suggest, is that of locations - ie all the mil SAR flights are on mil land which is subject to huge depreciations because of the way the accountants see things. That cost is presently borne by the MoD but if the contractor takes over the exisiting bases, they may pay some ground rent but won't have the full cost of the sites to bear, this will still be met from MoD budget.

The SARF Cdr has written a paper suggesting a military solution which looks very good (apart from the shutting Chivenor and keeping Culdrose option) but it won't be part of the SARH selection.

All we really needed was a PFI to get us some new aircraft so we could crack on with our jobs.

I know there are those who robustly defend the practice of contractorising and civilianising the military but, just like Maggie Thatcher's belief that competition drives down prices and improves service, the dogma doesn't actually deliver (see supermarkets or utilities as examples) since the only way to reduce costs is to cut quality or manpower or both (as they are inextricably linked).

[3D CAM]

Crab.

the only way to reduce costs is to cut quality or manpower or both (as they are inextricably linked).

Sorry, I have to disagree there,(now there's a surprise).
Manpower can be reduced on SAR without any degradation in quality by simply looking at how a flight is supported. Agreed, you cannot reduce the amount of people who are required to crew the aircraft,(please don't start the second standby thing again, we have done that to death!:eek:) But just how many engineers and support staff do you need to support the unit? A civvy 24hr. SAR unit will run with 9/10 total. (Well at least when the transition phase of the current shambles sorts itself out anyway!:))
I am not having a go there, the way military servicing is carried out and signed off is different to the way it is done in the civvy world. The engineers also cover various other aspects of day to day stuff, from fuel management to being CAA approved fire crews to being storemen. Again not a dig but how many engineers and other staff, WAAF making the coffee etc., (I really enjoyed mine by the way, coffee that is,) are at sunny Chivenor? Translate that into salaries and there are your savings, quite a lot across the SAR force I would imagine.
I am surprised that no one has established a cost for miltary SAR. We had at least two visits from high ranking RAF(not she whos' name must not be mentioned) and MOD officers in the two years before the harmonisation project was announced! They were allegedly costing both Civvy and Military SAR. In fact they had just come from Leconfield. So what was that all about then!:confused:
3D

[Clever Richard]

Take a look here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3915870&posted=1#post3915870

Does this narrow the choice for SAR-H by at least one aircraft type/company or, and this should come as no surprise to anybody, will AW still be in the running?

[[email protected]]

3D - we are about to find out if civilianisation works as all the SARF engineering will be supplied by AW/VT contract. AW have a vested interest in making it work but are rumoured to have said they will accept a loss of profit on the contract before a loss of face (ie failure to meet availability). They are the provider of the spares and the Design Authority for the aircraft so whatever goes wrong is their fault!

Your flying hours are less than ours which means we have more servicing to do and therefore more people needed - add to that the fact that we do have a remit to supply 2 aircraft on standby and you start to see the need for more engineers. If you had the same engineering task, you would need more engineers as well.

Yes we have dedicated storemen and safety equippers - you just pay guys extra for the extra duties, which rather implies they are not busy enough in their primary duties:)

The WAAF making the coffee runs the ops desk and is responsible for keeping all the flight info, maps and charts, notams etc up to date and is the main point of contact when the crew are airborne - I guess your engineers do this as well;)

[3D CAM]

Crab.
A couple of points.
Yes you do have more hours to fly because you have the second crew and other commitments than SAR. However, our units are also required to supply a second, serviceable machine. If this machine is u/s or needs maintenance then it gets worked on by the duty engineers, and off shift engineers working on overtime, who also cover the duty aircraft! Afterall, you cannot carry out maintenance on that one.:eek:
Back to my question, how many engineers/ support staff do you have and how many will good old Wastelands bring along?(More taxpayers money down the Somerset drains!):ugh:
Where do you get the idea that the engineers get paid for extra duties??:confused: If that were the case then they would be taking home more than the Chief Pilot!:D
Safety Equipment servicing is carried out by approved and qualified people who use it ie. the winch crews! They are the only ones on the unit to receive extra responsibility payments! And quite rightly too!
Notams, maps and charts are the responsibility of the co-pilots and one of the winch crew, alongside their normal hectic schedule.:)
Oh. by the way, yes the engineers are the point of contact when the aircraft is airborne! If messages need to passed, talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey!( Not that your WAAF is a monkey he adds rapidly:):)!)
3D

[SARowl]

Crab,

I agree with 3D on the manning levels issue. I have experience of both military and civilian ops, where as I think you don't. The first thing that will strike you if you are ever join a civvy unit, is the lack of people. We run 24/7 on 6 people per shift. As 3D says we are expected to look after weather info, notams, amendments, wash and clean the aircraft, SE, help with blade/engine changes etc etc etc... Have you ever hoovered the cockpit, cleaned the windows, or helped tow and re-spot the aircraft? I suspect you haven't, it is up to all those engineer chaps to sort out, which costs money.

[leopold bloom]

It may have been before Crab became a SARBOY but the fact is that once upon a time RAF SAR units didn't have an Ops Clerk. The duty crew were responsible for NOTAMS/CHADS/CALFS etc. When we went flying one of the ground crew used to man the Ops desk/radios/telephones etc. If you fly for 4 hours per shift there are still 20 hours remaining. What do you do with all that time?:ok:

[Max Contingency]

Clever Richard

A Public Sector Comparator (PSC) is not always required. Where it can be difficult (impossible?) to calculate the genuine cost of the public service, it is acceptable to construct a 'should cost model'. Don't loose sight of the fact that cost is not the only driver behind PFI, transferance of ownership and risk are also powerful attractions to the governments departments involved.

[HAL9000]

The Service Chiefs have been told to save £1B this year and the Defence Management Board met last week to discuss options. Given that it is likely that the number of military personnel in SAR-H will be far fewer than at present, can SAR-H survive the current drive for savings? Indeed, should it not be offered up as a saving as it, effectively, offers nothing to the military.

One argument against is likely to be that if the military pull out the money will just have to be found from another budget with a net saving to HMG of zero. Or could SAR-H be slid to the right by a number of years? Is this practical and would the OSDs of the current RAF/RN/MCA airframes allow any slippage.

Sorry, too many questions!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

HAL,

The points you make are interesting - it does seem that, under current plans, the MOD will have to spend a lot of money on SAR-H for very little return.

There is, of course, a much cheaper and feasible alternative to SAR-H, which has the added benefit of delivering exactly the same level of service which the UK currently enjoys, but apparently this plan has been blown out of the water because it would upset the consortia which are currently rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of being given vast sums of money to provide a potentially inferior service...

[[email protected]]

Torque - you'll rot in hell for that one:) but I agree entirely. What will happen to the CHC bids now they have been sold?

SARowl do you mean 6 people including the 4-man aircraft crew or 6 people plus the 4 - man crew? If it is the former then you must be magicians keeping 2 aircraft 100% serviceable and flying loads of training and jobs with just 2 engineers - either that or some corners are being cut somewhere.

HAL - the simple answer is a PFI to provide the existing SAR service providers with new aircraft and then we just crack on using existing basing and crewing. Have a 139 and a S92 at each flight so you can use whichever aircraft you feel is suitable for the SARop (just like in Hong Kong) and have all the crews dual qualified.

[3D CAM]

Crab.

SARowl do you mean 6 people including the 4-man aircraft crew or 6 people plus the 4 - man crew? If it is the former then you must be magicians keeping 2 aircraft 100% serviceable and flying loads of training and jobs with just 2 engineers - either that or some corners are being cut somewhere.


Why do you always assume that the civvy world is cutting corners??:ugh: I gave you the figures in an earlier post but to go over them one last time.... 4 crew in the aircraft, two engineers per shift! Plus Chief Engineer and labourer on days. I personally take great offence in your suggestion that corners are being cut, anywhere!! Safety is the watchword! Even we cannot achieve 100% serviceability and I don't think it has ever been claimed that we do!If one of the aircraft is u/s then generally no training is carried out until it is fixed! If it is u/s for a major component change then the off shift engineers come in on overtime to help! What is difficult and under hand there??:confused:
As for CHC's bid, hmm, time will tell!! The final two bidders are due to be announced at the end of March, early April I think so we won't have to wait too long?
139&92 on each base? Would it be that simple? I don't think so!

[jeepys]

Yes crab, we are magicians. You will like that but not a lot!
Perhaps you could be the next Tommy Cooper!

[[email protected]]

So you don't actually run the outfit with 6 people, you have 2 extra in on days and then extra engineers when more servicing is required...now if you ran the whole thing all the time with just 6 on shift that would be impressive but as ever the headline claim is undermined by the detail and the devil is always in the detail:)

[HAL9000]

Torque of the Devil,

Do elaborate on your last post. Was the option you allude to considered at the Initial Gate point (has the project reached initial gate)? I am familiar with SMART Acquisition but not the details of SAR-H in particular. I would suggest that in the current climate if there is a cheaper option that delivers the capability required it should be taken or, at the very least, properly assessed. In fact, it would be criminal if it wasn't as the money saved could provide badly needed kit for our deployed forces. I'm afraid that whenever I have heard the phrase 'it isn't that simple' in the past it has been that simple. What is difficult is getting the project team to manoeuvre out of the rut they are driving in. This is usually due to the time, effort and intellectual capital they have invested in chasing a white elephant.

[Thomas coupling]

I'm a gambling man so I'm going to put fwd MY suggestion as to what'll happen and see how close my "guess" got to the real McCoy when the results are advertised.
Remember it's MY idea and not anyone elses that I'm related to at the mo':

CHC, or First Investment Bank (whoever owns them now) win the contract. S92's go to the bigger sites doing long range SAR and 139's go to the sites doing close in work, like south coast etc. No mixing of a/c at sites, no double quals. One of the existing mil airbases becomes a centre of excellence for ALL UK SAR training utilising S92 and AW139's. There will be groundschool for joint ops (Mil/civvy/police/MCA etc) command and control exercises. CRM courses. Paramedic training for winchmen/divers, dunker trng et al.
There will also be a simulator for the S92 (other than the one at Farnboro). Possibly (50/50) another sim [AW139] to absorb extraneous work from rotorsim in Milan who are fully booked and the only other 139 sim in western europe (I believe).
The 139 will replace the Griffin in SARTU in due course and prepare the ground for basic flying trng SAR, UK.
The 2 x RAF SAR-H crews and the 1 x RN SAR-H crew, will live alongside the rest of the civvy SAR-H crews for "x" period before jumping ship and becoming civvies on twice their salary, leaving the mil unable to support SAR-H front line. This will signal the end of mil involvement SAR Uk ops forever.

CHC will make millions during the 25yr contract and a consolidated industry will prevail offering multi agency co-operation on a scale previously unheard of.

