SARH to go

[Faffner shim]

This is a rumour forum and some have heard a rumour that a announcement is imminent that SARH will either be delayed considerably or binned altogether.

Maybe they shouldn't have put such inflated bids in:oh:

[Hompy]

'The Skies are going to fall in' said Goosey Loosey

[Spanish Waltzer]

here we go again :rolleyes: stand by for the 'we can do it better than you' brigade to reawaken.

Faffner Shim what are you fishing for then? :=

[[email protected]]

But we can:)

[DECUFAULT]

Oh...no you can't..:rolleyes:

[Spanish Waltzer]

told you so :ugh:

[Cabe LeCutter]

It's behind you

[Cabe LeCutter]

Yes It's Pantomime Season again

[Faffner shim]

That was too easy:):)

But!! If SARH is binned on cost grounds, it would surely put to bed the fanciful notion that civsar is cheaper than mil, n'est ce pas?

[3D CAM]

Ooh, shall I or shall I not??? :D
Nah!
3D

[soarer123]

How can you tell which is cheaper or indeed which is best, MOD dont know how much they pay for their SAR empire (which is beginning to crumble) so there cannot be a comparison.

As to which is best, there is no comparison each is a good as the other, we all provide the service do we not!!!!!!!!!:=

[Spanish Waltzer]

SAR empire (which is beginning to crumble)

S123 as you obviously have inside info tell us more........

or are you just being another naughty proby :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

If there is any crumbling going on, it is as a direct result of having civilianisation forced upon a part of the Empire that did not need or want it. Privatisation of the military doesn't work.

[oldbeefer]

Privatisation of the military doesn't work.

Oh yes it does!

Bet you change your mind when you're after a job!

[[email protected]]

Sorry Old Beefer - I should have been more specific, and I presume you are referring to DHFS - it doesn't work unless you can get all the guys who were doing the job in uniform to step sideways into the new 'civilian' structure (and in the case of DHFS, have a load of guys still in uniform as well). Thus the SAR engineering success has been patchy depending on how many good guys moved across - here at Chiv we were/are very lucky.

[SARREMF]

Here we go again.

[Bootneck]

Can anybody else hear the music from Jaws? :eek:

[[email protected]]

Nah - I'll put away my soapbox (for a while anyway)

[Lost at Sea]

But!! If SARH is binned on cost grounds, it would surely put to bed the fanciful notion that civsar is cheaper than mil, n'est ce pas?

Nah, it just means the RAF will buy another 6 helicopters for £450 million and then de mod them to a simpler version! They'll then put them on a SAR unit where all the Kings horses and all the Kings men won't get them to work! It's the Humpty Dumpty Syndrome. :uhoh:

Anyway that's what they call value for money and being cost effective in the military!!! God it's great being a UK tax payer! :ugh:

[Thomas coupling]

I've heard internally that it's been delayed atleast a year maybe longer.................

[DECUFAULT]

Cost effective...just like the chinook saga...:bored:

[wrecking ball]

Just another rumour spread by the die hards trying to control the current manning crisis the SAR Force finds itself in. SAR - H is the way ahead with technology fitting for the 21st century, both in the front and back of the cab. Let it go boys, your stress levels will reduce:ok:

[Sven Sixtoo]

You know these 5 things for a fact?

[[email protected]]

WreckingBall - no one is denying the need for improved technology - it is a question of who should fly it.

However, it is strange that, apart from top speed, none of the current or proposed solutions matches the actual capability of the 3A Sea King, especially on range.

I heard that a shiny new aircraft wouldn't go out past 170 nm recently so a poor old Sea King had to go and do the job.

All the cobblers talked about improved response times and the ability to reduce the numbers of bases is exactly that - cobblers.

Strange also that apparently some bidders want to know why they can't go for all military crews in their bids - maybe our proposed 66 might go up a bit.

[HAL9000]

Crab,

Who/what is preventing an all military aircrew bid? If the URD doesn't state that explicitly then the condition cannot be imposed on a whim.

I had heard that the only condition was a minimum of 66 mil aircrew in SAR-H which all mil manning obviously satisfies.

On a more general point, what saddens me most is that all of the SAR-H discussions on PPrune end up pitting the front liners, mil and civ, against each other. They are mandated to do different jobs which they both do to the best of their abilities within the operational and resource constraints imposed.

HAL

[Thomas coupling]

Quite right HAL9000, spot on.
This decision has been made by the government based solely on one issue and one issue alone. COST.
The arguments SHOULD be about whether the job really can save the public money.
6 billion is a lot of savings INITIALLY. Over the 25 yr contract though maybe it isn't. Provided the civilian contractor DOESN'T come back to the table asking for more taxpayers cash to prop up their operation in future, then it's a reasonable deal, I suppose.
However - I would suggest that due to the current MOD climate where everything is being cut back, this project must be up there along with others as sacrificial lambs.:\

The next election may end up happening before a decision is made with SAR-H. What then !!!

[wrecking ball]

Crab,

Should you really be on pprune at 06:23 on Saturday morning. Maybe you were up early to watch the All Blacks game.
Buddy you say that the argument is over who should fly the new technology. I am not entering an argument over who is better, but should the military not put all their efforts into the conflicts around the world, and let, what is predominately a civilian role in the UK, be done by civilian crews. They have managed 4 bases well over the last 20 years including probably the most challenging one in the UK, Stornoway. I am sure they could manage the others. The service delivered to the public would not change at all.
All new ac have teething problems chap. Dont tell me the 3A didn't when it first came off the production line, you Chivenor stalwart. Surely 170nm ROA is better than another flight off state again. :) Just thought I would drop that one in.
Anyway enough for now. Take it easy in the SW:ok:

[Lost at Sea]

I heard that a shiny new aircraft wouldn't go out past 170 nm recently so a poor old Sea King had to go and do the job.


Crab, as you have said before an expert team from the MOD (with a experienced SAR RAF Sq Ldr at the helm - who's now apparently working for the winning bidder :ooh:) provided technical advice on the interim contract. Surely this expert team should have picked up on the fact that the new aircraft had reduced range?

Incidentally, those same shinny aircraft were the only cover in Scotland recently because both Lossie and Prestwick were off line AGAIN!!!!!! :sad:

So if you are going to start throwing mud again expect some to come right back at you!!! :p

Have a lovely weekend, LAS. :)

[Sven Sixtoo]

Hi Lost at Sea

an 'expert' team from the MOD (with a 'experienced' SAR RAF Sq Ldr at the helm - who's now apparently working for the winning bidder ) provided technical advice on the interim contract.


The quote marks round EXPERT and EXPERIENCED suggest that you have an opinion as to the validity of those people's status. I am also interested as to the identity of the Sqn Ldr who worked on the interim contract and is now employed by CHC - and in what role?

Not that I know anything at all about the interim contract process - heaven forfend that I could have been involved - just curious.:E

Sven

[Pure Hover]

Ask the Coastguard in Ireland who's cheaper now as the CHC bills roll in for an ageing fleet!

[[email protected]]

Lost at Sea - Various claims were made by the contractors, manufacturers and the MCA regarding the capabilities of the proposed aircraft, especially regarding range. These capabilities have not been achieved and this is what is wrong with the proposed civilianisation procedure - even with scrutiny, if bullsh*t claims are made in order to win the contract, where are the penalty clauses for failing to deliver?

If Sikorsky and AW had actually come clean that their aircraft could not manage to match the existing capability of the poor old Sea King without extra tanks at extra cost and at the expense of their claimed payload - would anyone have selected those machines for the job? 170nm RoA is pathetic for a SAR aircraft, especially one in such a remote area.

Sadly it seems this is still happening with SARH and it is only when bids are scrutinised that the capability gaps are recognised.

I want top quality SAR cover for the UK and we won't get it when there is so much profit to be made that companies will lie about every aspect of their bid in order to win it.

You can sling as much mud at the Sea King force and Mil SAR as you like - we have been operating twice as many flights for a lot longer with, apparently, some degree of success both at sea and on land. Our serviceability problems are the stuff of legend but you have to play the hand you are dealt.

Let's make sure that the hand that is dealt in 2012 is a winning one and not bluffer's pair of twos!

[Spanish Waltzer]

crab,

if bullsh*t claims are made in order to win the contract, where are the penalty clauses for failing to deliver?

A few years ago didn't the RAF move Australia in order to try to 'win a contract' in an attempt to argue the case against the need for aircraft carriers?? :ok:

[Lost at Sea]

Crab,

Various claims were made by the contractors, manufacturers and the MCA regarding the capabilities of the proposed aircraft, especially regarding range. These capabilities have not been achieved and this is what is wrong with the proposed civilianisation procedure - even with scrutiny, if bullsh*t claims are made in order to win the contract, where are the penalty clauses for failing to deliver?

Is this an admission that the MOD team who scrutinised the technical details of the interim contract have failed?

If Sikorsky and AW had actually come clean that their aircraft could not manage to match the existing capability of the poor old Sea King without extra tanks at extra cost and at the expense of their claimed payload - would anyone have selected those machines for the job? 170nm RoA is pathetic for a SAR aircraft, especially one in such a remote area.


Had your expert team actually read the two aircrafts flight manuals they would have known exactly what the ranges, performance and capability of the aircraft were. Its not exactly difficult, all the information was there and available before the contract was decided.

I want top quality SAR cover for the UK and we won't get it when there is so much profit to be made that companies will lie about every aspect of their bid in order to win it.

You can sling as much mud at the Sea King force and Mil SAR as you like - we have been operating twice as many flights for a lot longer with, apparently, some degree of success both at sea and on land. Our serviceability problems are the stuff of legend but you have to play the hand you are dealt.

So on one hand you want a top quality SAR cover but on the other you seem happy to brush off your serviceability problems.

Let's make sure that the hand that is dealt in 2012 is a winning one and not bluffer's pair of twos!

Better not use the MOD to scrutinise the contract then!

[Lost at Sea]

Sven Sixtoo,

I can see that the quote marks are misleading and they have been removed from my original post incase they are misinterupted again.

The team that scrutinsed the last bid have been described to me as expert and experienced. Maybe I should have used " " instead of ' '. Put it down to my poor grammar. I'm sure they're all very qualified and lovely people but it does appear, if you listen to Crab talking about "capabilities have not been achieved", that they haven't done very well in scrutinising the bid.

LAS

[Cyclic Hotline]

crab says;

Our serviceability problems are the stuff of legend but you have to play the hand you are dealt.


This is one of the biggest motivators for change. If you have been doing it for twice as long as everyone else, but still can't your act together - then it is proof that serious change is the way forward.

If you were a commercial operator, no-one would even remember your name now!

[pumaboy]

Why is it that Crab is that youare bitching about civilian contractors and that they are are not suited for SAR-H.

Tell me this then if the MoD are so perfect then why are the HC.3 Chinooks not flying still and how taxpayers money has been waisted on something that was so dessprately need to help troops in Iraq and so on.

The fact of the matter is the Seaking is getting old and to darn expensive to keep in the air and how long do want to fly in something that is nearly falling apart and waisting valuable money.

I heard as well the programme to upgrade the future Lynx and Puma fleet has been cancelled due to no money in the kitty to upgrade them.

The money the MoD save with civilian SAR around the coast of the UK then the Mod will have spare cash to spend to either upgrade or purchase furture projects to help troops in difficult sittuations

Don't get me wrong Crab I'm not against the job that you do I think you all do a marvellous job in protecting our coasts and saving countless lives infact is this not what SAR is all about and help one another to save lives instead of nik picking at civilian SAR give the guy's a break and support the programme you never you might be pleasently supprised:ok:

[[email protected]]

Lost at Sea - the RAF gave advice on the interim contract but did not scrutinise the details of the bids - hence, bullsh*t claims by the bidders made it past the MCA who naively trusted the contractors to tell the truth.

The present bids for SARH have been properly scrutinised by the RAF and this process has shown up the lengths to which companies will go to obfuscate the true capability of the platform (that is a nice way of saying they are lying b*st*rds).

Now who is trying to rip off the UK taxpayers? Not the MoD - we suffer from systemic incompetence caused by career-seeking jack-of-all trades - it is true but money is not the driver there. It is industry, with both feet firmly in the golden trough of the public purse who are looking to give the least in return for the most. It may be the way of the commercial world but it is not the best thing for UK SAR.

It's a nice idea to blame the RAF for the greed of industry but it just won't wash - we get on with our job in the best way we can within the constraints of our platform - both our aircraft were serviceable throughout the day and night yesterday for the 7.5 hours of training and SAROPs we did and they are both still there this morning - any civilian operator provide that in UK?

[Lost at Sea]

Lost at Sea - the RAF gave advice on the interim contract but did not scrutinise the details of the bids - hence, bullsh*t claims by the bidders made it past the MCA who naively trusted the contractors to tell the truth.


But on the 25th March you said "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."

So the guidance and expertise in EXAMINING the contract you talked about has now turned into "advice". Bit of a change of tune isn't it old chap! Or are you trying to distance yourself from the fact that the "advice" given by your experts was pretty poor especially if they didn't even look at the range of the aircraft! Can you tell us what the "advice" was based on?????? Did they actually "examine" the aircraft at all????

Once again your your posts are inconsistent.... :sad:

The present bids for SARH have been properly scrutinised by the RAF

I'm going to remember that for your post 2012 rant!!!! :ok:

we suffer from systemic incompetence

Not something you want in a top quality SAR cover really, is it? But it's one hell of an admission! :ok:

both our aircraft were serviceable throughout the day and night yesterday for the 7.5 hours of training and SAROPs we did and they are both still there this morning

I feel that congratulations are in order, quite an achievement nowadays! :D

[[email protected]]

Lost - I should be flattered that you value my contributions so highly that you are dissecting and examining them in such fine detail - but I am more concerned at your mental health issues. It is not unusual for those of limited intellect to ignore the big picture and concentrate on the minutae but to spend so much of one's time cutting and pasting other people's comments does rather border on the obsessive - are you not able to formulate arguments of your own?:)

Never mind - keep taking the medication - if you thought I was going to rise to your bait you are delusional as well:)

[Artifical Horizon]

Surely regardless of ac type the biggest savings of all would be in manpower and hence in salary bills. The civilian SAR Flts have far fewer engineers and that is why they are cheaper. The ac don't fly all that many hours so surely the DOCs of the ac have a relatively lower impact. Could be argued that an old ac with little capital cost implications is a cheap way forward. Sea King 3s with the Carson blades could be looming onto the horizon!!