I lied about the last sentence

[[email protected]]

TC - I think the last sentence should be

'MoD, having lost all interest in UK SAR, stops paying 70% of the bill leaving the treasury to use up all the profits Northern Rock will have made by then:) to fund the shortfall. Then in 20 years the NAO asks why we didn't just leave it military and buy some new aircraft instead. Meanwhile having got the £5Bn contract, First Reserve asset-strips CHC selling off the UKSAR as a going concern to a French utilities company who renegotiate the contract bumping up the cost to the taxpayer so they can give their directors and shareholders big dividends.'

[SARREMF]

Now your talking! Common Sense at last! i knew it would take a time but come on Crabb get with the programme! the only thing you missed was the ability to change service provider in case the charges were raised! Oh, and a well know supermarket to move in on the act after its 3 rd year.

Well thats SAR-H done! Shall we move on to FRES!

[Artifical Horizon]

Crab

You seem fixated on the idea that a huge number of engineers are required to sustain a SAR Shift. You assume that a smaller number of people will not produce a good result. The numbers employed by the RAF are just not sustainable. Lots of civvy organistions run aircraft very successfully with lots fewer engineers. It is an economic reality old boy.

Is it a crime to call in extra engineers from off shift to get the job done?

Visit a civvy SAR unit and you will see a clean, smart well looked after ac.

[[email protected]]

No - a large number of engineers are required to maintain a SAR shift when the aircraft has to be maintained iaw RAF procedures and flys twice the amount of a civilian SAR flt.

I don't know how often S61's have gearbox problems but we have had a spate of changes recently, all completed on the flight which wouldn't be possible with 2 engineers per shift.

It's not rocket science to determine that the less an aircraft flys, the less servicing it requires and therefore the fewer engineers are needed.

At the moment our servicing is a disaster area - the move to calendar servicing meant more servicing on the front line and DARA's failure to deliver has put huge delays into the system resulting in massive extensions on most of the fleet. There is a way to service SAR helicopters but it is not what we are doing at the moment.

AW and VT are taking over our servicing top to bottom and strangely they haven't said it can be done with 2 engineers per shift either.

[nodrama]

Quote: AW and VT are taking over our servicing top to bottom and strangely they haven't said it can be done with 2 engineers per shift either.

Is that because they are also having to service/ maintain iaw RAF procedures?

Or, is the RAF stipulating how many engineers they must have to cover a shift?

[3D CAM]

Crab

I don't know how often S61's have gearbox problems but we have had a spate of changes recently, all completed on the flight which wouldn't be possible with 2 engineers per shift.


We have carried out back to back MGB changes on the same aircraft in the past using the engineers on shift plus two off shift! They were worn out at the end of it but the jobs were done safely and reasonably quickly!
Thankfully, gearbox problems are not that common,(now that's done it!):) but when one is needing changing,or any other major component, then as I have said more than once, two of the off shift engineers come in on overtime to help the on shift engineers. That is how it works, like it or not, and quite frankly, I am getting a bit fed up with your assertion that we are doing anything underhand.
I can't quite get your thinking behind needing more engineers because you fly more hours!(The hours bit I do not dispute.) But, the checks need doing no matter what, 10 hours, 20 hours whatever. You can only get one set of hands on a Chip detector or grease gun.:confused: The checks just come up a bit more often! And you still haven't enlightened us to just how many support staff you have/had/will have on your unit!:rolleyes:
Why would Wastelands/VT want to put in less engineers than the RAF? More people means they can rip off HMG even more than they are already!!
As AH says, get yourself out of Chivenor and visit a civvy base before you throw any more stones.:)

[Rescue1]

Quote" As AH says, get yourself out of Chivenor and visit a civvy base before you throw any more stones"

Crab isn't throwing stones he getting desperate he's throwing bricks now :) he know's in 4 years time he might be one of those banging on someone's door asking if he can keep his job in Chivenor and the people he's been throwing those same stones/bricks at might have other more open minded pilots in mind for the job.:D

[bigglesbutler]

Yes doing a gearbox change on the SAR 61 DOES need more than two engineers, as does much of the works that require that aircraft to go offline. When that happens the standby aircraft is put online and engineers not on shift will come in on overtime to assist on those jobs, so it isn't just the two on shift engineers doing the job.

There are obviously two side to the "discussion" on Harmonisation, and both have their valid points. However, Crab you have either been misinformed as to how we "Civvies" do things, or you are purposefully baiting people. If you are unsure as to how things are done why not stop the arguiing and go visit Lee or Portland. If you don't want to do that then you are obviously baiting people, and others like me can simply discount your rants as nonsense.

For my part I am very much hoping to learn from the RAF/Navy, as well as civvy crews, when harmonisation comes round. I have learnt much from those who I have already flown with, and I hope I can bring something that will be of use to those I meet in the future, both civvy and Military.

[[email protected]]

...using the off-shift engineers - thus eroding their 'down time' and rest periods quote "They were worn out at the end of it" and then probably had to come in on shift again. 3D - again you shoot yourself in the foot - your 2 engineers per shift aren't enough unless everything is going well.

Out of interest do your engineers work a 12 or 24 hour shift ?- we went to 12 hour shifts because of fatigue issues.

As I said earlier, one of the handicaps is that we have to engineer the aircraft to MoD standards which appear to be more restrictive in terms of the amount of servicing (and thus the amount of engineers) that we (and AW and VT) need.

AW and VT are free to put as many engineers on shift as they wish - all they have to provide is the aircraft at the agreed % of availability. They are civvies doing it their way, why should they be choosing to rip MoD off?

But since I'm not the one working for a company that got itself into finacial mire by bidding lowest on contracts and has had to be bought out by an asset stripping investment company - I'm probably more secure in my job than most:)

[Bootneck]

Crab, I'm certain you are aware that the people working on the SAR contracts for the Coastguard, are, in the main, former military pilots. Many of the engineering staff and winch ops are also former service personnel.

To question the competence of the engineers, their servicing procedures and standards, has raised the hackles of the pilots in their defence. You may well find in the not too distant future that the dividing line between the engine room and the bridge which pertains within many service units is, happily, non-existent, or minimal by comparison in civilian life. The quality, speed, and safety records of the men who service the aircraft in the Coastguard service, and on the North Sea is excellent.

Unless you have seen and experienced the dedication and skill of the civilian engineer then it's going to be difficult for you to understand that they do work long hours, and are used to it, as are the crews. However, they do so in complete safety. As licensed engineers they are able to carry out checks, servicing, repairs and replacements far quicker than any service crew I ever saw at work. It's almost impossible to negate a negative. The best thing you can do is accept the invitation to go to Portland or Lee and see what really happens.

Here's something to think about. Take a Seaking, tow it into your main shed and let the engineers have it for a complete strip down to frame and shell, engines and gearbox off, repainted ready for air testing. How long will that take your main servicing unit?

I may be out of touch on timings these days but a Super Puma or S61 would go into the Bristow heavy hangar for a total strip down to the rivets, then be back online, shiny new paint job and air tested in three weeks. Unbelievable, maybe, but it's true.

Meanwhile your Seaking has just become the Hangar organ donor. :)

[3D CAM]

Crab.
For once in my life I am lost for words, well almost! :mad:
You just do not want to see the obvious! With your attitude, you will be unemployable in the civvy world. No company would be able to keep their engineers away from you. Check Bootnecks post! As he says, most of the civvy SAR force are ex forces, me included and we have at least seen how they operate SAR. You have never been near an MCA unit so you really cannot compare!
BTW I do not work for a company in "financial mire," I work for Bristow!!:confused:

[nodrama]

Bootneck beat me to it and probably said it better than I would.

Just to add:

A majority of civvi engineers are ex-service. The standards and integrity of both environments are high.

In civvi a/c engineering; you will not find as many engineers on a shift as you would in the Mob because it would financially cripple the maintenance organisation. We have as many on a shift as we think we need to make things work (from quite a few years experience). If extras are needed at times of crisis or major checks, manpower is brought in on overtime or sub-contractors are used. It's good business sense and it works....why pay for extra licenced engineers (which aren't cheap nowadays) on a daily basis, just in case they might be needed, for them to spend the majority of their time sat in the crewroom.

Oh, and by the way, civvi maintenance organisations are audited by the CAA and one of the criteria for holding a 145 approval is that the organisation has to show that it has sufficient manpower to support the maintenance of it's operation.....so there are no corners being cut.

I am under no circumstances saying that civvi engineers are better (as said, alot of us are ex-forces), we just work in a commercial environment and things are different.

As someone once said to me just before I left the Mob;

You were a civvi before you joined, you will soon be one again.....Get used to the idea, this was just a phase you were going through!

[[email protected]]

Actually - I don't think at any point I have questioned the professionalism or capability of the engineers - I know how hard they work and how the multi skilling and self supervision reduces manpower. You chaps are far too quick to take offence. One of the engineers left Chiv to work at Lee a few years ago and I know him to be a top lad - he said it was definitely different, not better or worse, just different.

The main thrust of this and many other SAR threads is that civvy SAR is cheaper and therefore better - my main contention with this assertion is that a comparison cannot be made because the playing field is not level - especially when it comes to engineering practices.

Yes your engineering effort is driven by finances, ours is driven by perceived best engineering practice - yours is audited by the CAA and is completely legal and above board, ours is mandated by MoD and probably includes a deal of overservicing. They are different - you think ours is too much and I think yours is barely enough, it has to be in a business run for profit. Is there an ideal middle ground? Probably and maybe AW will work towards it once all the political intervention stops. As I said, our depth maintainance is in bits thanks to the decision to use DARA instead of keeping St Mawgan open. You guys don't have to put up with sh*t like that.

However, some of you seem happy to denigrate AW's operation without knowing anything about it - glass houses etc.....

Many have thrown stones at the perceived excesses of military manpower on SAR conveniently forgetting that we have to work the way of the rest of MoD.

I touted for an invite to Lee or Portland last year and was deafened by the silence 'not my position to make that offer' or 'ask the MCA to invite you'.

3D - aren't you transferring to First Reserve (sorry CHC) then? Didn't make the grade for the 139 course?;)

PS no-one answered the question about 12/24 hr shifts.

[jeepys]

Crab,

Like many on this forum I have been the recipient of mil servicing and unlike yourself civvy servicing. If I had a pound for the number of times I could not fly in the mil due to unserviceability I would be a rich man.

I cannot remember flying in a clean mil machine ever.

Seeing it from both sides unlike yourself I can definately say that mil servicing is NOT better than civvy.

Just accept CRAB that many of those commenting on this thread have been on the other side and can therefore comment productively. You can only do it from one side.