I agree with Crab that the Sea King is a good ac operationally. However, we should all remember that all the Flts whether RAF, RN or Civilian are all trying to do the best they can with the equipment they have. Equipment which inevitably was not designed from the outset for SAR but was compromised from some other role. None of them are perfect.

[Bootneck]

Crab,

both our aircraft were serviceable throughout the day and night yesterday for the 7.5 hours of training and SAROPs we did and they are both still there this morning - any civilian operator provide that in UK?

That was, and maybe still is an average day for a N. Sea workhorse. The machines earn their living, nobody crows about it, because it's accepted.

It's really unnecessary to abuse somebody because they unearth the inconsistencies in your discourse. Mental health issues aren't a joking matter; especially amongst former servicemen and women. :ouch:

[Lost at Sea]

Crab,

Your so busy contradicting yourself I don't need to make my own arguments!! Your doing a splendid job of destroying your own arguments without any help from me! :D

Anyway, you know what they say - when people resort to insults they have a weak argument and I note your didn't answer not one of my points!:p

However, because of your unremitting and ignorant hate campaign against civy sar I take great pleasure in going through your old posts so I can show the rest of the forum what a load of contradictory drivel your posts actually are. And I will continue to do so - it should do your ego the world of good! :)

LAS

[What Limits]

I would be careful about accusing service providers of lying. They will have given accurate answers to the questions posed as to do otherwise would attract the threat of litigation.

Here is an example.

I was out in my Jet Ranger the other day and Buddy comes up

How many can you take? 5

How long can you fly for? 3 hours

How fast can you go? 120 mph

So Buddy goes away thinking I can take 5 rednecks, 360 miles in 3 hours. Reality - quite different.

As they say round 'ere

Git 'er dun !

[[email protected]]

Lost - I would like to answer your points but you don't actually make any - you simply add throwaway comments to parts of my posts you have cut and pasted. Try creating your own coherent point of view on this topic and then we will see.

As for inconsistency in my posts - when you take parts of answers to specific questions out of context then you can distort the meaning of those answers.

As to perceived cost savings by privatising:

Our engineering has just been contractorised and, in their eagerness to get the contract, the bidders decided that they needed considerably less engineers to do the task than the RAF had used - there was their profit margin. But they have now conceded that at one particular base, they have miscalculated by a third, despite being warned that their plans were inadequate. They knew best because they were private industry but they got it horribly wrong - to the point where airworthiness was a serious issue. Their answer is now to increase the manpower to what was suggested by the RAF and start bleating about how much it will cost them. Eventually they will go cap in hand to the MoD and ask for more cash which we will pro bably have to give them because there is no alternative.

This is the reality of privatisation/contractorisation and I don't want it to happen to SAR.

What limits - that is pretty much what the bidders have done - it is deceit by omission since they know (for example) that the best top speed in the RFM isn't available at operational SAR weights but don't choose to mention it.

Bootneck - there are enough comparisons of apples and oranges on this topic without comparing the takeoff/cruise/land working regime of the N Sea with that of the SAR aircraft. I suspect your engineering effort is considerably higher than a civ SAR flight to produce that number of flying hours per day with an appropriately higher number of engineers.

[heli1]

"......they will want more cash which we will have to give them because there is no alternative"...says Crab..isn't that the problem ?

If a contract is worth anything then it shouldn't have get out clauses that give contractors the option to go back cap in hand .When somebody quotes for a job ,that's the price in my book.How they resolve their mistakes is their problem!

[Faffner shim]

Yes but they were the only bidder and the SAR force can't go back to mil engineers cos they have either left to work in the civvy contract or have been posted elsewhere.

If AW can't meet their contractual obligations then who will dig the MoD out of the poo and provide engineering cover? AW and others have been doing this sort of thing to the MoD for years.

I think that is what crab@ meant about systemic incompetence - there was no plan b - look to 2star and above for such crap decisions.

[[email protected]]

Yes FS - exactly - so many of the 'great' strategic decisions are made without a full understanding of the implications, usually to satisfy some beancounter's balance sheet or politician's agenda.

Unfortunately the devil is always in the detail and that is for the underlings to sort out/make the best of a bad job with.

The move to Valley is a case in point where all the pitfalls were easy to forsee and the end result has cost a lot more money than it was intended to save. Additionally, neither the RAF nor the engineering elements look likely to be fully manned in the near future so it will never achieve the gains in efficiency that were envisaged (another pipe-dream).

[Bootneck]

I suspect your engineering effort is considerably higher than a civ SAR flight to produce that number of flying hours per day with an appropriately higher number of engineers.

Crab, you don't get it do you. It's perfectly feasible to maintain, and keep aircraft functioning at a high hourly rate per day without loads of engineers.
When do you need your max engineer strength? Not during the day, but at days end when the cabs are back in the shed. Balance your man power requirements, stop over servicing, keep them flying; when it stays in the shed something will break, put it out there and fly it, it'll keep turning and burning.

With 3 aircraft in China (One super puma and two pumas) we operated with 5 engineers, one electrician and helping hands from the drivers; meanwhile one engineer was always on leave. It can be done, but it needs organisation, co-operation from everybody, and speedy back up when a cab needs bits.

We are back into the circular argument about manning levels and the service's propensity to over engineer. :ugh:

[Fareastdriver]

Come on Bootneck, do not exaggerate. Bristow engineers used to work 24 hour shifts, back to back, changing over at midday for eight weeks on, four weeks off. Over a twelve week period you will get 672 hours availability out of him as opposed to 480 on a 40 hour week. I cannot see anybody working like that in the UK.
I agree, though, that civilian operaters need less numbers because they are more specialised and continuous on the same operation than the military.
for the 7.5 hours of training and SAROPs we did
As a matter of interest for the evacuation of offshore installations on track of Typhoon Fengshen four 332L1s and two 225s evacuated some 1400 personnel over three days in 81 sorties averaging 2hr 45mins each. That's 12hrs 20mins each, each day. The only snag was a radio stuck on transmit on a 225.
They were serviced by Chinese engineers but every aircraft was flown at some time by a UK licenced captain and we don't take second best.
Tomorrow it will start all over again. It's called a reman.

[[email protected]]

Bootneck - you just don't get it - a SAR flight needs its engineering effort all the time, 24/7 because the aircraft and crew are always on call and any unserviceabilities that affect the operational capability of the aircraft need to be fixed straight away, day or night. We hold RS 15 0800 to 2200 and RS 45 2200 to 0800 so more work does get done at night (our engineers work 12 hour shifts now) but they are rarely idle during the day.

[Torcher]

Just to throw you guys off track a bit.

The RNoAF 330 sqn runs Seakings RS 15 24/7 365, with 12 engineers per flight working mainly 0800-1600, with paid overtime if needed (Snags).
2 Seakings per flight. Only one required to be operational for RS 15. If the RS 15 bird goes down the flight will get another one from a different flight within 3 hrs.

In Norway the ministry og justice pays the Air force to provide the SAR service.
It is also politically stated that the Air force will continue to be the operator of the SAR service for the forseeable future.

My opinion being a former mil SAR pilot, and current off shore driver, is that the SAR service should remain a government responsability, and operated by service personell, civil or military.

Torcher

[soarer123]

Lost at Sea - the RAF gave advice on the interim contract but did not scrutinise the details of the bids - hence, bullsh*t claims by the bidders made it past the MCA who naively trusted the contractors to tell the truth.


Crab,

your quote above is totally incorrect and you know it, and if you didnt know it then you should not comment, a RAF Sqn Ldr (SAR force pilot) was the technical evaluator for the MCA interim contract.

[Bootneck]

FED, you've got it easssssy. We did 3 months in and 1 out. :ok:

[victor papa]

fareastdriver, you used the optimum words in my humble opinion-332 and 225! Having extensive experience on 330 and 332L/L1 and L2 I can assure you all machines are not as reliable/forgiving/maintenance friendly etc. I was involved with a 332L2 flying 1200hrs/year with 1 engineer and the Eurocopter flexible tolerance scheduled inspections well at work as the machine had very high hours we were grounded for a total of 2.5 days in a 14 month period due to a MGB change which included the shipping time. I am currently on 350 and 130 and the nice thing is........they are little 332/225's. Worked with the Sikorsky 61 and 76 amongst other and the lack of flexibility in their maintenance schedule is what cause the "over" engineering. If there is no tolerance on scheduled maintenance, I better have all engineers on deck for if it runs out of hours. Does not make them bad machines, guess you have to get something for paying so much to EC?

[Oldlae]

victor papa,
The tolerance of maintenance inspections depends on the local airworthiness authority. A problem arises when an AD is incorporated into a maintenance programme as FAA AD's do not usually include any tolerance and therefore the scheduled inspection cannot be extended. Depending on the AD it s sometimes better to keep them as a separate scheduled inspection. As I do not know of your particular problem I apologise if I am on the wrong track.

[leopold bloom]

This is a rumour forum and some have heard a rumour that a announcement is imminent that SARH will either be delayed considerably or binned altogether
I hear that the reason for the delay is due to the incompetence of the IPT rather than anything more sinister.

[[email protected]]

Soarer123 - did the technical evaluation done by said Sqn Ldr involve checking the claimed performance data to the degree that has just been done with the SARH bids? If so and all the bull made it past him then maybe he was the wrong guy for the evaluation because what has been delivered in terms of RoA is not what was promised.

[Max Contingency]

To put the record straight. The resources of the Joint MCA/MOD IPT were exclusively assigned to the MCA for the writing and award of the MCA Interim Contract. This was by way of apology by the MOD for earlier programme delays that necessitated the MCA to find a stop gap solution. The technical evaluation of the MCA Interim Contract involved evaluation of the bids as submitted, against the requirements as written. The delivery of that capability is an issue between the MCA and the winning bidder (The MCA have staff assigned to montoring this contract and they retain the services of an civilian aviation 'consultant' to assist them if required). By the time the MCA interim contract was coming online the IPT had already moved on to the SARH main contract. The Interim Contract has nothing to do with the MOD and to defend 'said squadron leader' he (or she!) had already left the Service by that time.

Reference the recent SARH delay being due to 'incompetence of the IPT'. I think that they are in the clear on this one and you might need to look much higher up the food chain(s) for the culprits!!!!!:oh:

[leopold bloom]

Reference the recent SARH delay being due to 'incompetence of the IPT'. I think that they are in the clear on this one and you might need to look much higher up the food chain(s) for the culprits!!!!!
Max, the inference then is that the bids have been scrutinised by the IPT and their recommendation has been passed up the chain? Would that be the MOD, MCA, DfT or higher where the delay has occurred?:confused:

[leopold bloom]

Helicopters yet to carry out long-range rescue bid - Press & Journal (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/714607?UserKey=0)

[pumaboy]

Where's Crab ::=:=

[MyTarget]

Deleted: let's keep gratuitous insults out of Rotorheads :=

[[email protected]]

Yes, I am on shift today but I have been doing some flying in our proper long range SAR aircraft!

The article highlights that the MCA will believe what they are told by operators or contractors wanting to pull the wool over their eyes. Not that any of the esteemed bidders for the 3 to 5 Bn SAR H contract would do such a thing;)

Contractorisation seeks to make profit by reducing manpower and training hours since these are the only 2 variables in SAR - the cost of the machines and infrastructure is broadly the same - which do you think is best for the British public and those other nationalities who choose to travel through our SRR - cheapest or best trained?

[Role1a]

Read the following in a sport commentator’s sort of way. (Or meatloaf)

Welcome late comers to the SARH snout in the MOD trough stakes, leading by a long way is the S92 with the AW101 in a sorry second and last place, but what’s this, the S92 is slowing up with only a short way to go, the AW101 is catching fast, does the S92 have the range to finish the job or has the 101 just got longer legs. Some of my co presenters smell a rat but I think something fishier is going on (Perhaps Crab):). It’s neck and neck as they reach the line…………… and the winner is…………………………..

Yeah, I know the routine, Hat Coat etc.:\

R1a

[3D CAM]

R1a.
The AW139 is coming up on the rails... oh no, its legs are shorter than advertised as well!:rolleyes:
Sorry.
3D

[leopold bloom]

And the odds on the EC225? Has it got the legs?:confused:

[viking25]

Footage of the AW139 based at portland in action.

Meridian - News - In-depth news and features for South Coast, Hampshire, Dorset, Kent, Isle of Wight, Wiltshire and Thames Valley (http://www.itvlocal.com/meridian/news/)

[Clever Richard]

I hope the mil SAR boys are enjoying a well deserved gloat now the cat is out of the bag ref the new short-range SAR service provided by the MCA (Please don't repeat all that tripe about interim SAR being the fault of some lowly sqn ldr). My object of derision is the MCA higher management by the way, not the crews who have been hamstrung with the new aircraft.

This story deserves much greater publicity because the UK public, taxpayer and, most importantly, the government need to know about this. With regard to SAR-H, if you think this is bad, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Don't forget, after SAR-H comes in the military won't be there to dig the contractor out of it once all the excuses for a service that falls short of that promised start.

Interesting to see some Crab baiting as soon as the story was posted. The stick that chap has received over the years for having the courage to tell the truth, even after some toe-rag revealed his identity, has been disgusting at times. Looks like he has been proved right.

[pumaboy]

AW101 whose going to pay for it? :ugh:

Too darn expensive :=

[tonyosborne]

EC say the 225 meets all the criteria, they want to be able to offer a SAR 175 as well...

[[email protected]]

Just like Sikorsky said the S92 met (and exceeded) all the criteria and AW said the about the 139. Self-praise is no recommendation;)

[victor papa]

Common guys! Why the retorical questions. You are in the uK and I am sure Aberdeen is a part of that???? Pick up a phone-surely there is enough 225 and S92 hours being flown to make a decision on fact and not just what the manufacturer claim. What about jigsaw??? How is the L2 doing? If it is doing as advertised, that is a plus for the 225? Forum is dead quiet on the 225 performance so is that a good thing or bad? Phone.:ugh::ugh:
Sorry, maybe my logic doesn't work!!!!

[Lost at Sea]

Please don't repeat all that tripe about interim SAR being the fault of some lowly sqn ldr.

Well, Clever Richard, you can call it what you like but we all know the Technical assistance came from the MOD/RAF and thats where the problems are! Civy SAR has been running well since the late sixy's without a problem and then the RAF get involved........

This story deserves much greater publicity because the UK public, taxpayer and, most importantly, the government need to know about this.

I don't think that you can get all high and mighty about the UK taxpayer. The UK taxplayer has already paid half a billion quid for 6 chinooks and 2.5 billion for the Nimrod fiasco - all RAF and all a bloody disaster!!