Oh and just one other point. I have seen and worked with many ex mil pilots new to civvy procedures. If they continue with the mil attitude like yourself in civvy street they do not get on. After trying a number of jobs they eventually leave the industry to become a financial adviser. Those however that are willing to adopt the other side get on just fine.

Maybe some day we will fly together but change your attitude otherwise the EX MIL crew with probably more experience than you will put you right.

Dont get me wrong. I loved my mil days. The best times of my life. But things move on and so did I. You will have to some day. When will we see you comment here from a civvy point of view?

[3D CAM]

Crab.
I don't recall anyone saying civsar was better than mil! I do recall someone in light blue saying the opposite however!!(If I implied that then I apologise here and now!) Cheaper yes, better, that is in the eyes of the auditor.
Yes your engineering effort is driven by finances, ours is driven by perceived best engineering practice
And what do you think civvy engineers do then, just fill the a/c with fuel and hope for the best?
You might get an answer on shifts when you care to enlighten us on your support manning levels.:)
I do have experience of AW,( just plain old wastelands then) plenty of time sat on my a*/e waiting for bits that never seem to appear. I hope for your sake things have moved on otherwise you will be still in the same boat, only AW will be paying penalties to the MOD. I know where my money lies!
Invite to Portland/Lee? Surely a man in your position can arrange something without waiting??:) As I have said before, nobody has the authority to issue invites without the say so of the MCA. They are our lords and masters?:rolleyes: Transfer to Second Substitute?? That is the million dollar question!!:hmm::hmm: 139 course, I speako no italiano, except pizza. Quite good on yank though yawl, S92??

[Genie the Greenie]

Crab:

Why is it that there is always a small minority of military officers who think that the civvy world is full of amatuers who, purely down to not having "served", are incapable of maintaining aircraft or running a professional aviation company. I completely agree with 3D and others that the ex-mil pilots and engineers who have gone through the culture change and adapted to the civvy world have gained, and passed on, experiences that have enhanced the organisation that pays their wages. Believe it or not Crab the military is not the be all and end all in aviation and there is a world out there. If you are due to come out soon I hope the superior attitude is left in or your civvy career will be short lived. Us draft dodgers are highly professional engineers and pilots and an easy going bunch up to the point somone comes along and tells us otherwise.

[Bootneck]

If I may lighten the tone somewhat, a few happy memories of civvy engineers, the vast majority of whom were from the services.

My S61 had a fault inbound to Unst. I entered the hangar, spotted a tall gangly form clinging to the gearbox of another S61 and enquired if the gangly form could help me. His response was a ring spanner flying past my head. :D:D:D We became the best of mates when I immediately burst out laughing. :)

Australia, our pumas needed cleaning, so everybody, pilots, engineers, office staff..........(yes....office staff, everybody. It's like that out there, or was) turned up, rigged down to shorts and boots then waded in to clean them thoroughly. During this process the greeny's radio was transmitting Aussie Rules, one of the bendy toys got seriously fed up after his request for peace was ignored, he put a fire axe through the radio. :D:D:D

China, during a Typhoon alert we parked up our two pumas and a super puma in the hangar, ripped the gear box and head off for exchange, then gave the blades a deep clean while they were on racks. The Chinese pilots were incredulous when I turned to in shorts and got on with it, they were deeply and I mean deeply shocked when I got their boss, an Admiral in the Chinese Navy, to get them involved working alongside their own engineers. Apparently in a classless society there are deeper divisions than in our class ridden society.

I hope the above may prove that there are no boundaries, only those we create and then perpetuate. The hardest wall to get over is the wall that the services create. Knock it down, work alongside and with the engineering staff and your flying days will be much happier.

There remains one further benefit of a close liaison with the engineers. They know well before the managing pilot when there's a tasty posting coming up. Their grapevine is light years ahead of the drivers. A quiet word in my shell likes got me two very nice detachments that the boss hadn't known about until I wandered in. :ok: Of course it may be that they just wanted rid of me but perish the thought, paranoid, Moi? :=

[[email protected]]

Just for you 3D - under the AW/VT contract the average engineering support (including SE. stackers et al) will be 31 per flight, that is 4 shifts of 5 engineers (including the shift boss) plus all the extras.

Until the MoD stops paying boarding school allowance or the civvy sector starts:) I will continue to serve my country thanks;)

[nodrama]

Just out of interest Crab, and this is by no means a leading or antagonising question......

What shift pattern will 4 shifts work?
e.g 12 hrs, alternate earlies and lates

[[email protected]]

nodrama - each flight can choose but the standard is 3 days, 3 nights, 3 standby and 3 off. Chivenor have gone for 2,2,2,2 because it dovetails better with the existing shift pattern thus making the transition easier. Shift handover is 7 o'clock for Chiv.

[Artifical Horizon]

Crab

You say that your engineering manpower is driven by the requirement to observe military engineering practices. Well is it time to examine those ideas and make a positive change rather than stick to something just because it has always been that way? You also say that the AW/VT ontract will be 31 people per unit. 4 shifts of 5 makes 20 plus 11 extras. A day shift and a night shift of 5 each plus a standby shift of another 5 every day. I am sure someone can be bothered to do the maths but this seems like very generous manpower to me.

[nodrama]

Thanks Crab.

I tend to agree with AH that the manpower is generous, but hey, that's what the customer wants and I'm sure as you mentioned in an earlier post, once the politics is over and the dust has settled a little tweeking may happen.

1 less engineer on each shift (depending on AW/VT wages, of which I have no idea) could save around £150k a year for starters.

[Sailor Vee]

Just to throw something else in regarding engineering.

Once upon a time in the Middle East, a 212 would go in for a 100 hour service. The civilian company, (with initials similar to Wastelands now!), would take about a week for the job to be done.:bored:

On the North Sea a 212 would be taken in for the same routine and with 2 engineers would be back on the line the following morning! If it wasn't, the 'interview without coffee' was the next step. No aircraft to fly, no revenue, ergo no pay, a great incentive to work hard whilst on shift!!:D

[[email protected]]

So come on 3D what is your total number of support staff and what shifts do they work?

And, out of interest, what does one of your licensed engineers get paid? And how much leave do they get.

While we are on the subject, what leave entitlement do aircrew get in CivSAR and what sickness pay and benefits are there?

Yes 31 does seem generous but bear in mind the relatively low experience levels since many of the RAF engineers didn't transfer across and a lot who joined have little if any Sea King experience. The military manning levels were not that much higher and given that the Falklands had to be manned from that establishment as well as all the career training, courses, OOA detatchments and every other thing that the military requires, makes the figures more reasonable.

As for engineering practices - yes I think we could do without a whole raft of paperwork and crappy computer systems that make each engineering task take twice as long to complete as it should. But I don't have a problem with overservicing since I have to strap my a8se into the aircraft. One issue is that if the manufacturers say a MRGB is lifed for 3000 hours, the CAA agree but the military then reduce that TBO to 2500 (for example) and any exceedance of that 2500 has to be agreed using %age extensions - this increases the frequency of component changes and thus ramps up the engineering task, especially when more hours are flown annually on our aircraft. Why is this done? I think historically because military flying tends to be harder on the aircraft than civil so greater margins are allowed for fatigue.
Interestingly the first tyhing AW have done is to use the extensions on components to try and build some flex into the deep servicing problems.

There is obviously a dissimilarity in the aircraft (Sea King to S61) since we have all the complexities of the folding head system (which we don't need) and a full radar fit whereas the S61 has a simple MRH and a cloud and clonk radar (black box out, black box in) These 2 elements coupled with the outdated simplex Mk31 autopilot on the Mk 3 make up a lot of the engineering snags. Add in the fuel computers (hydromechanical on s61 I believe) and you have an aircraft that takes more engineering effort to keep serviceable.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
I haven't been deliberately evasive, just busy!
Total support staff, is, at the moment in a state of flux, what with the comings and goings of the transition. However, before all this kicked off, each 24hr base had seven engineers, six on varying shift patterns,2 per shift, depending on base, plus a Chief engineer on days. Also a labourer/handy man on days and a secretary for the Chief pilot.
The 12hr unit had/has 4 engineers, 2 per shift, working 12.5 hr. shifts on a basically 4on, 4off, two standby,4on, 6off pattern. Also a Chief engineer on days mon& thurs, shifts tues &wed, friday and weekend off. All this is to keep within the working time directive. Also a labourer on days and secretary for the Chief pilot. So, as many other posters have pointed out, you certainly have plenty of support staff.:)(Do you stiil have your WAAF to make the coffee?:E)
All these manpower levels are supposed to be increased by 2/3 at each base, thereby changing the shift patterns as well, after the transition team is split up but quite were these numbers are coming from is anyones guess. There is a dire shortage of engineers throughout the industry, due to lack of training, poor pay and conditions and lack of people leaving the forces. That, I'm afraid, is a fact and nobody in Civil Aviation would possibly argue otherwise!
None of the engineers were willing to divulge their salaries, and I can't blame them, would you publish your salary on a public forum? If you talk to one of your Wasteland engineers maybe he will enlighten you.
Leave and T&C's are also private but maybe someone will PM you???:rolleyes:
Special deals etc.etc.
Your maintenance procedures are differant, but a gearbox/engine/mrb still only needs changing once and no matter how many engineers you have, you are stiil limited to the amount of hands you can get on a component! Also too many cooks and all that?;)

[212man]

Add in the fuel computers (hydromechanical on s61 I believe)

A very generous interpretation of the 61 governing system! More like an anthropomorhic seat-throttle interface (aka P2.) Having said that, some clever and impressive features such as 3D-Cam's namesake, which are genuinely ingenious from an age of slide rules :ok:

[3D CAM]

212man.
Yes, a true marvel!! A 3D cam that is.:D
3D

[[email protected]]

3D - components only need changing once - if only it were so, we have one aircraft on it's 3rd time of engine removal due to a high speed shaft vibration and we are having increasing numbers of MRGBs that are not making their TBO - maybe that lack of engineers is affecting AW as well.

If the pay was better, I suspect there would be a good few more engineers leaving the forces, especially if there was financial assistance to gain their licences. The mid £20K mark that AW and VT aimed at for the contract didn't tempt as many out of light blue as they had hoped.

212man - what is this clever 3dcam in the 61 then? I flew the Nuri in Malaysia last year and apart from the fact that the co had to keep setting specific Nr for certain stages of flight, it seemd as though the system was a normal hydromechanical governor with static droop.

[nodrama]

Engineers wages: It's no real secret if you know where to look.

Most MOD connected contracts offer in the mid-to-highish 20k. Most commercial helicopter operators (non-offshore) pay mid 30k. Offshore operators pay 40k+.

These are general estimates, before anyone jumps down my throat, depends on company and contracts they are supporting etc, etc..