With regard to SAR-H, if you think this is bad, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Don't forget, after SAR-H comes in the military won't be there to dig the contractor out of it once all the excuses for a service that falls short of that promised start.

You're forgeting the number of times that Civy SAR machines have covered for the military when the military aircraft are U/S. Conveniently forgotten by you I think - doesn't help your biased argument!

Interesting to see some Crab baiting as soon as the story was posted. The stick that chap has received over the years for having the courage to tell the truth, even after some toe-rag revealed his identity, has been disgusting at times. Looks like he has been proved right.

Have you actually read any of Crab's postings? He started off saying that the Interim Contract would be better thanks to MOD involvement and now is happily slagging it off. He admits that there is "systemic incompetence" in the RAF and yet in the same breath ignores it and says they are the only ones who can do the job. And when he's proved wrong he accuses that individual of having a mental illness - well if he's your champion I'd quit now if I were you.

Maybe, all the anti civy rants and SAR-H RAF propoganda is more about RAF pilots having to leave the service to remain where they are rather than SAR-H itself.

[[email protected]]

Still not formulated your own argument then Lost at Sea?

Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder.

When one bidder assumes the customer will accept more of the same basic service he has provided for many years and another bidder comes along with new shiny toys and the promise of better performance and capability - guess who MCA chose?

The SARH bids have been carefully scrutinised by a team of subject matter experts as far as technical issues go which is why so much of the bu** was noticed this time.

Gordon Brown has wasted so much public money the MoD's cock-ups look like very small beer in comparison.

How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability.

The systemic incompetence isn't at the front line, it is at the higher levels in MoD-land where countless Air Rank Officers vie for knighthoods and try to hold together a system that doesn't work (because the politicians have knackered it) long enough to hand over to the next sucker on the greasy pole.

All the 'anti-civvy rants', as you call them, are because I believe UK military SAR to be the best for the UK, a civilian company would never pay for what we can provide because they would never make any profit out of it.

[HAL9000]

Lost at Sea,

How can you be so sure of the content and form of mil advice provided to the interim contract? Were you involved? Was the MCA under an obligation to implement all advice or was it at liberty to pick and choose? I am also slightly confused why the MCA would need mil advice anyway. This is, after all, the organisation that claims expertise in all things SAR and that many on this board are happy to endorse. So given the MCA's obvious pedigree it is slightly baffling that they asked the mil to advise them. I can see why the claim about duff mil advice is being touted now, it is a lame excuse for being caught out as not quite having the expertise previously claimed.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork next (and who within the RAF/MoD is to blame).

More power to the Crab!:D

[running in]

Crab said:

"Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder".

Surely confirming that the aircraft were fit for the job involves validating the performance, range, payload etc? If the RAF ("lowly squadron leader") did give technical advice then her competence is questionable!

Regards,

a taxpayer

[HAL9000]

Running in,

Can I ask you the same questions I asked lost at sea ref the mil advice to the interim bid? If you don't know the answers then how can you be in a position to blame this 'lowly sqn ldr' who now appears to be gaining myhtical status?

Lots of supposition regarding this particular point and unless any of the accusations directed at the mil can be proved then you are left with the conclusion that it was the MCA that screwed up.

[Lost at Sea]

HAL,

What's interesting is that the MCA ran an excellent SAR service for 20 years and then the RAF got involved......


Crab,

It's nice that you can dismiss an RAF £3 BILLION pound wastage of public money so flippantly. If everyone else in the service has such scant regard for the taxpayers money then its little wonder they don't want the RAF to run SAR!

The SARH bids have been carefully scrutinised by a team of subject matter experts as far as technical issues go which is why so much of the bu** was noticed this time.

If it takes a team of subject matter experts to work out the range of an aircraft then who in the RAF gave the MCA the technical advice in the first place, a cook?

How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability.

If an aircraft can't do a job because its in the hanger in bits or because it doesn't have the range then its exactly the same. Neither aircraft can do the job!! How'd you like that argument? Nah, you'll probably ignore it and call me 'mental' again! (and it's not my aircraft:eek:)!!!!!

And I have loads of arguments but in true spin doctor fashion you choose to ignore them! :=

[Sven Sixtoo]

According to the Press & Journal quoted earlier (I know, a Highly Reliable Source), the range problem is due to non-fitment of long-range tanks. Now if the contract was based on having l-r tanks as specified items, and they subsequently aren't fitted, that's hardly a technical analysis issue - is it?

Sven

[Oldlae]

Crab,
Why do you think the military is better for the UK SAR coverage without any knowledge of the civilian side? To be specific, the pilot's skills are the same with the possibility that the civilian pilots have a few more hours having been probably trained by the military before crossing the fence. It goes without saying that the civil winch operators and crewmen have the same bravery and skills as the military. The dedication of the crews will therefore be the same. So, it comes down to the aircraft as the SAR control is from the same site. Before the recent change in the SAR contract are you saying that the Sea King is superior to the S61N? Or, are you saying that because the RAF has a few more bases from which SAR aircraft can be deployed when, say Stornaway, is clagged in they can supply an aircraft from another base? The profit you mention will all depend on the agreed contract, no business will knowingly operate at a loss so it will come down to the difference between what the MoD now spends on SAR and what a civilian company can do the same job for. I think that the difference in the costs of both sides will be shown by the less engineers required by the civil side, thus saving a lot of money.

[Justintime80]

Crab Quote:-
"How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability"

Don't go there Crab:=
You go on about people telling porkies when bidding for contracts well thats what your doing.
Even I can remember Black Monday when there was only one Seaking seviceable in the whole of the Military SAR fleet , Now I know thats not "ALL" but it's bloody close.
U/S SAR Seakings are a weekly occurrence at most RAF bases sometimes both are U/S

Also I would like to know why the S92 in Sumburgh would need extra tanks fitted don't they have oil rigs north ,south, east and west to refuel on or am I missing something.

Justin

[HAL9000]

Lost at Sea,

As I have already said, there is a lot of supposition about the advice given to the MCA. Unless they were obliged to take the advice then the MCA is still ultimately responsible. Has the MCA pointed the finger at the MoD/RAF/IPT? If they have grounds for complaint it seems strange that, given the press are criticising them over the introduction of these aircraft, they haven't sought to make public how they were duped.

HAL

[[email protected]]

Old LAE - if quality experience is only available from ex-mil sources, what will happen when there is no more ex-mil. As it is the bidders recognise that without a significant number of mil crews defecting come 2012 and beyond they won't be able to crew the aircraft with the right calibre of pilot/winchman.

Whilst an ex mil pilot may bring many skills to the party, the civilian co-pilot spends his life in the LHS, does a captain's course and then magically becomes an experienced SAR Captain who has probably never done a job form RHS.

Mil Co's get stacks of RHS training, SAREXs and supervised jobs in the RHS before an Op Captaincy check.

I know that the bidders for SARH have included training plans for the future, (many modelled on what the RAF does) that explains why the bids are so expensive and why civSAR is not cheaper than mil when the playing field is level.

It all comes down to training - SAR involves a lot of skillsets which erode without constant practice - the Mil do many more times the amount of training and checks than civ do - you work out which is best.

You can provide SAR on a shoestring but it isn't likely to be very good - unfortunately it is only the difficult jobs where this will show - we train for the worst case so we are not caught out.

Justin - I'm not saying we don't have serviceability problems but Lostatsea's claim that civSAR constantly covers for our unserviceabilities is plainly untrue.
It is Stornoway that needs the long range where there are no rigs.

Lost - Bristows ran a SAR service for 20 years and told the MCA what they wanted to hear. The MCA were unable to get unbiased aviation information from industry (surprise surprise) when the contract was due for renewal which is why the military were involved.
PS you don't have arguments, you have comments on other peoples arguments - not the same thing

[Max Contingency]

The military did not get involved in the MCA Interim contract because industry would not provide unbiased aviation information. As already stated, the MCA retains the services of an unbiased aviation consultant (who was also involved in the acceptance of the Interim contract by the MCA). This company openly advertises that they advise the MCA on SAR helicopters, on their website Consultavia - Aviation advice and consultancy services for helicopter users and operators (http://www.consultavia.co.uk/)

The joint MCA/MOD IPT was to have been formed solely for the SARH Contract. When MOD programme delays slipped the project to the right then the resources of the joint MCA/MOD IPT were assigned to the writing and evaluation of the MCA Interim contract. Acceptance and oversight of the MCA Interim contract was, and is, an MCA matter.

In addition to late delivery of the aircrfat, Sirkorsky have had 'certification' issues with the long range tanks in the S92. Any contractual implications in this delay in achieving full operating capability is again, a matter for the MCA, CHC and Sikorsky.

[Spanish Waltzer]

without wishing to stir any hornets nests again, why hasn't the 139 started ops at Lee yet? or has it now? I heard that crews were being trained on it but it seems to have taken a long time and the Portland 139 has been operating for some time now.

[Rescue1]

Spanish waltzer Quote:
"why hasn't the 139 started ops at Lee yet? or has it now? I heard that crews were being trained on it but it seems to have taken a long time and the Portland 139 has been operating for some time now"

They went live 30th of last month :ok:.

Crab quote:
"I'm not saying we don't have serviceability problems but Lostatsea's claim that civSAR constantly covers for our unserviceabilities is plainly untrue".

So if your unserviceable and the civSAR is not covering you who is ? maybe it's the Sea Scouts:ugh:

[SARowl]

The Lee on Solent crews went 'live' on the 139 on the 1st April. Because the Portland crews had to go to Italy for training it was quite wisely decided that the Lee crews should cover Portland whilst gaining experience on the aircraft, systems and procedures.

As of 30th June both Lee and Portland went 'live' with the 139.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Thanks for the update - great news that the 139 is now up & running properly. Hope it meets expectations & in time it proves itself to be the right choice.

[Lost at Sea]

Lost - Bristows ran a SAR service for 20 years and told the MCA what they wanted to hear.

Really? Would you like to expand on that or is this just another of your sweeping statements with supported with no evidence? Are you saying Bristows lied to the MCA?

The MCA were unable to get unbiased aviation information from industry (surprise surprise) when the contract was due for renewal which is why the military were involved.

So the only place the MCA can get unbaised information is from the military. Well, judging by your continual attacks on Civvies I hardly think that the military are in a position to offer unbaised information. Maybe this is why the SAR-H team hasn't appeared to consult with the Civy SAR crews on SAR-H and are basing the future of SAR on their own knowleague of old SAR technology currently used by the RAF rather than talking to the people who are operating the new technology? Or is it just the 'RAF know best' attitude?

PS you don't have arguments, you have comments on other peoples arguments - not the same thing

No there're counter arguments which you choose to ignore because it doesn't suit your propaganda.

[[email protected]]

Max Con - the Consultavia company appears to be a one-man band who has no modern SAR experience - this is probably why the Military were asked.

Lost at Sea - I made the point that Bristows ran the SAR operation not the MCA, the MCA had operational control of the 4 flights. With no aviation expertise, the MCA would have little choice but to accept that whatever the contractors told them was the true state of affairs - you said they lied not me but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps.

The SAR H IPT is a mix of Mil, civ and MCA and therefore there is knowledge of CivSAR and direct consultation is very likely to have taken place.

You clearly don't understand the process since the (4 now 3) bidders are the ones to decide basing, aircraft types, training, manning etc, not the IPT. The consortia are made up from various companies, all of whom have a very clear working knowledge of modern SAR technology.

Interestingly, the RAF were not offered the chance to construct an all-mil bid by way of a comparison.

Now the bids have been submitted (several by each consortium to cover different options) the IPT uses all manner of subject matter experts to score the bids - the technical issues regarding aircraft capability have been assessed by current RAF SAR operators (mainly SAR Standards).

Once the scoring is completed then the winning bidder shoud emerge.

Is that clear and propaganda-free enough for you?

My argument is that UK SAR should stay military (or the 2/3 that it is at the moment) for all of the reasons I have detailed in many posts - what exactly is your argument (other than you just don't like my attitude)?

[HAL9000]

Oldlae,

SAR engineering is now done by AW/VT so, unless a cheaper contractor can be found, there are no engineering savinds to be made with full civilianisation of SAR.

Justintime80,

It was the MCA that claimed, in an official press release, that both the AW139 and S92 could fly further than the aircraft they replaced.

MaxCon, Thank you for that rarest of treats on this thread, an informed and unbiased post.

Still some Crab baiting going on because some people don't seem to like some of what he has been saying coming true. Having read Crab's posts, I cannot recall him directly criticising the actual civ crews with his target being the senior management. In the interests of balance he also has a regular pop at the MoD/IPT/RAF.

I can never understand UK civ SAR slagging off the military. It was, after all, the military that recruited, selected and trained the vast majority of those now in civvy street.

hal

[Lost at Sea]

Crab,

Nice to see you're coming back to a more reasoned argument. I was a bit concerned about you and was beginning to think you were about to become the RAF equivalent of a hysterical religious zealot with your mad claims about the whole aviation industry unable to offer unbiased information to the MCA. Perhaps you and your mate Hal could have started a your own cult where you sit in your broken down yellow sea kings with your backwards facing radar decrying the evil infidel (civy sar) and their march towards UK SAR domination. So welcome back to reality!

Now to the bit you hate – me showing the rest of the forum the inconsistencies and spin in your argument.


you said they lied not me


Here we go again... nice spin but not true. I asked you the question "Are you saying Bristows lied to the MCA?" That's a question not a statement. The clue was the question mark at the end.

but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps

Well, if they didn't surely the RAF technical advice on offer would have spotted it?????

The SAR H IPT is a mix of Mil, civ and MCA and therefore there is knowledge of CivSAR and direct consultation is very likely to have taken place.

Really...... perhaps you don't know as much as you claim.

Interestingly, the RAF were not offered the chance to construct an all-mil bid by way of a comparison.

Yes well after wasting £3 billion on Nimrods and Chinooks they're hardly to be trusted with taxpayers money.

My argument is that UK SAR should stay military

A fine argument... I mean if it goes Civy and you stay with the RAF you might have to move house and fly somewhere else!!!

And now to your 'mini me' HAL.

I can never understand UK civ SAR slagging off the military.

Your a bit mixed up old fellow... that'll be your hero Crab slagging off the Civy's but a nice attempt at spin but your not quite up to Crab's standards! :ok:

Still some Crab baiting going on because some people don't seem to like some of what he has been saying coming true.

I suggest you reread this thread I have already proven that Crab's argument has changed from heralding the new provider of Civy SAR (thanks to MOD involvement) to slagging it off (now things aren't going well) .... and the RAF only walked past the MCA HQ that afternoon 3 years they never offered any technical advice at all... its all the evil Civy's fault.. and so on.