[sox6]

Crab
Thats what you get with ageing aircraft.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Engine out three times? This will be the last then, before you change the engine and HSS ? Does the Gnome still have the detuning weights on the support tube? That's not a clue, just a question because the CT58 doesn't.
The 3D Cam is the bit inside the FCU that basically controls everything the FCU does.(Other than the seat/speed select interface.) A piece of metal with various profiles and cambers machined onto it. If I had a piccie then I would post it. As 212man said previously, all done using a slide rule. No computers in those days. Engineers were real engineers then!:D
Now you have the facts about salaries as well. See why good old Wastelands failed to tempt many people? Doing things on the cheap, as usual!! But still ripping off the taxpayer!

[[email protected]]

So what does the SARH future hold for the engineering side then? If there is a dearth of licensed engineers, where will CHC/Bristow/whoever get their engineers from? None of the guys on the AW/VT contract are licensed and if the 6 RAF and 1 RN (Culdrose is very unlikely to lose its SAR) that is another 42 engineers plus eng managers to find from nowhere. Let the poaching begin:)

This is another financial burden that is borne by the military - training engineers - and one which will have to be factored in to make SARH sustainable in the future.

Interestingly, on the employment of ex-mil front, most of the people I know who have left recently have stepped straight into training jobs because of the quality of their CVs and their professional capabilities - how come these posts can't be filled from the civilian sector?

[212man]

Crab, I thought I had a picture but can't find one. Visualise a coke can that you stepped on and only partialy crushed - that's what a 3-D cam looks like, only it's designed like that. Another way to think of it is if you have seen the 3-D computer drawn fuel scheduling/mapping graphs that a car ECU uses, then carve one from a cylinder of metal.

Having said all that - the 212 looks like the latest in FADEC control when viewed side by side!

[nodrama]

.....and poaching it will be! It's a sellers market.

[Rescue1]

Crab

Quote:- "Interestingly, on the employment of ex-mil front, most of the people I know who have left recently have stepped straight into training jobs because of the quality of their CVs and their professional capabilities"


Safe to say this won't be happening to you Crab;)

[doorstopper]

Crab

Some of your thoughts are well meaning and valid, others verging on humourous, but always let down by your overall attitude. A shame.

A word of advise

Until you have taken and passed your CIVILIAN exams you are NOT QUALIFIED to even fly rubber dog**** out of Hong Kong:}

[[email protected]]

Doorstopper - just to put you back in your box, I have held an ATPL(H) since 1991 - is that good enough for you?

Rescue 1 - I dunno, just how many A2 QHI/IRE SAR boys with recent training officer experience on front-line SAR squadrons do you have working for you:)

[SARREMF]

Crabb

Haha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Its taken you over 3 years but you got there! Someone final did the not qualified to fly rubber dog doo doo etc! You have been baiting them for so long and then you go for the big reveal! Ha! They put em up and you knock em down!

Anyway, your wrong!

Not about that but about engineers. Some of us are already looking at how you train the next generation - and have been looking at this for some time. So, yep poaching for some areas, but everyone recognises the shortage and what needs to be done. Now some of us are actually out there trying to solve it and are not relying on the military.

And not every contract pays the same. If you get time to plan you can reflect market forces in your bids for SAR-H. Then cut back latter when they havent got the money!

SARREMF signing off from Poland. Damn! Dont tell him your name Pike!

[Bootneck]

I have to ask Crab, did you get your ATPL via the CAA dispensation for the QHIs and 38 group or did you actually sweat? :cool:

The reason I ask. I was working out of Sumburgh, bumbling along in a 61 with a former service colleague who was a QHI, hadn't sat the exams as he was given the dipensation, and was then the training Capt for the operation. He asked, "How does an ILS work?" I told him I was busy and this wasn't a check ride. He looked sheepish and told me it was the only safe environment he could ask the question as he had never had to study for the exams.

[check]

Bootneck,

You took the words out of my mouth.

[[email protected]]

Bootneck - Lights, law and loading were the exams I took and frankly when I see some of the irrelevant sh*te that some have to learn for their ATPL I am very glad I benefitted from the 18 GP maritime (yes I was a SAR boy then as well) dispensations. Are there some green-eyed monsters out there?

And yes, I do know how an ILS works.....it's pixies isn't it?

SARREMF - yes I love it when a plan comes together!! It is the short term shortage of engineers that needs addressing, fairly urgently by the sound of it so good luck. Poland eh......try nicking the carp out of their lakes and see how they like it:)

[Bootneck]

Lights, law and loading were the exams I took and frankly when I see some of the irrelevant sh*te that some have to learn for their ATPL


I suppose it's too easy using this internettyweb device to be supercilious, so I won't. However, please do continue using the yellow aeroplanes, as your preferred option. Serious IFR work requires knowledge. (Before you ask, yes I can use a hook.) :cool:

Crab, start digging a deep sangar. Innnnnnkkkuuummmmmin! ;)

[Bertie Thruster]

.......you didnt need to be a QHI or in 38 gp in the early 90's!!...

.............. 2000 mil hrs and "combat ready" (or SAR "C" cat) and a mil instrument rating did nicely!

(with Air Law, Lights, RT, class 1 med and a civvie LST for your licence issue.)

Mine hung on the wall of my office inside a glass fronted box annotated;

"In Case of Emergency; Break Glass"

In the end it came in quite handy.

[[email protected]]

Bootneck - maybe that's why we all have full procedural IR s in SAR then and why I get to be the Command IRE to examine and award IRs and IRE's.

Maybe such knowledge wasn't required when you were in but now the lads and lasses do a procedural course at DHFS as part of their Shawbury course.

Nice try at being supercilious but you just about managed petty:) The irrelevant ****e was some of the trans-atlantic planning I have seen people swot up on - things may have changed in the exams now, the CAA may have made them more relevant to helicopters but I doubt it.

Bertie - exactly the same reason I got mine in the first place - just in case.

[SARREMF]

I dont believe it!

What dispensations!

I did ALL 15 exams for the ATPL(A) then had to pay for the tech group for rotary and only sit the P of F exam! I loved calculating the mid sector weight of the fictional aircraft [Tristar] so you could work out some blah about blah! [B Cat Op Captain with lots of hours at the time!]

Did learn a lot about avionics I didn't know. Not sure how relevant it was though? Do I really need to know about the lobes? Knowlege of Loran and Decca was second to none - and removed from the aircraft - after studying.

Anyway, the slides rules for the civy side were so much cooler than the RAF ones! Not sure how they work mind, but wow impressive look!Thats a joke! I do know how it works! You twizzle the inner duffer thingy against the outer bezel and read the answer at the triangle! Simple really!


Crabb - Poland was just to put you off the sent! Greetings from the QHCI thread!

[nodrama]

Crab, here's an example of why recruiting engineers for MOD SAR is a problem:

Senior Technician (Avionics) (http://jobs.trovit.co.uk/index.php/cod.redirect/id.4726311/precio.0/fecha.0/company./ordenpor./page.5?que=avionics-technician)
United Kingdom, South West West Yorkshire
Salary: £24594 - £26694 per annum
Permanent opportunities in helicopter engineering and maintenance in search and rescue. We are recruiting forces or ex-forces personnel for vacancies in search and rescue (SAR) helicopter engineering and maintenance in the UK. We are looking for senior technicians with avionics experience at Boulmer (Tyneside), Leconfield (Hull), Chivenor (N Devon), Valley (N Wales) and Wattisham (Ipswich). Applicants will need to have reached Corporal/Leading Hand level or higher. Civilians with NVQ level 3 and apprenticeship with relevant experience will be considered. Candidates will need
Contract: Permanent
21/12/2007

I was earning that in the Mob back in 1999 as a S/NCO technician.

An avionics engineer nowadays wouldn't put their overalls on for that (it's a difficult enough task to get them to do so anyway:)).

[Hummingfrog]

Bootneck

Slight thread creep but your comment "Serious IFR work requires knowledge" did make me chuckle. Although I left the RAF some time ago, as an IRE, I think that the practical knowledge and skills of a military pilot far outways what a pure civilain pilot brings to the table.

That is not to say that a civilian trained pilot is not a perfectly capable and safe operator it is just not true what you implied in your post.

I have seen inexperienced civilian trained pilots get into a right old tizz when the RNAV fails or gives odd readings as they are so reliant on it and will believe the figures despite what you see out of the window. One example - RNAV wind at 90deg to windlanes - RNAV wind believed despite gentle hint that it was odd that forecast wind was 90deg out!! Also unfamiliarity with how to do a radio aids nav just using VOR/DME/NDB when RNAV packs up.

Your other comment :-

"I may be out of touch on timings these days but a Super Puma or S61 would go into the Bristow heavy hangar for a total strip down to the rivets, then be back online, shiny new paint job and air tested in three weeks. Unbelievable, maybe, but it's true. "

Is totally unbelievable- I have never seen a 61 or Puma come out of a G Check in 3 weeks - 6 weeks more likely although we are waiting for an a/c to come out of a G check that went in in July 07!!

Civilian and RAF/RN have both got enormous amounts of experience and operating methods to bring to the new SAR organisation but it will need skilled amalgamation to bring the best out of both systems.

HF

[nodrama]

Bootneck never actually said it had gone in for a G check.....

[Bootneck]

Hummingfrog, I think we have seen pilots of both sides lose it in busy situations. I agree absolutely that the military pilot brings many advantages to the civilian world, one of which has to be the positive experience gained from having pushed the envelope in order to get the job done. Basically we had been given the opportunity to frighten ourselves 'gasless' and got away with it, if lucky, something very few young civvy pilots have the chance to do. The knowledge gained from pushing the line allowed us to know when enough was enough; that enabled military pilots to stand up to managerial pressures when the weather was beyond reasonable levels.
My experience of pilots allowed a dispensation from the exam requirements for licensing was from an earlier era, both as a line pilot and a sim instructor. I still believe there should be a level playing field, it's fairer on those who don't have to do the exams. ;) It's great that the, military are now working within the procedural world, and have knowledge of all the nav-aids available, certainly not the case from the 70s and 80s. As I stated previously, it's necessary to have a thorough knowledge of all aspects of instrument flying especially if your work environment requires you to be IMC for most of the day or night, not just to escape from the umballah.

The timings from the service schedules are correct. It may appear unbelievable, but that's a perception problem on the military mind, not for those working in a civilian environment. I have nothing but praise for the licensed engineers, working shifts, in extreme conditions on and offshore, they work wonders. Nobody but an engineer is qualified to denigrate them.