It was, after all, the military that recruited, selected and trained the vast majority of those now in civvy street.


Yes it was. Which is exactly why Civy SAR is as professional and dedicated as it is. Something you and Crab should remember.

And finally.....

Crab, your right... I don't like your attitude. I think it stinks. For years you have attempted to damage me and my former colleagues in Civy SAR through half truths, outright lies and snide unpleasant remarks. You seem to relish any opportunity to knock them and take an unpleasant delight when things go wrong whilst blatantly ignoring the problems and expense of your own service.

The only reason I post on this site is because I hate to see your biased propaganda going unanswered. I want to show the forum how you twist information by quoting your arguments and showing the inconsistencies in them. Personally I don't care about whether SAR-H happens or not but I will continue to take you to task on everything you say. We live in a democracy (thanks to the military) and listening to one extreme opinion is unhealthy so I am providing an opposite opinion so hopefully we will cancel each other out and a more sane and level headed debate will carry on in the middle. Oh and feel free to call me 'mental' again I really don't mind!

[[email protected]]

Frankly Lost - I think that anyone with more than one brain cell can see that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag - your constant cut, paste and fatuous comment technique is a masterclass in confused thinking and deformed logic.

For example, your conclusion that because the procurement system made errors with the Nimrod and Chinook 3 the RAF should therefore not be allowed to make a bid for SARH is childish logic to say the least.

Another example of your inability to see what is before you - your reply to my comments about the MCA not knowing about the difference in aircraft capability was to snipe at the RAF technical advice on offer - the period we are talking about is your last 20 glorious years of Bristow/MCA SAR where no RAF technical advice was sought or given. Another great expose argument debunked!

Most of the rest of your 'arguments' follow the same ridiculous pattern - the only one you got right was about Bristows lying - I was just having some fun with that one:)

The rest of your post is the same drivel - you really are delusional if you think that you have demonstrated inconsistencies and spin in my arguments by making ill thought out, uninformed and embarassingly wild accusations about topics you have little knowledge of.

BTW is there a new law that you can't live where you work?:ugh:

[HAL9000]

Crab,

I think you should just let Lost at Sea have the last word and move on. As you say, he has no argument but just continues to produce his tedious little analyses of posts.

The debate about the advice offered to SAR-H by the MoD/IPT/RAF was ended with Max Con's comments. The MCA is to blame for the mess it is in and nobody else. By the way, has the MCA settled the industrial action that has been rumbling on for ages. This has seen its most senior people having to man the ops desks/phones etc. Another good advert for giving the whole of UK SAR to a civvy organisation. Once privatised, this essential service can be held to ransom by the unions just like the fire 'service'.:ugh:

Bring it on!

HAL

[[email protected]]

Hal - concur:ok:

[Lost at Sea]

Crab and HAL,

Nice rants but again more spin and misleading drivel.:sad: Although I found both of them quite funny. The RAF have obviously started formation PPRUNE posting!

But you know what they say - if you can't win an argument ignore it!!!

Never mind, keep trying.:ok:

[Faffner shim]

Crab and HAL,

Nice rants but again more spin and misleading drivel.:sad: Although I found both of them quite funny. The RAF have obviously started formation PPRUNE posting!


Unlike your informed, accurate and well constructed posts :yuk:

But you know what they say - if you can't win an argument ignore it!!!

Never mind, keep trying.:ok:

This is what you are doing you ignoramus:ugh:

[Role1a]

"Three's in":cool:

[viking25]

See BBC online for the latest on Sea King reliability.

[pumaboy]

Totally 100% serviceability :D
Ya ok

see this video

BBC NEWS | UK | Chinook rescues helicopter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7493547.stm)


What do you say now Crab

[Spanish Waltzer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38139000/jpg/_38139112_portlandcoptercrash300.jpg


Not taking sides but sometimes things happen!

Important thing is not what crab says but that as far as I'm aware there were no injuries to the crew and the injured climber was airlifted to hospital by a second helo from valley.

According to the BBC website there was also an Irish Coastguard helo involved and a significant number of volunteer local mountain rescue guys & girls. A great example of inter agency, Mil & civvy co-operation.

Well done to all concerned including the chinook guys for recovering the aircraft safely. Professionalism shown by all. Can we now cut the childish willy waving?

[3D CAM]

Yep, s--t happens.
3D

[Bootneck]

Just a tad more willy waving if I may. :ok:

Crab, put down the bat and read your post #91 again please. I know you hate c&p but I'll save you chasing it down.

you said they lied not me but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps.

Please, where did you get that idea from. If you can tell me where and why a civilian operator would produce an aircraft for SARops without an AP I, along with many others would be curious to know. There's a Deferred Defects List available for each aircraft type. I don't have it for the 61 any more. However the preamble for the Tiger has the following line.
"The existence of these lists does not preclude the captain from accepting the aircraft under such circumstances."

You insult the ability and integrity of the civilian pilot world, especially those who haven't had the opportunity to work in the armed forces, at will. Most of us wore green ovies, they don't make you a better pilot, training and more training from knowledgeable instructors does. Your line about the amount of training and checks a Military SAR pilot does exposes your lack of knowledge, again. Do us all a favour and take a day off (as suggested by many contributors), go to Lee or Portland, ask them how many checks they do every year, before winch check rides. It used to be 13, but may well have increased, and that included a written paper.

Unfortunately this medium removes the intonation and inflection present in speech. That's a real shame as I'm sure most of us would enjoy discussing your points in a pub. I repeat that using any form of insult which lambastes a person's perceived mental state is unacceptable, and degrading.

[[email protected]]

Bootneck - I know that all the Bristows S61's did not have the same fit, such that whilst any of the normal 1st standby SAR aircraft were full autopilot, if that was u/s and a temporary replacement was used, it was likely to be a non-autopilot aircraft. Is anyone going to tell me that was never the case and such a S61 never held state at a civ SAR flight?

As for training and checks - we have discussed at length that the mil does considerably more training, you and others say that is what makes us more expensive - by your logic it also makes us better operators:)

Is there a team that visits each civSAR flt every 18 months to check the admin, engineering and the flying like SAR Standards does? That is in addition to an annual cat check, sim trg, IRT and periodic QHI and trg off checks. Exactly what checks do you have complete as a civSAR pilot? IRT and a base and line check?

The Valley aircraft had been hovertaxiing in cloud trying to reach the casualty but developed a utility hyd leak (no winching then) and shut down at a valley LS to investigate. On start-up they suffered a serious gearbox problem that required the aircraft to be airlifted by Chinook back to Valley. As 3D said - sh*t happens but since there are reports of a S92 in OZ having a major gearbox problem it isn't confined to the poor old Sea King is it?

[332mistress]

Let me help Crab out with his nomenclature!

The civilian SAR S61 had a 4 axis autopilot a la Seaking giving it a height profile for the let down and hold in the hover.

The replacement a/c often had only a 3 axis autopilot with no height profile for the let down and hold in the hover. It still had the same autopilot as an offshore machine.

332M

[[email protected]]

332 - yes and therefore not suitable for night or IMC over-water SARops ne c'est pas? By 3 axis autopilot you actually mean autostabilisation with a bar alt hold and a heading hold (and I believe no doppler hovermeter) - that is not actually an autopilot:)

[pumaboy]

This one is for Crab

http://www.pprune.org/forums/rotorheads/334105-raf-sar-sea-king-flies-out-rotor-blades.html

I did not know Seakings can fly without blades :eek:

Is the new standard in the RAF :D

Ive heard of cost cutting but this seems to be a little extreme:=

Never mind Crab there is always Civie Street :D

[Oldlae]

Crab,
At the risk of identifying myself, I have personal knowledge of engineering audits being carried out every six months at Lee and Portland before I retired, all part of the BHL ISO 9001 Quality Manual.

[332mistress]

Pumaboy

A little childish your response to Crab. He has a belief and at least he sticks to it!

If you want to make silly posts then perhaps answer this question. Which SAR cab crashed after the pilot got disorientated at low level at night and who picked them up? To help it was about 1987/8 and featured on the documentary RESCUE.

332M

[[email protected]]

Pumaboy - if you are a Brit mil Puma driver you really can't throw stones given the recent history of that force.

We can take the flak from the Chinook guys and girls - they will all be claiming they were the ones to USL the Sea King home:)Thanks for the rapid response.

OldLAE - I didn't say engineering audits didn't take place - please read my post again in context

[Lost at Sea]

If you want to make silly posts then perhaps answer this question. Which SAR cab crashed after the pilot got disorientated at low level at night and who picked them up? To help it was about 1987/8 and featured on the documentary RESCUE.


It was a MCA cab flown by an ex RAF pilot and I seem to recall that later in that series the Lossie cab rescued the crew of an RAF helicopter which had crashed in the mountains... people that throw stones.... :=

Crab, if you knew what you were talking about you'd know that the CAA, the operating company and the client all conduct operational and engineering audits on units but, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Keep on spinning!!!!!:)

[chcoffshore]

Never mind Crab there is always Civie Street :D


Not in Civvie SAR! LoL Burnt those bridges i am afraid:p

[Bertie Thruster]

I seem to recall that later in that series the Lossie cab rescued the crew of an RAF helicopter which had crashed in the mountains.

Just for the record; was actually the Lossie cab that crashed and were rescued by the Leuchars crew.



Walter picking up Paul Berriff ('Rescue' Producer) and the captain of the Lossie cab:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/geoscampixjune07084-1.jpg

[Oldlae]

Crab,
I can only tell you what happened when I was active and BHL had the contract, the engineering audits were all that was required then as it covered the aircraft, hangar, workshops, paperwork and stores management, I may have forgotten some things after so long. Sometimes the audit coincided with the Ops audit but mostly it didn't.
I don't know what happens now, different company, different contract.

[Bootneck]

Is there a team that visits each civSAR flt every 18 months to check the admin, engineering and the flying like SAR Standards does? That is in addition to an annual cat check, sim trg, IRT and periodic QHI and trg off checks. Exactly what checks do you have complete as a civSAR pilot? IRT and a base and line check?




Crab as Oldlae (hello chap :)) above, times and routines may have changed. However.

IRT, usually included instrument base check
Day/Night VMC base check COT.
Day /night decks
Day/Night Line check or role check in the case of SAR
Winch check
Dinghy/escape drills
Plus of course medicals.

There are two missing, perhaps somebody can drag them from the shelf marked 'dust with care'.

The checks are all conducted by a training captain, the only difference between him and a service QHI is the appellation. When I worked with BHL the last two senior standards pilots, responsible for the whole system were a matelot and a crab. All their staff worked for BHL, however, and this point is often overlooked, they were testing on behalf of the CAA.

The training empire grew into a very efficient outfit, especially the one based in Aberdeen. It had to be efficient and thorough, there were in excess of 150 pilots to check and train. Add that requirement into the ongoing everyday flight ops which in the heyday were in excess of 70 flights by BHL alone per day, and you may understand why there had to be such good support and understanding between Operations staff, engineers and pilots. It wasn't always smooth, but it was always interesting. :ok:

Go on, get your shiny arse off to Lee and make some friends. :E

[Shell Management]

Mr Crab

If you have read the Defence Aviation Safety Centre Journal 2008 (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/849892B2-D6D2-4DFD-B5BD-9A4F288A9B18/0/DASCJournal2008.pdf) (2.8Mb) you will see that at least one civil SAR operator, Bristow who continue to operate SAR aircraft in Den Helder under contract to NOGEPA, was considered worth featuring on the subjects of safety management & safety leadership for the education and benefit of the UK military.

As the Director of the MOD Aviation Regulation & Safety Group put it in his foreword:

... [in this issue] DASC Journal concentrates on issues relevant to operations and areas that continue to present flight safety challenges: Human Errors/Factors, the worrying upward trend of military rotary wing acci dentsand risk management.
...the article by Richard Burman and Andy Evans of the Bristow Group, describes the direction the Group is taking towards their ultimate goal of a ‘Zero Accident Rate’ for the Company. This is a significant challenge for them as they operate some 400 rotary wing aircraft worldwide in some very demanding environments supporting oil and gas industries.


I know that DASC (now DARS) are working with operators like Bristow, the CAAs and manufacturers in the European Helicopter Safety Team to spread best practice in all aspects of helicopter safety as part of the overarching International Helicopter Safety Team (http://www.ihst.org) in which CHC has been playing a part in North America.

[pumaboy]

332M

I was just throughing a little humour in to the light.

By the you are right about Crab but the only problem is he only see's things from one side and that is the Military side.

Both military sar and civil sar as had it's problem's but who hasn't?

No one is perfect and what about stopping this farse on who is better than the other at the end of the day we all doing the same job and we are supposed to help one another not back stab one another.

I thought the whole point of SAR was to help people in distress not picking fights on who is better than the other ( RAF, RN, CHC, Bristow)

At the end of the day who ever is running the UK SAR weather it be Mil or Civile Steet it is all down to politics and there is not a s..t anybody can do about it you can say your opinion but will it help?

Probably not .

At the end of the day we can look forward and help one another to make the service we provide a better one and safe one no matter who is running UK SAR

Sorry if I have upset any one but Im just being a little humourise and not being Childish.

Crab why not go and visit a Civie SAR base and speak to people who know about it you never know you might be supprised.

No hard feelings:ok:

[2STROPS]

Nobody has really posted a definite reply to the question of the S92's range.

Is it less than the Seaking which I know was better than the S61.

If it can't reach as far as the Seaking then somebody has made a big mistake - a newer replacement a/c should be able to give a better service than a 60s design.

The tit for tat between Mil and civil is a bit disappointing but SAR is a vital national resource and should be the best that we can afford.

The Seaking has had its' time now and are due for retirement - some must be nearly 40yrs old now - no wonder they are hard to keep serviceable.

The 92 is having problems as well - which may be usual for a new design as it beds in but at least one N Sea 92 was nearly lost due to a fault in the tail rotor assembly - fortunately they made it back to dry land.

So what is the truth - will the 92 ever be able to go as far as the Seaking without compromising cabin space?

2strops

[Spanish Waltzer]

puma-child

Go on.....before I bite....be honest...your posts are a wind up aren't they?

If not your spelling, grammar and appreciation of the English language are only surpassed by your complete lack of understanding of SAR and of the meaning of the word 'humour'.

Another one for the ignore list.

[[email protected]]

Ah - at least bootneck has actually answered the question regarding training checks rather than launching off down the complete sideline of engineering audits. Perhaps I shouldn't have included engineering in the inspection routine of the Sar Standards because they don't carry out an engineering audit or a QA and it has led some off in completely the wrong direction.

So Bootneck what I think you mean is:

A GH sortie, a day/night SAR role sortie and an IRT in terms of flying checks and all done, I would suspect, in one visit by the TRE.

Our annual Cat check (conducted by the Sqn Trg staff) is the same but the IRT is done seperately by the IREs. On top of that the SAR Standards visit every 18 months (used to be every year until recently) and conduct ground and air tests, usually another GH sortie and a SAR role sortie on each pilot. On top of that the Flt QHIs and rearcrew T cats are expected to fly with their pilots/radops/winchmen to conduct continuation training on a regular basis.
Aditionally, we are one of the few remaining areas in the RAF that have retained the CR, CR(A) and CR(S) operating categories so that crews have something to aspire to and incentive to improve knowledge and skills - I don't believe such a system exists in the civsar world (no doubt it costs too much:))

All this willy-waving is not to say we are better than you but to highlight what you will lose from UKSAR if and when the SARH contract is let in its present state. Not so many will transfer as is expected because seniority with the company will dictate posting locations so ex-mil will get the last choices and many of the experienced crews are caught in pension/ boarding school traps. Therefore, what do you think will happen to the quality, overall, of UK SAR?

[Bootneck]

Crab, a quick off the top of the head response. I think the public will not notice any change when the SAR job is taken off your hands. They are after all the main 'users'. The crews, of whatever former uniform, will do the expert job they have been doing for many years now, even those poor beknighted souls who have been promoted from the LH seat. They are just as experienced as your lads/ladies, get the same training as the RH seat driver etc etc ad nauseam.

I don't care who is driving, as long as the bloke on the wire is safe and gets me up on that hook. :ok:

A GH sortie, a day/night SAR role sortie and an IRT in terms of flying checks and all done, I would suspect, in one visit by the TRE.

No, that is not what I mean.
A Cert of Test encompasses a whole miscellany of emergencies, single engine work, tail rotor failure, all the good things, pretty much what you probably do.
Yes the SAR day night check is probably the same or similar to yours.
The IRT is done alternately ie incorporates the IF base check. The IF base check includes more emergencies than the IRT especially if conducted in the Simulator while off island. Yes I know you hold an IR, but using it every day within a busy zone is another matter entirely, to the blokes working out of Aberdeen and worldwide it isn't a 'get me out of trouble' ticket; the attitude which prevailed about the service instrument rating many years ago. I accept times and attitudes have changed with the advent of better instrumentation and nav aids.

The checks are usually done by an on-site IRE/TRE (Instrument rating examiner/ Type rating examiner), or by a visiting standards examiner or the type chief pilot who will monitor the whole operation for efficiency and quality usually over a period of a week or ten days, he or she will stand in for one of the pilots. Just what you would expect. So the environment is one that should be familiar to you, except there is little if any deference; respect, yes for everybody, because the success of each flight depends on everybody doing their job to the best of their ability. Forelock tugging no. I'd recommend it to anybody. :)

A quick one on working in an IFR environment when Aberdeen was busy. When it's the middle of winter, it's snowing, the cloud base is down and there are helicopters mixing it with stiff wings for both the ILS and the SIDs, with 12 helicopters waiting to line up, some of which have to return to top up their fuel loads; then it's IFR with a vengeance. Fascinating work, not to be derided or sneered at. Some find/found it monotonous, I suppose experience and familiarity does that. Nonetheless it requires knowledge and skill. Just like hurling a small 61 around on the end of a winchop. :ok:

[Lost at Sea]

many of the experienced crews are caught in pension/ boarding school traps.

That could explain why certain parties on this forum are so against SAR-H. :sad:

[zalt]

seniority with the company

Crab - sounds like you've been had on that as it is unlikely to be a factor with the winning bidder which will no doubt be running a 'new' SARH specific operating company for this unique contract.

[[email protected]]

Zalt - even if it is CHC just moving from the interim contract to the new one? I remain to be convinced on that one. Plus I suspect that TUPE rights will have an effect for whoever goes from CHC to the new company - maybe it will be new contracts and terms of employment all round but I won't be surprised if it isn't.

Bootneck - you are right, for some areas there will be no discernable change but in the overland SAR environment (which is a big percentage of our rescues) , the experience lies predominantly with the military, especially at night and in multi aircraft ops. Now I know you will argue that the new contract is supposed to provide NVG capability but the interim contract was supposed to provide long range SAR aircraft and it clearly hasn't - the training bill for civvy crews for NVG will be very big and the CAA still don't appear to have sanctioned it anyway.

As for the winchmen - most of them are ex mil and any new contract will have to set up a training system so like the existing RAF one that it seems pointless to replace it.

Mark my words, if SARH goes ahead in its present guise, the uniforms will change and the aircraft will change - the experience level and quantity of training will reduce and the capability will be eroded - it will be glossed over by company and MCA spin doctors but it will happen.

[Lost at Sea]

Crab,

They'll be plenty of positions for ex military crews within SAR-H. There are only 4 MCA bases and 8 military ones. Are you expecting all the personnel on the 4 bases to fill all the slots on the military units after SAR-H. This really is scare mongering at its worst. :=

Mark my words, if SARH goes ahead in its present guise, the uniforms will change and the aircraft will change - the experience level and quantity of training will reduce and the capability will be eroded - it will be glossed over by company and MCA spin doctors but it will happen.

You say "mark my words" but as we all know your "words" frequently change to suit whichever argument you are attempting to win. The MCA has been running SAR units successfully for over 20 years and will continue to do so. Your attempts to continuously rubbish them by making shameful comments like the one above only shows you to be coming more and more out of touch and slightly hysterical. :(

[[email protected]]

Lost - there will be plenty of positions available for ex mil crews because it is the only way the new contract can be manned successfully.

The maximum number of mil personnel under SAR H will be 66 which includes manning the Falklands det - that leaves about 2 flights worth of mil in UK.

Therefore the contractor will have to find crews for another 6 flights.

Unless there is an exodus from the miltary (unlikely for many reasons, some of which I have mentioned before) there will not be enough fully-trained and SAR experienced crews to maintain the standby.

The SARH bidders know this and have asked why there can't be more mil involvement.

Btw - you weren't listening last time - the MCA don't run the civsar flights, the contractors do.

Your lack of knowledge and experience of UK SAR means that whatever I try to say, you will take words and phrases out of context and trivialise them. The Military runs 66% of UK SAR and I know how it works and what it is capable of - without the skills and knowledge we bring to the party, UK SAR will be a lesser service in the future. I think I have been pretty consistent in delivering that message:)

[pumaboy]

Spanish who ever you are

First you come in this forum and and start over looking at my spelling and and engish grammar and also that I know nothing about SAR

So beit I thought the whole point of a forum was free speech and that everyody was entitled to their opinion.

And yes I was using a bit of humour but obvious you and along with 332M and crab have none :{

[2STROPS]

We have all these SAR experts on here so I find it odd that nobody can answer my post 119:ugh:

Is it because there is a ban on releasing what could be embarrassing information?

So the questions again:

1. Has the S92 a greater radius of action than the Seaking or even the S61

2. Will the S92 ever be able to go as far as the Seaking without compromising cabin space?

2strops

[[email protected]]

2Strops - I am clearly not an S92 pilot but I believe the answer to both your questions is No!

The Mk 3 and 3A Sea Kings have a RoA of 240nm on an average day which the S92 can't get near (the S61 used to tote approx 195nm RoA).

From the information available, the S92's extra tanks fit is an internal one and therefore at the expense of cabin space. There are various claims on the time required to fit the overload tanks but you can be sure it won't be within the normal RS15. I believe the RoA with them fitted is 300nm but this may be more spin:)

[Role1a]

Yes, but does that include the 500kgs worth of role kit.

R1a

[Lost at Sea]

MCA don't run the civsar flights, the contractors do.

Again you're doing that misleading thing again. You're suggesting that the MCA have no direct involvement in the day to day running of a civsar flight. It's simply not true.:(

The Military runs 66% of UK SAR and I know how it works and what it is capable of - without the skills and knowledge we bring to the party, UK SAR will be a lesser service in the future.

Crab,

As one of your disciples has already pointed out the skills and knowledge the military have of SAR has been passed to the Civvy SAR in the past and is still coming. Lot's of ex military SAR pilots have joined civy SAR and are quite happy with how it operates and the high level of service it provides. They and the civilian pilots strive to provide a high level of service and look at ways to make it safer and better. Your problem is that you can't accept that anyone in Civvy SAR can develop SAR and make it better. But there is plenty of innovation and development there. You just can't accept that anyone other than the RAF can do that. After SAR-H yes there will be less people coming in from the military but that doesn't mean that ideas and development will stop. There will be a big pool of SAR crew with all the support behind it. You don't have to wear an RAF uniform to have a good idea and improve things you know. :ugh:

It's worth pointing out that one of the biggest developments in SAR, the twin hoist, was developed by Bristow Helicopters. Something that is now fitted as standard on most SAR aircraft. I'm not sure if the Sea Kings have it yet but when/if you do even you will have to admit it makes for a safer environment for the crewmen.:ok:

In April 2003 it was announced that Bristow Helicopters was to receive a Queen's Award for Enterprise, in the Innovation category, in recognition of its continuous development of Search and Rescue helicopters since 1971.

There you go. Even your Commander in Chief, after all its her airforce, recognises a civilian company and the work its done in SAR. :D:D:D

[[email protected]]

Lost - I say again - the MCA task the SAR flights, the contractors run them on behalf of the MCA - this is why, when the MCA go on strike, the SAR helicopters keep on going as we may see next weekend.

I think you'll find the hoist manufacturers were actually responsible for creating and introducing the twin hoist.


Where exactly is this big pool of SAR crew going to come from? Where is the NVG experience going to appear from? Where is the multi aircraft ops experience going to come from? 6 flights is 60 pilots and 60 rearcrew plus the existing civ crews that will need extra training to take on the overland night tasking. You glibly gloss over the major problem with this contract - that the devil is in the detail and all the management speak and spin in the world won't make that go away.

Improvement and capability comes from training. Train hard, fight easy. Who does more training?

I'm not doubting the committment to excellence by the civ SAR crews but someone has to pay for innovation.

AW and VT convinced everyone that they could take over the engineering of Mil SAR in the same arrogant fashion that people like you talk about taking over the flying role of mil SAR. They use words like seamless, no reduction in availability, smooth transition etc but it hasn't worked - so badly in fact that a senior engineer resigned this week. They will eventually make it work but it will cost them a lot of money and us a lot of angst.

Just face facts - business is about profit - therefore, whatever promises are made before the event are worthless once the realities of the balance sheet are brought into play and the inevitable weasel-wording of the lawyers will ensure that all sorts of capabilities are eroded in order to protect the profit margin. Training is the single easiest corner to cut because there is no immediate effect - it takes time for the skills to fade and by the time anyone notices it is too late to reverse the situation.

[HAL9000]

Lost at Sea,

Could you clarify who, exactly, from the MCA is involved with the day to day running of the civ SAR flts and what qualifications they hold that allows them to do that?

Could you also state what duties they perform?

This is a genuine question and not the start point for a slanging match.

Thanks,

HAL

[Oldlae]

Crab,
When I retired, the Bristow SAR S61N's had two separate hoists one French and the other American (as fitted to the Griffon), they happen to be bolted either side of the hoist frame. Bristow definitely introduced them.

[ropedope]

Crab, "I think you'll find the hoist manufacturers were actually responsible for creating and introducing the twin hoist."

dear crab, you are not thinking at all. the dual hoist came about from the Cullen report after the MV Green Lily incident, were a very brave winchman was lost. for you to ignore this fact is an insult to the memory of Bill Deacon and puts you lower in my estimation than you already are.

[[email protected]]

Don't be so precious rope dope - you really do need to look at what you have written in the context of this thread - just because I didn't specifically mention Billy Deacon in the same sentence as I talked about the hoist is hardly reason to accuse me of not respecting his memory.

The introduction of the twin hoist did, I am sure, come as a direct result of that accident and the report but trying to canonize Bristows as SAR gods just because they were the first to have a twin hoist fitted is faintly pathetic.

Since the twin hoist was an option before the accident, you have to ask why they waited until they lost a winchman to decide to fit them - surely a forward looking company pursuing SAR excellence would have considered the what-ifs of a hoist failure and pre-empted the situation.

As for the MCA - today Swansea CG are broadcasting that they are already taking industrial action - I didn't think it was until next weekend. They are answering emergency calls at the moment but next weekend might be different since you have to have some ops room staff in the building to answer the radios and phones. Who will they get to do the job for them I wonder?

[Rescue1]

Crab Quote:- "Since the twin hoist was an option before the accident, you have to ask why they waited until they lost a winchman to decide to fit them - surely a forward looking company pursuing SAR excellence would have considered the what-ifs of a hoist failure and pre-empted the situation"

So you know that for a fact "J" do you? if so come on lets see the some proof.

You'll be telling us the RAF need to keep uk Sar so they can keep up their skill's for combat SAR.

If thats the case your 4 hours a day training must make you the ideal pilot to send to Iraq and give us all a break :D

[Doc Brown]

Crab, your arrogance is overwhelming.
Until you have served or even visited an MCA base and discussed the differences between Civil or Mil SAR how can you claim (which you have done on no uncertain terms, on many occasions) to be an authority on UK SAR.
Having already met you, your superciliousness is as self evident as each and every post you make.
I hope you and your family are prepared for 2012 when jobs maybe hard to find.

From a civil aviator

Doc Brown

[ropedope]

crab, I mentioned the Cullen report, I am not cannonising anyone. sar gods are your words not mine. you must be singlehandedly responsible for more people leaving pprune/rotorheads than anyone/thing I can imagine. are you talking about the same forward looking sar as the military who did'nt have twin hoists or forward looking infra red at that time. get a life.

[Bootneck]

Crab, you asked about civilian SAR training. My previous response was historical, but not far off more recent information. This is from Bristow's website circa 2006.



Search & Rescue

Bristow operates four dedicated Search and Rescue (SAR) sites in the UK, on behalf of the Coast Guard Service. The units are located at Portland and Lee-on-Solent on the south coast of England, at Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides, and at Sumburgh in the Shetland Isles.

A significant number of training staff is on duty at each site. Three pilots are current JAA TRI/TRE appointment holders with full UK CAA Authorized Examiner authority. Each unit has a Training Air Crewman who is responsible for all rear crew training and re-currency checking.