It bears remembering that a civilian machine worth many millions of dollars is losing money for it's owner when sat in a shed being polished. If it's fixable then every effort is made to replace parts and get them strapped on, the machine tested and back on line. I know it's hard to get the head around, but it's life out of a green, blue, grey suit.
Example. China, Super Puma died late PM. We were on the phone (8 hours ahead of UK time) to the Aberdeen night shift in minutes, before daybreak the part was in the hands of the courier en-route to Amsterdam, then on to Hong Kong where my smiley face retrieved it, took it through customs and then to the machine. We were flying again within 36 hours. Money was one factor, but there was also an element of pride in getting our machine ready to go again. Then we got the REMF from Redhill on the phone complaining about us not following procedures............ F**k off sounds very similar in Cantonese. :)

[Hummingfrog]

nodrama

If a strip down to rivets is not a G check then it is very similar in jobscope!!

HF

[pumaboy]

3 weeks must be a new record for for a total strip down of a 332L and flight tested.

I have seen a 332L come in for new paint and interior in 4 weeks but not paint stripped or inspection.

[Bootneck]

The bendy toys must have slowed down. ;)
It was a standard routine, amazing to watch and certainly a matter of pride that they achieved the dates. The heavy hangar doors opened, swallowed the machine, and they opened 3 weeks later to evict the butterfly. :D

[[email protected]]

70 s and 80s eh? Bootneck you do know it is 2008 don't you?:)

I think I heard the sound of a (boot)neck being wound back in;)



I do sometimes get the impression that, far from the utopian dream they imagined, many ex-military pilots find life in the 'real world' far less appealing than it seemed from the other side of the fence. Perhaps it is the loss of status and authority, maybe it is that you can no longer do the 'right thing', you can only do what is right for the balance sheet. Maybe it is because so much of commercial flying is glorified bus driving (I don't mean that the pilots are less capable, only that they don't get the challenges to exercise their expertise as often). Whilst the removal of the F**k-factor maybe the most significant difference between military and civilian life, do the other benefits outweigh the loss of the camaraderie and the Fun-factor that still (just about) exists in the military?

I am sure I will get flamed for this one but I am just making an observation on how some PPruners come across on various threads.

[Hummingfrog]

Crab

You are right in some ways I am a glorified bus/taxi driver (well paid though:ok:) and but my priorities while flying are only slightly different to what yours are. We both have to satisfy the client - in my case the oil company and in my RAF career it was either the Army or the survivor. The balance sheet has nothing to do with how I operate so I am not sure what you mean by doing the right thing?

The main difference is that to the oil company I am just another contractor who is expected to provide a service. While this may be fairly routine during normal days it does get very challenging when the weather is on the limits and the customer wants max payloads. That is when I earn my money. The camaraderie is still there amongst the pilot work force but the fun factor may not be the same. There again I am only expected to fly the helicopter while providing the best possible payloads to the customer, nothing else so my working day begins and ends around that. There are no secondary duties.

I think that the major challenge that ex-mil pilots have to face is the realisation that they are not in a position of influence when they join an offshore helicopter company. They are required to fly and that is it - management manages and pilots fly - once you realise that it is brilliant!!

I have the best of both worlds, however, as I also fly for the RAF in my spare time and get the "fun factor" by being upside down at 4000ft :E giving air experience to an ATC cadet.

HF

[rowdyyates]

I do hope that SERCCO will not be providing paramedics for this venture, I used to work for them and barely escaped with my life.........

[jonnyloove]

The paramedics will be the civil aircrew already. They will be trained by the RAF at the SAR school of medicine when the school moves to RAF Valley by the modular route. Not by serco. Some of the guys form Bond have completed the course and CHC have started putting there men up for it. :)

[Limpopo]

I do sometimes get the impression that, far from the utopian dream they imagined, many ex-military pilots find life in the 'real world' far less appealing than it seemed from the other side of the fence.

Crab

Like most things in life, you only get out what you put in to it. If you come out of the military and expected to be treated as a God by the other pilots who have had to pay thousands of pounds to get their careers going, then you will not like the reception that you'll get. However, if you use your best CRM (crew co-operation) skills and get stuck in, then there isn't really any difference from the military when it comes to flying. I expect many of the HEMS, Police and SAR pilots love their work without all the extra nause that the military expects you to do. As Hummingfrog says, you come to do a job and that is to fly. Once your shift or flight is over, you go home again.

I left the military 11 years ago having served almost 18 years. I loved the flying but the other nause of station secondary duties and being duty officer became to make the life less enjoyable. Since leaving I will admit that I miss some of the camaraderie, but life is what you make it. I go to work to fly, and as a Captain I have as much responsibility for aircraft and crew as I did in the military. Now I have up to 19 pax on a leg to be responsible for as well. Some days the flying is mundane, others working like a one-armed paper-hangar. Same as the military.

As well as a more stable life-style, the pay is generally better (well on the North Sea or SAR anyway) and the opportunities are there should you wish to take a training or management route for your career. In my company we have training captains from both routes, civil and military.

In the end it all depends on your attitude to the job. Have a bad attitude about it and you wont get far. In my experience there are very FEW ex-military pilots who have regretted leaving the military, but they are all glad that they have had the opportunity to do SH, SAR, Jungly or whatever, as it has given them extra experience compared to those that have followed the civil route. Mind you, talk to some of the latter who have worked in Africa and they have some "interesting" stories to tell.

As with civil SAR, Crab, don't knock it until you have tried it! You may be pleasantly surprised :)

[SARREMF]

Or put another way

Now I know what working for a living really is!

Would I change a thing? Well yes of course, but that nice person in China keeps sending me emails with tablets that will make it grow!

jonnyloooove. Do you know something the SAR-H IPT dont? Like who won the competition already? Tell us go on! Tell Tell

[Bootneck]

Perhaps it is the loss of status and authority, maybe it is that you can no longer do the 'right thing', you can only do what is right for the balance sheet.

Crab, it may be 2008 but some things never change, the main one being the attitude of some, not all, just some RAF pilots.

Two examples.
One chief pilot, ex-crab told me I should show him more respect as he was a retired Sqn Ldr. Well stuff me sideways, if I'd known about his condition I'd have shown him a damn sight more of my backside. :E

The other guy was so anally retentive that, during our first flight together, he had worked out our fuel burn three times before we were 10 miles from Aberdeen. I asked to borrow his whizwheel and put in my door pocket, where it stayed for the rest of the trip. :E

In Bristows there were so many Sqn members from all three services it felt very much like a crewroom, the engineers were of the same blend. I repeat, your attitude may be tolerated, grudgingly, in your present environment. If you go into the real world and maintain it, then somebody is going to Rembrandt you. :cool:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/Cartoons/icon_rolling.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/Cartoons/nufsaid.gif

[[email protected]]

Bootneck - it rather sounds to me as though you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding the Light Blue, fancy those nasty ex RAF chaps doing something professional like working out fuel burn, tut tut. ;)

Never mind, you can take the man out of the marines but you can't take the marine out of the man - I'm sure resorting to physical violence goes down a treat in civvy st - excellent CRM:)

[Bootneck]

Shark!!!!!!! I've landed a shark.................

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/p010.jpg


Crab, nothing wrong with a blue suit. Don't like violence either, seen enough, as many of us have; but I do like a tad of common dog. ;)

[[email protected]]

Bootneck - not quite sure how you think I bit then - the use of smilies to indicate jocular banter was clearly not taught at Lympstone:)(look there's another one)

[Senior Pilot]

Girls (apols to Whirls, etc),

How about we get away from the jocular banter/fishing/mine's bigger than yours and discuss the topic? Harmonisation springs to mind :rolleyes:

Otherwise it will all end in tears, and they won't be mine :p

[Bootneck]

No! Not the Chinese burn in the playground. :eek:

Apologies for the departure from thread SP.

Harmonisation of resources can in turn be taken all the way down to harmonisation of the team, and Crab, judging by all his comments so far, isn't going to fit into the civilian mould. I'd rather upset him on here, than have him upset a dedicated team out there.

[sonas]

FROM HEBRIDESNEWS


Coastguard helicopter did not undertake rescue mission 14/3/08

The new Stornoway coastguard helicopter could not undertake a rescue mission on Wednesday because new fuel tanks have yet to be fitted.

Instead, a RAF Sea King crew from Lossiemouth flew the return emergency flight some 200 miles west off the Western Isles to airlift a seriously ill Russian fisherman to hospital in Stornoway.


Although the new Sikorsky S92 coastguard helicopter - based at Stornoway - was closer it does not have such a long range as the former Bristows aircraft used for coastguard operations.


Previous assurances that extra fuel tanks would be fitted into the new aircraft to allow it to fly on such a mission have not been enacted into reality. The fuel tanks are lying empty at the operator's base in Stornoway awaiting a decision whetever to install them or not.

On Wednesday night, the sick man suffering with chest pains was winched off the factory trawler Semyon Lapshenkov.

The MCA said the RAF Sea King was alerted to the mission as it had a longer range. :confused:

[[email protected]]

Surely not - the super-duper all singing and dancing SAR helicopter with less capability than the old one - so much for a seamless transition then:)

[HAL9000]

What are these extra tanks, a modified set of externals or internally fitted ferry tanks? If they are internal doesn't that compromise the cabin?

[HAL9000]

Just wanted to drag this back to the top of the list in order to try and get a (sensible) response.

[bigglesbutler]

The tanks are inside the cabin, not ferry tanks as such as the are not an easy item to fit or remove. Don't qoute me on that as I was only listening to people discussing them before I left stornoway and I don't fly the 92.

[Hiller]

Having just returned to the real world and catching up on the bickering on SAR.
3D Cam, are you telling me that Bristow engineers do extra duties for NO EXTRA PAY!!! This would have never happened in my time:=. Seriously, I have been reliably informed that you do in fact get extra pay for Fire Fighting duties as well as other duties on the base. My informant, well Bristow did have to tell CHC the Terms and Conditions for the TUPE handover.
H

[[email protected]]

So it will remain with a RoA of only 205nm then? Unless there is time to fit the extra tanks for a long ranger. Looks like the UK will be relying on the Sea King for a while longer. I seem to remember that the S 92 was supposed to bring much vaunted extra capability to UK SAR - another great headline with no factual substance then:)

[3D CAM]

Hiller.

I have been reliably informed that you do in fact get extra pay for Fire Fighting duties as well as other duties on the base.

I do beg your pardon, the Ginger beers do get paid extra for fire fighting duties! Not trying to hide anything, just forgetfullnes creeping up on me. :O
However, that is the only extra payment received, other than Ch.Eng pay. No stores pay, no fuel pay, no ground equipment pay, zilch! Yes indeed, times have changed!
Crab.
If you are impressed with the 92, just you wait till you see the figures for the 139!:E
3D

[keepin it in trim]

Before evebody jumps all over the S-92 about range, this occasionally used to happen when the dear old 61 was there (been there, done it), although I am not sure if the range differential was better or worse. I think now the issue has been brought into focus someone will pretty quickly come up with an appropriate approved procedure and the problem will go away.