In addition, Bristow has a vigorous company standardization system. To cover SAR training, one of the training pilots serves as the Bristow SAR Standards Pilot, and a Senior Winchman fulfills the role of Bristow SAR Aircrewman Standards Examiner.
Bristow’s SAR training commonly includes these topics:

* Pilot training including day/night/IFR Maritime and Mountain operations
* Winch Operator training
* Winchman training
* Training in the use of specialist equipment including: LN450, FLIR, Dual Hoist, EHSI, NVG, GPS
* First Aid training



Crab, I've mentioned it previously, the civilian SAR project, intended originally for use in the 40's field was the creation of a former Crab. This is BD Eyes, prior to being dunked by a very experienced former Crab. (Poor point scoring by me) It was a natural evolution from the 212 project.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/OaM2/BDII1.jpg

The mention of Billy Deacon has a sobering effect within the confines of this conversation. He taught me map reading from the back of a Wessex 5, he then taught me to do as I'm told when being winched on a hook way back in 1974/75. His loss punched the wind out of the SAR teams, it is to their great credit that they continued their work and enhanced their already solid reputation. Since the inception of civilian SAR the teams have acquired and earned a reputation that is second to none. By that I mean they stand alongside, not against their colleagues in military SAR. If you cannot accept that then you really are not the right material for the broader world of aviation outside the services.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
I've tried to stay out of this latest anti civvy rant but your assertion about the twin hoist fit needs correcting. When was it an option?(Genuine question.) Facts please, not your usual third hand information.
It was designed and developed by Bristow, not the hoist makers. Have you got a same capability, dual hoist fit on your yellow perils? No? Thought not! Going to get one? I doubt it!
Sorry for the willy waving but the mention of Billy(I know not by you) brought back a lot of memories, he was the genuine Mr. Nice Guy! And a good mate!
3D

[Oldlae]

Bootneck,
Re early SAR, do you remember the Lucas Air Hoist? If I correctly recall they were used in the Forties and were stored on the rigs and fitted when necessary. I did an investigation on a failed cable in the seventies.

[Oldlae]

Crab,
With respect, I do not believe in slagging people off needlessly, I entered the RAF as a Halton Apprentice (81st) straight from the school and I suspect that you entered from Uni or business but not from civil aviation. The Services rely on recruiting young persons. Your posts remind me of the attitude of the military instructors at Shawbury when DHFS was formed and civilianised, "the military system was the best" without any logical reason or investigation for believing that.
I will ask one question, who has the most experience and the largest overall fleet, excluding combat aircraft, military aviation or civil aviation? Withour rancour, or prejudice you have a lot to learn but I salute you for the job you are presently doing. Were you at or over Fairford today?

[Bootneck]

Oldlae, sorry that hoist must have pre-dated me. Was that a 212 fit?

[Oldlae]

Bootneck,
No, S61N's, I'm sure someone will remember it and its faults.

[Sven Sixtoo]

1. Has the S92 a greater radius of action than the Seaking or even the S61

2. Will the S92 ever be able to go as far as the Seaking without compromising cabin space?

Answer to 1: yes if you fit auxiliary tanks (according to the manufacturer's published information).

Answer to 2. no (see 1).

But the third question is: with the aux tanks fitted, is there enough space in the S92 cabin to get the job done?

Anyone able to cast light on that? Remember that a Sea King at 240 nm (the practical limit of its RoA if you are to do anything more than scoop and run once on scene) can lift about 12 survivors max on a good day. Can you get 12 survivors and an aux tank in an S92 cabin - I'm sure the beast will be space not weight limited? Or, worst case, can you jettison the tank once it's empty to make more space?

Sven

[[email protected]]

3D - I may have gone over the top regarding the twin hoist but most of the criticisms I receive here are as a result of replying to those petty individuals who keep avoiding the bigger argument and instead pick on one word, phrase or sentence I use and focus on tearing that to pieces.

As for all the blah about being supercilious and arrogant, anyone who knows me will know that is not true - I am however, a passionate believer in the quality of military SAR because I know what we can do, and train for, and what others can't. I will reiterate, because someone will ignore the context and actual words I used, I do not have a downer on civvySAR or any of the individual crews' professional capabilities - I don't generate the 'willy waving' except to clarify what capabilites actually exist within milSAR as opposed to the memories of some who haven't done it for many years and don't understand where we have moved on to.

Despite all the protestations, the night overland SAR and multi-aircraft/multi agency Ops scenarios are where the military has all the experience both in operating the aircraft and in command and control. CivSar does not currently have this.

[[email protected]]

Old lae - since you mention DHFS - how many instructors who are not ex-military are employed there? Somewhere around none I believe. What does that tell you? That for training military pilots, you need current mil pilots and/or ex mil pilots. The DHFS system is not a civilian one, it is the same system as was used by the RAF before at Shawbury only with some instructors wearing 4 bars on their shoulders - all good guys and many excellent beefers. They don't teach a CAA syllabus they teach a military one.

Bootneck - Bristows are hardly likely to show themselves as anything other than exemplary on their own website are they? May I remind you that they lost the interim contract because they thought the MCA would just accept more of the same 20 year old service and were significantly outclassed by the professional bid from CHC.

Doc Brown - you claim to have met me - where and when? I don't claim to be an authority on UKSAR but as an ex-Sqn trg off I do claim to know the capabilities of the military element (2/3s of UK SAR). Perhaps you should ask those in the 1/3 minority what they know of current military capability.

[Oldlae]

Crab,
As an engineer I would never critcise aircrew training of any sort, I meant the acceptance of the different engineering procedures at DHFS. I know that it is a minor point which you don't seem to like, but perhaps you shouldn't leave yourself open by mentioning points that you may not be sure about.

[Rescue1]

Apologies to Crab sorry M8:O

R1

[2STROPS]

Rescue 1

For goodness sake read the post before slagging Crab off - he was talking about Shawbury and the instructors there - nothing to do with SAR units:ugh:

If you are civilian SAR - can you answer the question - what is the ROA of the S92 at the moment without cabin aux fuel tanks.

The way I read the graphs is that to pick up 10 people it has a ROA of 150nms - is that correct?

2strops

[pumaboy]

Crab

Can you answer this, I have just read the March/April issue of Defence helicopter there is an article about the Seakings deployed to Aghanistan.

The 3 HC4's have been upgraded to HC4+ and have Carson main blades new AW tail rotor blades and upgraded Gnomes all in all the article suggests the Seakings with these upgrades can perform 20% better with better fuel ecomonomy.

Can you shead light on this and and tell us what you know and can the HAR3/3a's be upgraded?

PB

[Bugs to forty]

Sven

But the third question is: with the aux tanks fitted, is there enough space in the S92 cabin to get the job done?


When did the rescue services last need to rescue 12 soles from 240nms?

Or, worst case, can you jettison the tank once it's empty to make more space?


Thats a good idea.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Sven


When did the rescue services last need to rescue 12 soles from 240nms?

Since Dover is pretty close I guess they must be lemon? Or is it all a bunch of cobblers?

[branahuie]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/rotorheads/65214-sikorsky-honors-bristow-uk-coastguard-crew.html


I believe the survivors may have left their boots to save weight? (no soles saved!) :ok:

[Bugs to forty]

That was funny. You know what I meant though.

[[email protected]]

OldLAE - your post just referred to DHFS and the subject we were talking about was pilot training - why do you now say it was specifically the new engineering practises you were lauding when your post says nothing of the sort? I am confused - but that happens easily:) The serviceability at DHFS is excellent but they have new aircraft and experienced engineers.

Pumaboy - the Carson blades modification was procured under a UOR for those few Mk 4s, I believe, so getting the same upgrade for all SeaKings would have to be justified another way. The blades massively improve all areas of the Sea King performance such that the normal FE limit of 127kts is available at MAUM and at high altitude whereas on a standard Sea King the performance drops off very quickly with either AUM or DA.

The PTIT measuring on the 1T engines has been accurately fudged so that whilst the guage indicated limit is still the same (795 degC PTIT) the actual PTIT is higher allowing more power to be pulled. The only difference I believe is that whilst the Max con on a normal engine is not cumulative, on the 1T it is and after amassing 2.5 mins the engine is rejected.

The combination of the two mods gives a large increase in hot and high performance which is exactly as claimed by Mr Carson - the Sea King fleet could be given a 'late-life' update that would give immediate performance benefits and probably save a lot of money in the mid to long term - so it probably won't happen. If they carried out these mods and an avionics upgrade on the Mk 3s we wouldn't need shiny S92s or 139s to do UK SAR:)

Rescue1 did I miss a post somewhere?

Bugs to 40 - I seem to remember that Lossie did a longranger for a lot of souls and had to exceed the MAUM in the process - sometime within the last 5 years I think.

[Sven Sixtoo]

The PTIT measuring on the 1T engines has been accurately fudged so that whilst the guage indicated limit is still the same (795 degC PTIT) the actual PTIT is higher allowing more power to be pulled. The only difference I believe is that whilst the Max con on a normal engine is not cumulative, on the 1T it is and after amassing 2.5 mins the engine is rejected.

The combination of the two mods gives a large increase in hot and high performance which is exactly as claimed by Mr Carson - the Sea King fleet could be given a 'late-life' update that would give immediate performance benefits and probably save a lot of money in the mid to long term - so it probably won't happen. If they carried out these mods and an avionics upgrade on the Mk 3s we wouldn't need shiny S92s or 139s to do UK SAR

Two problems with the above.

-1T engines do nothing at all for you until the temperature gets above about +30. So for most of the time in the UK they are not worth having (bloody marvellous in the sandpits though).

Whatever you do to a Sea King, and I agree Crab's analysis that with Carson blades and modern avionics the machine would be transformed, in the last analysis its still a Sea King and needs something like 30 maintenance manhours per flying hour. Modern helicopters are an order of magnitude better than that. New aircraft are at least highly desirable, probably essential.

Sven

[pumaboy]

The whole point of this questioning was and if the SAR-H is delayed or even canx it would probably make sence to make a late life upgrade to fill the gap if the project is canx.

But Crab is right where would the money come fro for a mid-life upgrade as the MoD are cash Strapped

Crab thanks for yor input

PB

[Oldlae]

Crab,
Another minor point, sorry, to put the record straight I was referring to the interface between the Instructors and Engineering re the difference between the F700 and the civil Technical Log when accepting an aircraft as serviceable to fly.

[DECUFAULT]

Why do the RAF need SAR...? Just another waste of money, the days of spitfires and Lanks crashing into the sea have long gone. The RN need SAR as they operate from ships. HM costguard need SAR, and it's all civi work, so lets get a grip. I just wonder how many RAF jets have crashed into the sea over the past 10 years that requires a rescue.

[[email protected]]

No DECU the point is that the UK needs SAR and it should have SAR of the highest capability it can.

As for jets crashing - surprisingly quite a few!

[sonas]

Anyone seen the recent report from the above committee re the S92?

I believe its quite damming! If i get a hold of it, i will post it. :ooh:

[Tallsar]

Hi Guys

There are 2 issues I'd like to comment on - hope they are helpful.

The double hoist originated (as a modification proposal) in the early 1980s after MALM Dave Bullock died trying to rescue an F16 pilot from an RAF SK3 from Coltishall (AH Coltishall!!). The winch cable had to be cut as Dave was unable to detach himself from the F16 pilot who was being blown at considerable speed by his inflated parachute across the North sea. Dave made a valiant attempt to cut himself free but was drowned in the whole sad affair once connection to the aircraft was lost. Many other valuable lessons were learned from this tragic accident. Simultaneously the recent intro of the long range SK3 to the RAF SAR force had made people realise that long range missons were also prejudiced by not having a second (back-up) winch after flogging all the way out to a rescue point over 200 miles away at circa 100 kts only to find the primary winch failed on you. Thus was borne an MoD requirement for a second winch for SAR SKs. Unfortunately (as was often the case in those days - and now!!) money was tight and the no sexy duplex winch was either available or affordable at the time - and certainly not the modification funds to install a second similar winch on the side of the ac - although atrial modifciation fit was designed at some expense. Several of us tried hard over the years to sort this but failed. The saga of the waterproof winchman's radio (now resolved after nearly 20 years effort!!) was also bound up with this accident. In the end the RAF had to compromise and fitted a manually operated secondary winch stowed in the cabin and only to be used for emergency recovery of the winchman (if at all possible). Britsh Airways and early Bristows S61s were fitted with a much less capable electric air hoist and it wasn't long before they rightly upgraded to a simialr hoist that the RAF/RN Sks had demonstarted were essential for modern long range and more capable SAR helos. It is also true to say that Bristows in the late 1980s had become a very dynamic and progressive SAR organisation incorporating lots of good ideas in their SAR platforms that were either previously demonstrated by the mil, or were never fitted by the RAF due to lack of funds. A main motivation (understandably for Bristows) was their aim to take over mil sar across the country when the time was right for such a bid! Thus is the inhernet difference between a government funded and run SAR system and one which is commercially run and sponsored and that can at least be agile and flexible depending on which new demanding customer is paying the bill. Understandably the inquiry after Bill Deacon's death found out about the above, and quite understandably recommended what they did - and fortunately good old Bristows did the right thing and moved forward to a positon that the RAF & RN should have adopted some 10 years earlier. While both mil and civ SAR cabs have both had other rminor improvements - the new Interim CHC birds have now set the standards that SAR-H must equal or better (certainly as far as range is concerned!!)