Looking on the bright side, at least they have the capability to fit long range tanks, if we had had the spare payload it would have been a nice capability to have on the Sea King on several occasions I can think of.

[SARREMF]

Sorry, but something doesn't add up here? The S92 is a capable old bus and no way has an ROA of 205nms? Unless of course it was shortned by high winds etc, in which case the Sea King shouldn't have been able to get there either. Is this a send 3 and four pence we are going to a dance situation?

ooooo its really difficult to typ ewhen you have had tooo many to drinkQ! My head is going to hurt in the morning!

SRMF

[HAL9000]

SARREMF,

Definitely no 'send three and fourpence' going on. Sea King ROA approx 240nm, S-92 approx 205nm without aux tanks. Here is an extract from the MCA press release regarding intro of the S-92:

Richard Parkes, Director of Technical Services who represented the MCA at the signing ceremony today said

The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new Sikorsky aircraft today as part of our strategy of utilising differing aircraft specifically for the varying coastline we enjoy in the United Kingdom. These new aircraft will be able to fly more quickly, and will be able to fly farther to people in distress at sea than those currently in use.

These new aircraft have been specifically kitted with various items of advanced technical equipment, including an on board automatic identification system (AIS), specifically designed for the challenges of search and rescue in the 21st Century. The S92s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability, although this is a world first in being configured entirely for search and rescue.


We look forward to working with CHC who are fulfilling this key role and taking search and rescue work into a new era, and can bring their wealth of experience of search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway to the UK.


Notes to Editors

The aircraft are fitted with two internal auxiliary fuel tanks of 210 gallons each.

Fitted SAR options include:

- an improved AFCS with auto-hover capability,

- Forward looking infra red (FLIR)

- dual rescue hoist,

- full sliding-door

- bubble window,

- cargo hook,

- search-light

- loud hailer.

- The cabin can be arranged for installing triple medical litter kit, one or two aux fuel tanks, folding utility seats and ample storage. The designated operator console provides search data including FLIR and enhancing crew coordination on SAR missions.



As ever, the devil is in the detail. The S-92 can go further with aux tanks but this appears to be impractical at short notice ie, the sort of short notice that SAR helos are on. Due you think we will get a press release from the MCA that will clear up the confusion?

[3D CAM]

HAL

Due you think we will get a press release from the MCA that will clear up the confusion?

Now that will be a novelty!:D Their press dept. only give out what they are told is good news!:ugh:
3D

[[email protected]]

So is this what we can expect from civsar post 2012? Lots of new-labour style spin with no substance? I believe the PM had no idea of what was going on with SARH until very recently - let's see what happens now:)

[Helitemp]

The commercial 92,s are operating under a gravity refuel only restriction at present post the last fuel tank rupture in the Norwegian sector. This limits the fuel capacity of both tanks. Are the SAR machines required to operate with this restriction?:rolleyes:

[steve_oc]

The commercial 92,s are operating under a gravity refuel only restriction at present post the last fuel tank rupture in the Norwegian sector. This limits the fuel capacity of both tanks. Are the SAR machines required to operate with this restriction

No

Aux tank installation is awaiting certification from EASA

[HAL9000]

The press release I posted earlier was dated 1st March 2007.

If the aux tanks have not been certified yet, does that mean that the MCA were telling fibs about the ability to fly further? At no point does the press release say that the new S-92 will be able to fly further pending certification of the aux tanks.

As the MCA has no real aviation expertise within the organisation this should all come as no surprise.

Crab, your last post was a bit cryptic, do elaborate old chap.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
I believe the PM had no idea of what was going on with SARH until very recently - let's see what happens now:)
Do you mean he now realises that a great proportion of the RAF is not doing its bit on the frontline?:D Look out, your movement orders are in the post! Next stop, Helmand SAR.:)
Seriously, do you really think Gordon gives a stuff about any of this? He is not the first PM to hear about SARH, trust me! Someone even higher had knowledge of it a long time ago.:E
HAL
The MCA lost any Aviation expertise with the departure of Geoff Roberts. His replacement, C T, now employed by CHC:hmm::hmm::hmm:, had next to no SAR experience,mil or civ, and that is beginning to show in the problems associated with introducing a new type to the MCA contract! Teething problems are not confined to one company. They come with the aircraft, as we all know.
3D

[[email protected]]

SARH is likely to become a little more political in the near future as some MPs are asking quite pertinent questions like 'Why were Portland and Lee given special protected status from the 'blue sky thinking'?" and "Why do we need to spend £3 -5Bn in the private sector on something the military already do 66% of within the current defence budget"

Gordon apparently wants to be briefed in full about the project and with the economy in tatters I would think he is likely to favour a cheap military solution (ie not £3-5Bn) rather than a private one.

3D the SARF is already providing people for OOA dets in sandy places so no change there.

As for the lack of aviation expertise in the MCA - they are going to call the shots on the 2012 contract which doesn't bode too well. The same lack of expertise is why they had to come to the military for advice for SARH.

[zalt]

£3-5Bn..
Is that not the cost over 25 years?

In which case your question is why should "Why do we need to spend £120-200mn pa in the private sector to get new aircraft to do something the military already do 66% of within the current defence budget with old aircraft"

[Bootneck]

cheap military solution


Would that be the latest oxymoron? (Yes I know there are three words, but humour me) ;)

[Rescue1]

Crab

Quote:- Gordon apparently wants to be briefed in full about the project and with the economy in tatters I would think he is likely to favour a cheap military solution (ie not £3-5Bn) rather than a private one.

Didn't know you had the ear of Brown Crab next you will be telling us u voted for him:ugh:

the other thing that springs to mind is that you keep banging on about the fact that the Seakings are in your words "Knackered" and I know that you have real problems keeping one serviceable never mind two :( his "Cheap Military Solution" might just be to let you carry on with the same Knackered machines for another 10 years.

Oh and can you confirm that on very long jobs you have to reduce the weight of Seaking to squeeze in the fuel

Something the S92 with the extra tanks fitted will never have to do.:)

[[email protected]]

The Carson mod and a 'mid-life' upgrade to the avionics would keep the Sea King going for many years with increased performance and range, there are S61s out there with 30,000 hours on and our cabs have less than 10,000. The cost would be significantly cheaper than the SARH project and retain the healthy military presence (and the UK homeland security element it provides) in UK SAR.

The role kit can be removed very quickly to get the weight down in order to get the full 6300 lbs in - certainly much quicker than fitting extra tanks to S92 which don't seem to have been certified yet and without reducing cabin space. Our normal zero fuel weight is around 15,700 which gives us 5,700 fuel to our max AUM without removing anything and this will still give us a RoA comfortably above the S92's paltry 205nm.

As for GB - I didn't vote for him but then nor did anyone else:)

BTW - it's 'knackered' not 'nackered' - is English not your first language?:)

[Rescue1]

Quote "BTW - it's 'knackered' not 'nackered' - is English not your first language?"

Your right J it was late and think it must have been the wine:)

[HAL9000]

To quote Rescue 1,

"Oh and can you confirm that on very long jobs you have to reduce the weight of Seaking to squeeze in the fuel

Something the S92 with the extra tanks fitted will never have to do.:)"

This smugness is rather baffling because, as has been shown, there are no extra tanks that can currently be fitted to CHC's S-92s.

[John Eacott]

Our normal zero fuel weight is around 15,700 which gives us 5,700 fuel to our max AUM without removing anything

Crab,

What do you include in that ZFW? Seems quite a lot to an old ASW driver, our APS was about 13700lbs (IIRC), including all the old 195 sonar gear. I thought the earlier SAR Sea Kings (Danish and German) had ~7000lb fuel capacity, do I read that yours are only 6300lb?

I agree the Carson blades will be a big improvement; are you getting them?

TIA :ok:

[[email protected]]

John, about 1200 lbs of SAR role kit and 4 crew @ 200lbs each makes up the 2000lb difference. We use ZFW instead of APS as it includes the crew. Our 6371lb (when gravity refuelled) 6239lbs pressure has always been the same - don't know about the Danish and German SAR SKs, every Mk seems to have a different fuel tank layout and capacity.

There are a number of jungly SKs with Carson blades fitted under a SUR for sandy places and many of us are hoping we can have the whole SK fleet fitted. It deosn't give us more absolute Vmax but makes the same Vmax available throughout most of the flight envelope.

[212man]

The commercial 92,s are operating under a gravity refuel only restriction at present post the last fuel tank rupture in the Norwegian sector

If they are, it's a voluntary restriction on the part of individual operators - nothing official about it

[Senior Pilot]

UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcome the AW139 to their fleet, press release: (http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/mcga-press-releases.htm?id=F49B45EDF6A9EC0A&m=3&y=2008)

The first of three brand-new AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters, configured entirely for search and rescue (SAR), were welcomed at the MCAs new state-of-the-art hangar at the Lee-On-The-Solent airfield today. The helicopters will be used primarily on the south coast.

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/helo-7.jpg

These helicopters are being provided under a service contract to the MCA by CHC Helicopters who won the interim contract to supply the service to the MCA from 2007 to 2012.

The interim contract provides for commercial search and rescue helicopter services from four civilian-operated bases - Sumburgh, Stornoway, Lee-on-the-Solent and Portland - for a five-year period from July 1, 2007.

The service will provide 24-hour coverage at Sumburgh, Stornoway and Lee-on-Solent, and will operate on a 12 hour day-time basis at Portland, in line with current cover.

Two AW139s will be based at Lee on the Solent and one at Portland.

Peter Cardy, Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency said:

The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new AgustaWestland aircraft as part of our strategy of utilising differing aircraft specifically for the varying coastline we enjoy in the United Kingdom.

These new aircraft will be able to fly more quickly, and will be able to fly farther to people in distress at sea than those currently in use.

They have been specifically kitted with various items of advanced technical equipment, including an on board automatic identification system (AIS), specifically designed for the challenges of search and rescue in the 21st Century .

The AW139s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability.

The aircraft are also being considered for use in a search and rescue role in Spain, with UAE, Australia, Italian and Japanese authorities also intending to use these aircraft for SAR purposes.

Mr. Cardy continued

We look forward to working with CHC who are fulfilling this key role and taking search and rescue work into a new era, and can bring their wealth of experience of search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway to the UK.

CHCs UK SAR contract manager Ian McLuskie said

The introduction of the AW139s represents the latest key phase in our work with the MCA to introduce new technology to civilian helicopter search and rescue work in the UK and provide an effective, efficient service that reflects modern-day needs.


Notes to Editors:

Technical Data:

Role Equipment fitted to both Aircraft types

• WINCH – Goodrich dual hoist
• SATCOM - SkyTrac ISAT-100 system fitted to all aircraft - which provides SatPhone voice communications, with an additional two-way text messaging facility - and complete position reporting through the automatic flight following functionality.
• SEARCHLIGHT - Spectrolab SX-16 Nightsun
• FLIR - Wescam MX-15i on each of the proposed Airborne Systems
• RADAR - Honeywell Primus 701 full colour weather/search radar
• HOMER - Chelton 935-11 Direction Finder
• AIS - Saab R4A SAR AIS transponder.

o 3 x AW139
o 2 at Lee on Solent, 1 at Portland
o increase in Radius of Action
o increase in speed (150kts)
o 40% increase in winch speed
o Secondary winch identical to primary winch
o Excellent single engine performance
o Extensive safe operating envelope
o Fully integrated systems and glass cockpit
o Enhanced mission management system with moving map and satcom
o Excellent visual search platform
o Good accessibility – 2 large doors and low sill height
o New technology with anticipated reliability benefits
o Fully duplex autopilot; all aircraft configured the same
o Size, speed and economy benefits suited to south coast SAR operations
o The maximum endurance of the AW139 is 2 hrs 43 minutes at the best cruise speed and 3 hrs 20 minutes at the speed for best endurance. These figures are based on VFR reserves (20 minutes at cruise speed) and maximum auxiliary fuel


Posted By: Rosie Tapping

[[email protected]]

'These figures are at maximum auxiliary fuel' - so is the same flannel as with the S92 then? Do you have to fit extra tanks to get the headline RoA and endurance?

[HAL9000]

Crab,

I also smell a rat. The max speed is quoted as 150kt and the endurances are quoted as at best cruise (2h43m) and best endurance (3h20m) both of which will be <150kts.

Even assuming 150kt throughout, and still air, that gives RoA of 250nm at best endurance and 204nm at best cruise. The optimistic top end of 250nm is hardly a massive improvement on the Sea King Mk3.

Could somebody in the know confirm our suspicions and provide real numbers as opposed to MCA hype?

HAL

[3D CAM]

Crab.
I said you would be impressed!:rolleyes:
This press release is CHC/MCA 'spin' at its best.
The rumour is that only one aircraft, presumably one at Lee, will have the aux. tank fitted. Therefore be prepared for a lot more tasking to Portlands patch. They will be busy running into somewhere for fuel 60 minutes after arriving on scene. But they will have got there pretty quickly.:ok:
3D

[Aser]

I can think of something like this...

AW139 with 4500kg EW
1450kg fuel (due to MTOW 6450kg, this summer 6800?)
cruise 5000' 6ºC Tas 152 (no wind)
back to base at 1000' 16ºC Tas 138 (no wind)

RoA with 30 minutes on station and 30' reserve = +-203Nm

Or like the other day...
80Nm to the search area and 2 hours at 60-70knots (short hover while boat pickup the dead body :( ) and lading with just 20' of reserve.

But more than 200nm... :rolleyes:

Regards
Aser

[Wiretensioner]

Strange that there are no photographs attached to the press release?:hmm:

[Rescue1]

Quote:- "'These figures are at maximum auxiliary fuel' - so is the same flannel as with the S92 then? Do you have to fit extra tanks to get the headline RoA and endurance?"

SARD arrived in Lee yesterday with AUX fuel tank FITTED :)

[Bravo73]

Strange that there are no photographs attached to the press release?:hmm:

From the 139 thread:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/photos/6/8/8/1337886.jpg


:ok:

[MyTarget]

Nice Cab.................:ok:

[SARCO]

I notice no mention of survivor capacity in the press release, which worries me, I know that statistically Portland and Solent have at best 1-2 survivors per sortie but there doesn't seem to be much capacity if it is required in the Channel etc


Crab, looks like you will get more shouts my friend!!


(Paint it black and it looks very Airwolf esque!)

[Bootneck]

Question for those at Lee and Portland. Why, if you have FLIR and a nitesun are you limited to 12 hour ops? It seems such an anomaly.

Ref survivor capacity of the 139, out of curiosity what is the maximum number of survivors lifted from a ship by a Seaking or S61? I notice this line from the blurb, Size, speed and economy benefits suited to south coast SAR operations so presume a larger aircraft is deemed unnecessary by those who make the decisions.

[Tonka Toy]

I suggest it would be fair to say, if you used all three 139s you would come up short on the S-61 for casualty lift. Perhaps when it comes to the refuel the MCA's Islander can trundle round from kent and lob a dinghy at whoever is left in the water before the 139s come back!

[Tractor_Driver]

Bootneck asks the maximum number of survivors lifted. I believe that 35 were lifted from the fishing vessel Green Lily by a S61.

TD

[3D CAM]

Portland aircraft lifted 12 off "Ice Prince" in January before having to go back for fuel. Then returned to lift a further 8 but not needed. They were taken off by lifeboat in horrendous conditions, some of the survivors jumping straight to the lifeboat and being very lucky to be pulled on board! The lifeboat cox is up for an award for this job.
BTW this was all after 2100hrs.
No matter what the MCA are saying, the 139 would not have been able to do the job but they are hoping it just does not happen again.:=

[Crabette]

When you transfer over to CHC in a few days time, will you still be wagging that finger? It is the aircraft that has been chosen, right or wrong it is what you and the rest at Lee & Portland will have to work with and continue to do your best. No one is forcing you to transfer, so you can stay on a S61 or whatever else they have at Bristow doing line flying...perhaps its time you took your negative, anti change attitude away from front line SAR.

Don't drag down the attempts by those individuals currently trying to make the team and new cabs work. You may well be right that it is not the 'correct type' for UK SAR but the professionals working on the units will do their best regardless....will you do them a favour and get onboard with them? I'm sure BHL will be happy to keep you if not. Your mission should you decide to accept is to ‘shut up and get on with it’:ok:

[zalt]

Crabette

Clearly you hoping their are only sail boats in distress in the Channel and that no one rocks the distressed boat by point out the inevitable.

[leopold bloom]

The flaw in the "it's not big enough" logic is where do you draw the line? If, for example, a ferry with 200 people on board is sinking then a Sea King or S61 isn't big enough either. If the majority of rescues involve lifting 1 or 2 survivors,and I don't know what the stats are but I would guess it's in the 90 - 97% range, then surely an aircraft optimised for that role is the best use of limited resources?:confused:

[3D CAM]

Crabette.
Wow, that's me told! Are you going to have a go at Crab as well?
However, you are right, we will get on with it and make the best of a bad deal! But I will still say things as I see them, no matter who I work for! For the record, I actually think the 139 is a nice aircraft. Just not for SAR in the UK. We had no say in the choice, but then you already know that. I am not anti change, in fact I have been saying for a long time that the good old 61 should be put out to grass. But only if the right aircraft was taking its place. (Has the 139 or 92 got 360 degree radar?)
Leo.
Stats can tell you anything you wish. But surely it is better to go for an aircraft with a larger carrying capability and not have to use that capacity very often, than have one that will have to keep going back to shore for fuel every 2hrs?
3D

[zalt]

leopold bloom

In your scenrio there would need to be several aircraft. But if the two nearest bases have mediums rather than heavies the whole thing becomes far more fraught.

[tonyosborne]

Just to add, you've all seen CGIJ, but SARD is also in town...

Could anyone tell me a little history on S-61 'India Juliet' and her status, will she be gone now these have arrived, does anyone know about her future?

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tonyosborne2/MCA01.jpg

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tonyosborne2/MCA02.jpg

[Tonka Toy]

What is a most likely 'worst case scenario'. We tend to take a cargo ship, Napoli or Ice Prince for example. This is most certainly more than two.

Whilst it is wonderful to have all this new 'kit' it will not serve the purpose.

May I suggest that there has clearly been a total lack of understanding or sense of reality displayed by civil servants in this 'change' decision.

As coal face operators you will all have to be accountable now for the decisions made by a faceless civil servant in the MCA or whereever else they may be who has already forced you all into making the decision of who will live and who will not. When you make the wrong decision, or take the one that does not sit well with them on that particular day, then, speaking from experience, you will be hung out to dry. Its very lonely out there blowing in the breeze!

A few years ago, I was told to my face by about the most senior person you could have got in this business that at the very worst, Solent would be an S-92 and Portland a 139.

I'm glad the rotary family are getting new kit, I'm unconvinced though that the 139 is the right kit.

Sadly I think this will be most felt by the casualty left to a forlorn hope as it dissappears into the distance without them.

Can those of us that stand up to the plate for this role, not form some type of 'stakeholders' group to influence such decisions as this one which has been made for us?

[leopold bloom]

But surely it is better to go for an aircraft with a larger carrying capability and not have to use that capacity very often, than have one that will have to keep going back to shore for fuel every 2hrs?
In your scenario there would need to be several aircraft.
3D Your'e confusing capacity with endurance and not addressing the question so I'll ask it in a different form. Given that there is a finite budget, how big is big enough?
Zalt, again the same problem, no helicopter is big enough all the time, so how big is big enough?

[3D CAM]

Leo.
S92 all round the bases! I didn't mean to be confused, it just comes with age.:O
Tony.
G-BDIJ is the on call machine at Portland at this time. WB & MU are at Lee.
IJ is rumoured to be going to the SAR unit at Den Helder once Portland transitions. As for WB & MU the future is uncertain at this time.
3D

[HAL9000]

The operators at the coal face will make it work, and make it work very well, be they military or civilian.

The point is that the S92 and AW139 were announced with trumpets blaring and various announcements of being able to fly faster (true), further (false) and with greater endurance (also false). Replacing the S-61 with 139s also reduces the number of survivors that can be carried in one lift (the argument that increased TAS negates that is also false given the sort of distances travelled in south coast rescues). Therefore, the MCA are talking in 'Newspeak' as the improvements claimed are actually reductions in overall capability.

Or have I missed something?

HAL

[[email protected]]

Unfortunately, the phrase 'no lesser capability' which is supposed to be the saviour of SARH, was not applied to the interim contract - let us hope more sensible decisions are made for 2012. Most people, I believe, would have put a 92 at Lee and a 139 at Portland to cover most eventualities but someone somewhere obviously knows better.

[zalt]

I thought they were all RAF specialists that stitched up the interim contract!
The truth is out there!

[Lost at Sea]

Wasn't it an RAF dominated committee who basically chose the aircraft and the contractor and the MCA had little to do with it apart from that bloke who left them after the contract was awarded to CHC and joined CHC.

The same committee is now chosing the bidder for SAR-H. If I were you Crab I'd go and have a chat with them! You never know they may listen!