As for why mil sar - I reiterate a post I made on another thread some time ago. SAR in the UK Search and Rescue Region (UK SRR) is a government responsibility under international conventions and agreements. Specifically the Chicago convention of 1948 calls for aviation SAR to be provided free of charge to any ac passing through national airspace - hence the UK SRR is directly aligned with the UK FIR/ airpsace.
In 1948 of course, there was no government deprtment other than those related to Defence that could provide airborne (or even long range seaborne) rescue facilities, and given the RAF (& RN) capability established in 1941, it was approiate that the RAF was allocated formal respnsibility by the government for the provison of an organisation and assets to deliver this capability on behalf of the nation and the Transport Department who were lead ministry (and still are). Simultaneosuly of course, the experiences of the ASR service in WW2 ensured that the RAF saw this as a responsibility for the rescue of downed aircrew (whether shot down or from accident) - and this was replicated across the Empire and wherever main UK mil air bases existed - Oh for the days of HK, Singapore, Aden, Salalah, El Adem (Oh and the Falklands too of course!!). Incidentally, it is a poorly known fact that an RAF SAR sqn (22) was the first RAF helo sqn to deploy across the world in the late 1950s to the Bikini Atol for the UK's nuclear trials programme - the first example of deployable milsar?!! Overland rescue has always been a major feature in the UK too probably starting with the major floods of 1952/3 - again nothing new!! - and as many air related accidents occured there. As ejection seats developed but the accident rate remained high - it is easy to see why this requirement remained uppermost in Mil aviators & UK Mod's minds for many years to come well into the 1980s. Despite the marked reduction (for a variety of reasons) of mil aicraft accidents over the UK SRR in recent years, it remains a formal RAF responsibility on behalf of the DfT to deliver long range SAR (Nimrod) and short range air rescue (helo) capability on behalf of the nation. In the interim of course, both the RAF and RN have signifcantly reduced in size and no longer occupy a spread of airbases across the UK. This meant that from the 1970s and subsequently, a compromise has been reached with the DfT (who also "own" the MCA/HMCG), for gaps to be filled with civ funded SAR Flts - the first having been Manston in 1972 (only for 3 years before the RAF returned - but civ sar flights take up an inordinate proprtion of the DfT MCA budget - even the well priced Interim CHC contract (which incidentally is not a small version of SAR-H - the latter has some much more comprehensive and demanding requirments). The major spur for civowned sar in this country was of course the 1970s oil exploration in the Noth Sea - and hence Sumburgh and Aberdeen based SAR flts were born (and now Jigsaw) until te MoD finally funded some SKs in the late 70's which was part funded by the DfT. Stornoway came later as the regular RAF SK detachments were withdrawn post Cold War, those RAF SKs having shown what capability could be delivered and was needed on that part of the Scottish west coast. Lee and Portland fell in naturally once the RN departed in the 90s from a very busy part of the civ SAR turf. (RIP Leuchars, Manston, Warton, Brawdy, Thorney island, Linton, Felixstowe, Aldegrove, St Mawgan, Coltishall. A... ton (you know - that place near Newcastle!), even Finningley - all of whose demise show that a more modern and capable SAR servcie doesn't always need loads of bases!). Many people do not know that the RN Culdrose SAR flt (and others) was for many years funded by the DfT and not the RN, as the RN viewed its SAR role as shipborne not part of the UK National provision - not so now I hasten to add. It remains true that the MoD has a Duty of Care to its people, not just aircrew, and adequate airborne SAR is part of that duty. The fact we are (like it or not) now moving to a joint provison under a civilan cointractor (SAR-H) is the Uk Giverments decison on how to meet both their international and national SAR obligations as well as MoD ensuring it continues to provde for its people too. Its one of the reasons (in addition to allowing for deployable SAR training and good mil exposure to the UK public) that the MoD is investing in SAR-H and not handing it over in toto to the DfT & MCA. 65% of missons today in the UK are overland (including cliff rescues) anyway, and Crab is right to state that only the MoD SAR service has yet developed a comprehensive day/night bad weather capability in this domain. SAR-H will be contracted to deliver it from every base it operates form whether flown by mil or civ aircrew. The intention is to remove the inadvertant "post code lottery" that has developed (by accident) over the last 20 years as a result of having 3 different providers of SAR helos in the UK.
Time will tell ( whether the SAR-H contract meets this exacting requirement) but I know an awful lot of people from all 3 bidders who are working very hard to potentially deliver such a service (and yes at a profit!).

Cheers

[detgnome]

A very well thought out post, which puts a lot of the arguments in context.

Still doesn't address the most important question - what colour is the ac going to be?

[Tallsar]

:)Believe it or not - there is an international regulation governing SAR ac colour schemes now - and guess what the colours are!! I think you might know!!:8

Cheers

[Bootneck]

Well put Tallsar, thanks for the information. A point we all seem to forget is the customer; does he/she care who is driving, who is on the end of the hook, what colour the aircraft is? Nah, they just want out of there.

Crab keeps telling us about NVG and overland at night. Now NVG isn't exactly a modern phenomena, is there a helmet clear visor system/ head up display that supersedes NVG, removing some of the problems associated with limited vision etc? A quick Google produced this acronym. ANVIS/HUD

[Tallsar]

Thanks BN - yes its easy for us practioners (old!!(me!!) or young) to get embroiled in the important minutia of our trade - but Joe Bloggs just want's rescuing and doesn't give a real stuff about where its come from at the time! (they get pi**ed off if it doesn't show though - thats for sure!!)

Well wouldn't it be nice if that was part of a SAR-H contract - there are other innovations as well - Have to say that as a guy with quite a few NVG hours behind me - anything that takes the art forward for the next 30 years has to be where its at!

Cheers

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - yes an excellent post - some of that history I had forgotten and some I had never learned.

Ropedope - do read the bit about the twin hoist, then you can apologise for not mentioning Dave Bullock in your rant:ugh:

Bootneck - there are plenty of projects trying to address the shortcomings of NVG but most will be cutting edge military research (by mil or on behalf of), therefore very expensive and unlikely to be seen widespread for a few years. I saw a set of wideangle NVG a few years ago but don't know what became of that project.

DNVG, where flight data is projected onto the eyepice is in use already but not in milsar. The problem comes when you need to winch since the visual acuity of an NVG picture (typically 20:35 or 20:40) is not sharp enough for really accurate hovering compared to the (20:20 ish) human eye on white light and the lack of peripheral vision shows up as uncorrected drifting.

[ropedope]

crab, tallsar mentioned an incident from the early 80's and i mentioned the cullen report of 1998, at which time there were no dual hoists. i don't intend having a slagging match with you and using brave winchmen who are now lost to score points against anyone.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
The Dave Bullock tragedy is an example of the changes that can be brought to "the party" with civilianisation of SAR. The report into his death recommended dual, same capability, hoists I believe. This was accepted and then ran into the mandarins in Whitehall! End of Story!:ugh:Their salary/pension is more important than a life!
When Billy Deacon died and the subsequent report made the same recommendation, it was actioned and installed and trialled without delay.
We, civvies/ex-mil, do not have to put up with extended
trials of equipment.(Although I wish the 139/92 had been given more of a going over than appears to have been done, given the last few days!) Most stuff has been in use elsewhere so can easily be adapted to whichever aircraft/person it has to be strapped on to! E.g. Flir1000 begat Flir2000 which itself led to the 4000. Now the Wescam. How long did you have to wait for Flir? Oh, sorry you had NVG didn't you?:D But you will be bringing that along won't you.
I am not making political points out of the deaths of two great guys! Just trying to point out that the civilian world can react quicker, sometimes, to tragedy than the military which is top heavy with bureaucrats and A.V.M.'s etc worrying about their knighthood!
3D

[Tallsar]

Hi 3D - I do believe the points you make were within my rather long diatribe too - it certainly was why I pointed out how quickly Bristows did what they did at various stages of our UK SAR helo history. Of course, unlike the military, one of the main drivers is not only professional improvement but also the better positoning for business continuance and new business ie - the profit motive. That said ,the general point you make about the military being overladen with beaurocracy is perfectly valid, but not neccessarily worth placing the "blame" on the top brass. I know from experience that many such people were fully behind many sensible improvement intiatives - but sadly it is often the dead hand of the senior civil service within both MoD and always the Treasury, that kill many such efforts to improve things.
In RAF SAR terms, we were stuck with a dichotomy where the capability (without FLIR and even NVG) was deemed adequate for the rescue of military aircrew but whatever its merit in improving general civilan SAR - this was not deemd why the SARF was there! Yes I know - it was a blinding use of contradictory common sense - but that I fear is how government departments work (sadly!!) - particualry these days as they struggle to do as much as possible with grossly insufficent budgets. I amuse myself occasionally (How sad!) with thinking how infuriating it must now be for the SAR-H bidders who are now having to deal with not only one government department but 2, and the Treasury (remember previous civsar contracts were not dealt with at this level!), as they struggle to put something affordable on the table that will not get blown out of the water by these faceless "protectors" of the Queen's purse.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

3D - a point worth mentioning when trying to compare the reaction (or lack of it) by the RAF compared to Bristows is that the two events were separated by about 15 years and during that period the whole litigious society syndrome was imported from the USA. The MoD didn't need to worry significantly in the 80s about being sued if they did nothing about the BoI's report - they did this on many occasions (Puma anticipators anyone?). How different for a civilian company in the 90s where failure to act could be seen as negligent if a similar event occurred again. That would hurt the bank balance and is a powerful motivator for change. You can see the difference today with the way the MoD reacts to criticisms about quality of kit because families are prepared to sue and cause lots of bad PR.

As for FLIR - it did take a lot of effort to get it but the wait was worth it - until QWIP technology and staring arrays became available, the FLIR kit wasn't up to the job of finding a head in the water (obviously still attached) and we would not have been able to upgrade once the kit was bought.

The biggest problem with SARH is going to be affording it - the country is broke thanks to Tony and Gordon and £3-5 Bn is a lot of dosh - especially since the cost will go up as the bidders can't meet the required spec within current costings.

The answer is to leave well alone and give the Sea Kings a new lease of life with Carson Blades, structural package and avionics upgrades. Cheap at twice the price and no reduction in capability. Unfortunately Sir Clive's train is going the wrong way for those of us in the RAF - but it's OK, we can watch the Typhoon at airshows:ugh:

[Tallsar]

Hi Crab

Well - some good points there but perhaps 2 potentially flawed assumptions:

Carson SKs - yes they do what it says on the tin - for sure! But someone earlier in this thread pointed out that running on the SK (even with certain improvements such as C Blades & tail rotor) while undoubtedly improving operational performance may not be cheap to run - like it or not the SK is getting ever more expensive per annum to keep flying with SKIOS intiatives only lowering the curve - question is of course, would a SAR-H solution cost less - an educated guess is all that is possible at present, unless you've been lucky enough to see the bid paperwork my friend.

As for the expense of SAR-H - yep the billions involved is not cheap - but remember this is spread equally over 30 years, and not in a lump sum (probably over about 5 years) associated with a conventional procurement - even though the latter is always cheaper in total sum terms even when you consider through life ownership costs. Thats why we are where we are - with this PFI business. Have the bidders got the capability against specification right for the price? - I cannot for one minute imagine that they will not be trying their hardest to do so - and of course, the period and stages of negotiaion are lengthy and detailed - so I suspect the jury is out on whether the full capability can be provided for the money available at this stage.

More pertinently, your point about the Governments greater difficulties may have more impact - the present government is going to have to make some very hard decisions across government expenditure very soon - just as the last labour government had to in 1976, and Thatcher had to in 1981 - remember the "The Moritorium" anyone? Maybe SAR-H will die or be postponed as a result of this - we shall see!!

Cheers

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Good point with regards to the "Ambulance chasing brigades.":sad:
Upgrade the Sea King with Carson blades etc???:eek:
Didn't you slag off Bristow for wanting to do that with the 61 as an option for the interim contract?:confused:
Still waiting for the 360 degree radar as well!:)
3D

[[email protected]]

3D - Bristows' comedy answer to improving the S61 was to add a 360 radar mounted by the tail wheel - this was level of their 'innovation' and 'forward thinking' - not only was there no such piece of equipment available off the shelf but it would have got squashed every time the aircraft landed on anything but a billiard table LS.

Tallsar - apart from the manpower issues at Valley, the spares provision does seem to have improved under SKIOS2 and all expectations are for it to get better as AW are the providers (apart from specialist sub contractors) from manufacture to fitting now - I don't think the same can be said for the S92 or AW139. The costs of running the SeaKing could be brought down if one could stop it cracking and fit modern avionics - there are many S61s still flying with 20,000 to 30,000 hours on the clock, our fleet leaders have a good deal less than that so there should be a lot of life in the old girl yet.

If the full Carson package was applied, the structural frames (290 et al) would be replaced as well as the main and TR blades. If we went the whole hog and binned the folding head as well we would end up with a 140kt helicopter with an increased RoA (gusting 300nm I reckon - still with 17 seats available for casualties) with a proven track record, a MRGB with an emergency lube system, almost 360 radar, FLIR and TV turret, sat tracking (coming soon), NVG compatible cockpit and a modern autopilot a la Mk3A.

Any of the bidders' aircraft match that spec? I have been led to believe that to even meet the current capability would cost more than estimated - you should know if you are who I think you are:) and your post seems to indicate my suspicions are correct. So where would that leave us? Pay more or think again - so much for civsar being cheaper than the mil, it only validates much of what I have said ad nauseum on this and other threads about civilianisation.

The modified mil Sea King option would not cost £3-5bn and the govt would not be locked into a 30-year contract with no escape, there would be no dip (temporary or permanent) in the overland night SAR capability and the military would remain the major player in UKSAR helicopters.

I think my job might be safe for a while longer frankly:)

[DECUFAULT]

Upgrade the Seaking...come on get a grip. It would be like the Chinook upgrade, waste millions and millions. Upgrade the airframe,change the cockpit,change the head, blades, tail blades, sounds like a new helicopter is required...! 360degree radar..questionable and no dry run on the MGB. Sat tracking (coming soon),what year...! What about "HUMS" and "HOMP" dual hoist, CVFDR, just to mention a few. Unfortuntally the seaking like the S61 has had it's day it time to move on.

At the end of the day it's just to expensive to get the RAF up to speed to cover all SAR. So crab get ready to change uniform. Yes you do provide a good service at the moment but you could do alot better.

Lets keep the Puma as well...another pile of junk.. Someone high up in the RAF/goverment want to wake up and stop telling the RAF..."just upgarde it".

[[email protected]]

DECU fault - most of my list already exists on the Sea King; the 360 degree radar (330 ish but close enough and discussed on other threads), Emergency Lube system on the MRGB has been in use for years (nothing on S92) and HUMS is already fitted to 70% of the aircraft (the rest by the end of 09 I think) and incorporates a CVFDR.

The sat tracking has apparently been sanctioned for this year's underspend (although we still have HF unlike the S92) and, whilst a dual hoist would be nice, we do carry an emergency electrical hoist which I don't think has ever needed to be used in anger yet.

The Vd for the Sea King is 157kts reduced by a factor of 1.1 to give a Vne of 145kts - we can't fly the aircraft to this limit because the Military Aircraft Release limits us to 127kts max. Most of the aircraft would shake themselves to bits long before they got to 145 but that is where the Carson blades come in, especially if properly paired with the S61 head (non folding and with a bi-filar vibration absorber) - the MAR could be adjusted with permission of the Design Authority, AW, since it is in their interest to do so.


I am not saying it is a perfect solution - we would all like shiny new toys but when faced with budgetary constraints and the opportunity to keep AW afloat for another few years, which way do you think the Govt might go?