[MyTarget]

G-BDIJ is the on call machine at Portland at this time. WB & MU are at Lee.
IJ is rumoured to be going to the SAR unit at Den Helder once Portland transitions. As for WB & MU the future is uncertain at this time.
3D

Really?

Are there any plans to change the type at Den helder? Or just keep the 61.

[Hawksridge]

"Wasn't it an RAF dominated committee who basically chose the aircraft and the contractor and the MCA had little to do with it apart from that bloke who left them after the contract was awarded to CHC and joined CHC.

The same committee is now chosing the bidder for SAR-H. If I were you Crab I'd go and have a chat with them! You never know they may listen!"


Zalt and Lost At Sea - Correct me if I'm wrong (could be, it's happened before)! but as I understand it, the "RAF dominated committee" you refer to that placed the interim contract, and are now working on the 2012 bids, are in fact the SAR-H IPT which, last time I looked, comprised of a team of about 22 (led by a civilain civil servant), only 1 of which is RAF, and at least 2 of which are MCA employees. The rest are civil servants. How do you work out that this is an RAF dominated committee if it's led by a civilian and the RAF element are outnumbered 21 to 1?

[[email protected]]

Whilst the RAF will have offered opinion on the aircraft for the contract (because they were asked to by MCA), I don't believe the basing decisions were made by anyone in the military - that would have been a job for CHC and MCA.

The SAR experts have been asked to vet and score the SARH bids and it is now up to the committee who I think are mainly civil servants and MCA, not RAF, to make the decisions. Sadly there seem to be some members of the committee who think they know more about SAR than the SAR experts (the inevitable intellectual arrogance that comes with elevated position and rank) so they may well f**k the whole contract up anyway.

[HAL9000]

Crab,

No doubt you will get the usual barrage of abuse from the uninformed and those with an agenda but what you say is spot on. Perhaps Lost at Sea could provide a breakdown of the composition of the SAR-H IPT so that we can see whether his accusations carry any weight.

HAL

[Bertie Thruster]

Some slight amusement available if one looks at the 'table of contents' of the downloadable copy of "Review of UK Search & Rescue (SAR) Helicopter Provision and Coverage Criteria Report - June 2001"!


http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/2001_coverage_report-contents.pdf

[Bertie Thruster]

2006 IPT team here (http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/lrgtxt/sar-hindustrypresentation.pdf); (page 8)

[212man]

shut up and get on with it

Now there's the key to progress and constructive dialogue

[Lost at Sea]

Perhaps Lost at Sea could provide a breakdown of the composition of the SAR-H IPT so that we can see whether his accusations carry any weight.


Well I’m going on information by the SAR God himself…. Crab!

He said in Feb 2006..

I hope that the CHC provision of SAR will be far better than Bristows, and if so could well be due to the amount of involvement the RAF had in the process.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=15 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=15)


He later adds....

Wait and see if the contract under CHC really is the same as Bristow - I don't believe so, thanks to the involvement of the MoD the service provided will be superior whoever crews it.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=17 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=17)


So I take it from that that the RAF/MOD did have a significant amount of influence in the decision. (Unless of course....Crab was talking out of his backside!!! ;))

Although now things aren’t going quite so well he and others seem to be distancing themselves from this and now CHC are the evil civilian SAR operators!

And in March 2008 he sarcastically remarks....

Surely not - the super-duper all singing and dancing SAR helicopter with less capability than the old one - so much for a seamless transition then:)
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=308111&page=9


Which leads to a rather prophetic posting from Night Watchman about Crab…

PS Note for your (crab’s) diary - Jul 07 I must stop hating Bristow and start hating CHC. They're all civilians doing SAR and not as perfect as me.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=15 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=196958&page=15)


Now the interesting thing is that if the service CHC was providing was excellent would Crab and his chums be taking credit for it???? We’ll never know! :hmm:

[Rescue1]

Well said Lost at Sea :D

Crab has a small problem his memory:) it's the first stage of Age and Alzheimer's kicking in, Will he last till 2012 not sure :hmm: it's a tough call.

R1

[[email protected]]

Lost at sea - I don't think I mentioned the composition of the SARH IPT in any of those quotes - I am afraid your mental competence is the problem here, not mine:)

All I said was that due to the fact the MCA couldn't get unbiased advice from industry (Bristows, CHC or others) because they all had vested interests, the MoD were asked for guidance and expertise in examining the interim contract.
That led to the formation of SARH which as you are now aware, is not comprised of light blue but is MCA and civil servants with one Sqn Ldr trying to keep some semblance of order.

As for CHC - they are providing a good service - it's just that some of the claims made regarding the platform's capability have not been substantiated - this is probably because the MCA do the press releases and don't quite understand the issues:)

Now what was the question again.......???????

[SARREMF]

Flung dung I think you could be correct! State a position, get caught out some time later in a complete 180, wriggle like a good 'en, then distort the facts. brilliant. Crabb for PM, Crabb for PM. I'll vote for you! [Bet you use that as the subject of your retort not the rest below!]

Crabb, the interim contract DID NOT lead to the formation of SAR-H! The reason it is called interim is because the IPT [it was SABR, SABR SAR then SAR-H as a stand alone] couldnt get the 2 ends to match - the MoD end and the MCA, thus the MCA needed a boost for 5 years to allow convergence! Big word I shall use it more often!

To say that the interim contract led to the formation of SAR-H is distorting the facts. At about the same time the IPTs were shuffling to brigade themeselves into a working formation. It had become obvious that SABR and SAR could not go the same way as they differed so much in requirements. Thus the decision was taken to split and rename/form as its own IPT. In parallel, the Interim contract was being used to check due process in the new IPT and, because the MCA wanted specialist help in assessing the aviation element of the bid, several elements of the SAR force were brought in to help - these being mainly RAF. Although I paraphrase, this is actually public record and the feature of at least one presentation from the IPT.

Lost at Sea. You are clearly a staff officer! Used to putting documents together flagged for your superiors attention. I salute your ability to trawl through Crabbs posts and electronically flag the 180 about turn!

Crabb, sorry old chum, the case for the prosecution does appear pretty cast iron with evidence from your own fingers.

Punishment. I fear the worst for you! You shall be sent from your haven to operate for one year with......the civies. Hung around your neck shall be a sign saying " I am Crabb@savvn I love civies"!

[[email protected]]

No matter how much you gang up and quote previous posts (a particularly tabloidesque pastime) the facts are simple -

1.The RAF did assist with the interim contract but only on a consultancy basis and Bristows bid was found to be significantly inferior to CHC's.

2. The CHC operation seems better than the Bristow's one (as I said), new aircraft being a significant part of that.

3. After the interim contract (though not directly linked as you think I imply) SARH came into being but with only a small RAF contingent.

Can't see a 180 position change here at all but you keep on looking if you find my work so interesting:) There'll be a job with the Daily Mail for the one who manages to distort the facts the most:)

I'm sorry I forgot to detail all the inner workings of and the history of the formation of the IPT's but a. I couldn't be arsed and b. I didn't think anyone would care anyway:)

[3D CAM]

Crab

The CHC operation seems better than the Bristow's one (as I said), new aircraft being a significant part of that

How do you work that out then?
Four new aircraft up north, which you seem pretty good at slagging off, (lack of range etc.) but still crewed by mainly ex Bristow people!
The southern bases are still in the process of transition, using Bristow owned S61s at Lee until at least July. The 139 is not yet up to all weather standard and won't be for some time yet. Less endurance than the 61 as well. Oh. No icing clearance either!
So how is that better??
Yes agreed, Bristow took their eyes off the ball with this contract but I bet that won't happen again!

As for CHC - they are providing a good service - it's just that some of the claims made regarding the platform's capability have not been substantiated - this is probably because the MCA do the press releases and don't quite understand the issues:)


Who do you think gives the MCA their information then?
3D

[[email protected]]

3D - as I understand it, there are significantly more ex-RAF peeps working for CHC now, both front and rear crew - so of course the operation must be better:)

Maybe you should be taking a loyalty pill as you cross to CHC or the thought police will have you!!

I'm allowed to make fun of the poor range of the S92 but I'd still like a shiny new helicopter to do my job in.

If CHC are giving the MCA the press releases then they should probably sack their PR firm:)

I gather the original design for the 139 in SAR role had no means of getting from the cabin to the cockpit internally or vice versa - please don't tell me this is on the production SAR aircraft. Does the 1000kg aux fuel tank stuck at the aft end of the cabin cause C of G problems?

[Wiretensioner]

Come the day, come the event, on the strength of many of the arguments and observations on this thread there is going to be very little HARMONY in the harmonization.:cool:

[3D CAM]

Crab

I gather the original design for the 139 in SAR role had no means of getting from the cabin to the cockpit internally or vice versa - please don't tell me this is on the production SAR aircraft

You are correct to a degree. There is the centre console to clamber over. But why would you want to go from back to front anyway? or vice versa?
C of G problem? What C of G problem?:)
PR firm? Now that has got be the best joke this year!:ok:
WT
There will be harmony. We will all kiss and make up at the end of the day. (That's an order BTW!)
3D

[leopold bloom]

I gather the original design for the 139 in SAR role had no means of getting from the cabin to the cockpit internally or vice versa
Quite right too, we don't want the pilots mixing with the workers. So long as the rearcrew can reach forward to slap the pilots around the head then that will do.;)

[[email protected]]

3D - I guess no-one at your end has thought what you will do if the winchman is incapacitated, either in the aircraft or on the ground/deck/in the sea and the co-pilot needs to start earning his money by either winchopping or winchmanning to save lives. Or, what if you have multiple casualties requiring CPR/restraint/TLC and the co is needed.

I didn't say there was a C of G problem, I asked if there was one - shoving 1000kgs of fuel way aft of the rotor mast usually causes problems in helicopters but I notice the cockpit is a long way forward of the mast - a couple of fat pilots should sort any load and balance problems:)

Leopold - there will be harmony when everyone is doing it our way:)

[SARREMF]

Crabb.

The Bulkhead is an option which has been removed on most SAR cabs so I am told! Oh, the auxillary tank is 400kgs not 1000kgs.

To be honest though, is it me or is this thread getting a bit tiresome? Same old same old going backwards and forwards! We could always stop posting for a time, wait and see how CHC does over say .... 6 months. Then start again?

Yep, Ok where is the fun in that!

[SARCO]

Crab, whilst your understanding of the whole SAR-H process is at best questionable and your obvious bias towards the 'military' way of thinking is blinding, may I suggest that you take the time to realise that things will change.

What will happen in 2012 will be anyones guess but I can guarantee that everyone who contributes or reads this forum who is a SAR professional like yourself, will know that when the time comes we will do our jobs and we will do them damn well, and that the UK will continue to have the finest SAR service in the world and we will all play our respectives roles.