[pumaboy]

Decu Whats wrong with the Puma still life in the old bird yet

Stick a pair of makilas and an avionics upgrade and she will be as good as new

Maybe think about replacing thePuma fleet with AS532 Cougars

Oh what a beast:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[Rescue1]

Crab M8 u do brighten up our days with your great posts/stories :ok:

Keep it up M8 you never know they might send you out to Irag to entertain the troops;) when we take over at Chiv :p

[[email protected]]

Rescue 1 - as ever, your finger is very far off the pulse;) wait a while to see what comes next in the SARH pantomime - you might find I am more perspicacious than you think:)

[Bootneck]

Top of my list. Want one. :E I think it ended up in the oggin off Holland. Lovely fit, lovely kit for the drivers, best paint job I've seen on a SAR cab.

Come on Side Salad, sorry Crab, you must surely itch to get your white gloved paws on something shiny like this. If it does appeal why doesn't the UK Govt. bite the bullet and buy direct from Areospatiale instead of chuffing around with upgrades and polyfilla; Bristow bought a whole bunch in the early '80s and got them at a decent price, if only our wonderful politicos could see beyond their eyebrows. :ugh:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/MilForums/1101889.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/MilForums/1176829.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/MilForums/SARPUMA.jpg


Air Accidents Investigation Branch: Eurocopter 030207 (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/bulletins/august_2004/eurocopter_030207.cfm)

[Rescue1]

Quote :-Top of my list. Want one.

Great for pilots if you like lot's of switches to play but not great for backseat can't stand up in them.

R1

[3D CAM]

not great for backseat can't stand up in them.



Just like the 139 then.:ugh::ugh:

[Bootneck]

Rescue Uno, you'd be hard pushed to find many winch ops over 5'4", hence no problemo, they can all stand up, some can even raise their hands above their heads. :ok::):):)


Here's one from a northern island.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/monkeythumbsup.gif

[Tallsar]

:}Luv the pics BN. Only poor point is the double winch fit (here we go again!!) - its a bit of a barn door set up on an otherwise fab machine - especially the newer 225 based version.

Cabin height -- well there's a whole new thread in itself I fancy!!!:ugh:;):D

Cheers

[Sailor Vee]

especially if properly paired with the S61 headI'll stop calling you Alice when you stop living in Wonderland! Where will they come from, Sikorsky aren't interested, they're too busy pushing the 92. There may be 4 or 5 WORLD WIDE spare, probably in refurb, there's a long waiting list already.

AW, since it is in their interest to do so.I suspect that the 101 would take priority as well.

[pumaboy]

Crab

You must be itching to get your hands as something so wonderful as this lovely peice of kit nice paint job.:D

Fantastic Machine loads of power and proven track record

There is nothing wrong with dreaming.:ok::ok:

[DECUFAULT]

Sikorsky SAR S-92® Helicopter Tallies 150+ Rescues in North Sea & North Atlantic
Sikorsky initially developed the uniquely capable helicopter for over-water search and rescue for one of the most demanding and challenging environments ever, the North Sea and North Atlantic, and introduced the dedicated SAR S-92 helicopter in March 2007.
“The SAR S-92 helicopter follows in the tradition of Sikorsky’s history of search and rescue efforts, both military and civil. After more than 100,000 flight hours by the S-92 helicopter fleet, the aircraft has demonstrated itself to be a safe, reliable and cost-efficient platform, ideally suited for long-range transport missions in all weather,” said Marc Poland, Sikorsky Vice President, Commercial Programs.
The SAR S-92 helicopters have supported rescues from mountains and cliffs, and provided assistance to vessels in trouble to rescuing crews. One such incident led to the rescue of 14 fishermen from the vessel Spinningdale in February this year, in which the vessel ran aground at St. Kilda. The vessel was lashed by high winds and heavy seas as it sat stranded on rocky, cliff-facing terrain until the SAR S-92 helicopter crew reached it to retrieve the men amid gusting 70-knot winds.

“CHC has had success with Sikorsky helicopters and the St. Kilda rescue was strong evidence of the capabilities of the SAR S-92 helicopter,” said Sylvain Allard, President and CEO of CHC. “Similarly, the other rescues conducted with this aircraft have been in locations that are extreme; when called upon, the aircraft and crews have responded with exemplary performance and professionalism, and this helicopter has been a valuable tool for those missions.”
Ian McLuskie, Search and Rescue Manager with CHC, said, ”The waters covered by the northern MCA bases feature a diverse range of commercial maritime activities, ranging from fishing and large-scale cargo movements to offshore oil and gas production. The new aircraft were brought into operation to take the service into a new technology-led era, and have already proved their capabilities in providing an effective service to those who need it.”
The S-92 is the first helicopter in the world certified to the latest U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and European Joint airworthiness safety standards. The S-92 features a Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS), which allows the aircraft to operate in known icing conditions. RIPS has been certified by both North American and European aviation authorities and is available on S-92 military variants as well as commercial aircraft. EASA certification was issued in April for an IAFS equipped aircraft, which is currently in commercial operation.

Just love the BULL......

Crab how many rescues have you boys done...?

[[email protected]]

Well, we have passed 150 since Jan just at Chivenor. As for 'long-range transport missions' - we have highlighted at length the shortcomings in the S92's range. Whilst I don't blame him for trying to 'big up' his own product, it shows just what corporate spin they are prepared to use - trouble is, lots of people seem to take it all at face value.

And yes, as I have said before, a new and shiny aircraft would be very nice - we would probably be better off leasing some of those shiny toys in the long run and set them up as COMR on all bases:)

SailorVee, don't dismiss the SK upgrade too quickly - you'd be surprised what might be considered when the pennies are tight.

[branahuie]

The S-92 features a Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS), which allows the aircraft to operate in known icing conditions.



have they got it to work yet?- I recall a long diversion round the north of Scotland by R100 last winter because of icing issues in the hills, and it was not a "one-of"...

[onevan]

I've heard that all 3 bidders are through to the next round but that the requirements have changed!!:ugh:

[332mistress]

hopefully to an a/c that can actually go further than a Seaking and has a radar that will allow it to approach cliffs etc with a strong on shore wind and poor viz!!:E

332M

[leopold bloom]

hopefully to an a/c that can actually go further than a Seaking and has a radar that will allow it to approach cliffs etc with a strong on shore wind and poor viz!!
That only leaves the AW101 then:ok:

[victor papa]

332l2 :ok:
All machines have their clitches, but man for it's size and complexity it = RELIABILITY as well together with power and performance. I operated with them 38 degrees +, 70% humidity offshore and man despite 1 engineer onsite we did 1400hrs in 12 months. For this one we need a bow picture. Engineers I worked with love them for accessibility and engineering simplicity.

[pumaboy]

AW101 to darn expensive:ugh::ugh:

AS332L2/EC225 southern bases and S92 Nothern Bases for extra range:ok::ok:

[Fareastdriver]

How about this one.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee224/fareastdriver/Aerialshots72008028.jpg

Sponsons, Cheek tanks and the addition of a 600L internal tank would give it over 7,000lbs at lift off. This would give you a RoA of 260 miles with 30mins on site, room for 11 survivors, with 30mins fixed and 10% variable reserves.

The internal tank is not a problem. I have winched with one in a 332 and it doesn't get in the way.

[Faffner shim]

Onevan - your hearsay seems correct - 3 bidders to be reduced to 2 by the end of the year. But, despite all the 'bluesky thinking' - only the 12 base option is to be considered with a mix of 2 aircraft types 60/40 medium/large.

Costs still seem to be a problem though especially for training - funny how the Mod setup doesn't look so expensive now. Easy answer - cut the training just like crab@ said before - oh dear:{

[[email protected]]

Quelle surprise! Shock horror newsflash - Military SAR found not to be that expensive after all!

So that leaves a couple of options -a. Trim down the SARH bids to meet what the treasury is prepared to spend, which realistically means reducing capability by cutting corners on training and equipment or b. Fund the MoD to be the full service provider (that should go down well with some here:)) and take another look in 10 years time.

Option c would be to continue the process to the bitter end and finish up paying more than originally estimated just to replace a system (especially the training one) that works reasonably well and also provides mature, experienced operators for the civilian market (and has done for many years).

In the meantime all 3 bidders have spent millions of their own money which for at least 2 of them will have been completely wasted - maybe they are waiting to see who blinks first and pulls out of what has been a very protracted and pointless competition thanks to a lack of govt involvement and direction.

I believe the MCA started us off in this direction under the previous leadership in a bid for world domination (or at least UKSAR) and it doesn't seem likely there will be any winners but lots of losers (unsuccessful bidders, taxpayers, Mil SAR) unless something drastic happens.

[skyepup]

Have to laugh, Crab, your post ref MCA going for world domination.....you couldnt be closer to the truth if you tried!:)

[Lt.Fubar]

Fund the MoD to be the full service provider (that should go down well with some here:)) and take another look in 10 years time.Crab, correct me me if I'm wrong, but I don't think those Seakings will fly 10 more years! MoD would need additional funding to buy new machines, and we all know those would be Merlins, and those are not cheap... in the long run - no real savings made.

[332mistress]

If the RAF/RN continue providing SAR say with the Merlin we get a SAR force that has an aircraft with:-

a. A better range than the S92
b. A better lifting capacity than the S92
c. A better radar than the S92

uuhmm which one to choose? S92 or Merlin

332M

[electric69]

Hopefully it will go to the civi's so therefore there isnt really any question to be answered there. Unless they want to train us in the Merlin?:E

[pumaboy]

332M

I think you are missing the point the whole programme as it has been rumoured has finicial difficulties how can anybody afford the merlin as it nearly double the cost to buy and to operate than the S-92.

You are right about the 3 thing mentioned is it worth waisting taxpayers money when we can wait to see how good the S-92 really is.:ok:

AgustaWestland has not the best track record when coming to customer support and the next question what about reliabilty as it has been mentioned the Portugies, Canadians and danes have problems keeping the machines in the air due to lack of spare parts and the operating costs of the Merlin.:(

Is this the machine the Uk really want as a SAR platform wether it be civil or Military?:=

[[email protected]]

Lt Fubar - they will fly for more than 10 years if they have appropriate airframe/rotor and avionics modifications - the airframe hours are very low compared to many S-61s in service. Even if they don't get an upgrade, the Out of Service Date is 2017 at the earliest.

I have been told the Merlin cabin is excellent for SAR but the fact remains that the trend towards higher disc loading for modern helicopters gives fierce downwash. A SAR helicopter is simply a delivery system for a winchman - if he cannot do his (often very difficult and dangerous) job properly because he and the casualty are sitting in a man-made tropical storm, then you have to say the important part of the job has been ignored.

I know the easy answer is to hover higher but you can't hover accurately without references and the higher you go the further you are away from them which degrades the stability of the winching platform and again makes the winchman's job more difficult/dangerous.

Skyepup - that observation was made by a senior RAF officer in 2002 or 3 at the SARForce conference - everything the MCA did was clearly with the aim of becoming more like the USCG, hence the desire to control all the SAR assets.

[Gaspode the Dog]

This is an interesting thread but people seem determined to slag the S92. Why? The S92 is only a new S61 or Sea King after all. New technology makes things safer for the operators.

In all this time people have pointed out the failings of the S92 but no one has mentioned 'Black Monday' the day when all bar 1 of the RAF Sea King force was 'offstate'. Or the fact that the Sea King 3A took years to get radios that worked, a workable doppler and handling that felt like you were actually flying the thing.

The S92 is not perfect yet, but it could well be the future.:ok:

[bigglesbutler]

Ive kept quiet in all these discussions, but how about this thought.

Get a B model of the 92, five blades (lower disk loading), and a better fuel tank layout. Make an actual SAR variant with input from the day to day users (SAR crews), NOT company managment. I am no designer, nor managment/accountant type and its just a thought but surely that would make things better if not solve many problems?

If on the interim contract Sikorsky got their act together and actually gave us the 92 operators asked for, then it may well be a great SAR machine. Apparently Sikorsky canvased many operators aking what they want in the next design of machine. Five blades being one of those, but Sikorsky hasn't quite followed the canvassed opinion.

Anyway like I said, just a thought.

[budget1]

On this one I am with Crab the aircraft is a delivery system to get the winchman to a casualty, however the cabin of that delivery system must be big enough to look after more than one seriously injured casualty.
It is extremely worrying, if it is true, that the bidders have been told to bid only on a split fleet of large and medium size helicopters, because there simply is not a medium size helicopter that is up to the job. They are all built for speed, twitchy in the hover and low cabin height having been designed round people sat in seats. Unfortunately, now that the MCA appear to have given the green light to the AW139 no one appears to be able to stop the ball rolling. I feel it will be regretted at some stage in the future.
S92's get my vote, or certainly aircraft big enough to continue the good work that has been achieved over the years.

[Fareastdriver]

Do you believe that Sikorsky would go through all the design studies, research and certification for a five bladed head just for the sake of a dozen or so SAR machines. They would if somebody was paying for it, but they're not. A decade ago I was talking to people at Westlands on ways to make the EH101 Heliliner more suitable for the North Sea. They weren't interested, the market wasn't big enough. The 330 prototypes suffered from horrendous viabration way back in 1966 and they were at the point of cutting metal for a five bladed head when some burk developed the barbeque plate that brought it down to an acceptable level. It was cheaper, a lot cheaper. It then took nearly forty years to put five blades on a 225. If the 330 and 332 had five blades in the beginning they would have been unstoppable. We can all dream about what would make a particular helicopter ideal but on the whole all utility helicopters are jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

[Hilife]

A dozen or so? Think much, much bigger opportunities worldwide.

[[email protected]]

Bigglesbutler - I stand to be corrected by a TP but whilst increasing the number of blades will change your rotor solidity ratio, the only way of changing the disc loading is to make the blades longer as it is the swept area of the disc divided by the AUM of the aircraft.

To my knowledge, the S92 doesn't have a downwash problem (certainly not when compared to the Merlin) and by all accounts is a good SAR machine already (despite the range issues) and will be better in the Mk2 whenever that comes out. I believe that Sikorsky are looking at creative ways of increasing the fuel load carried internally without compromising on the workspace in the cabin.

The 139 on the other hand is always going to be hampered by its cabin size and, I gather, is not quite so popular on the front line as had been expected.

The aircraft on the interim contract were assessed for suitability by the MCA's aviation consultant who is a one man band with only one SAR tour in Hong Kong in the 70s on Whirlwinds. Unfortunately, he has also been involved with the SARH IPT and believes the rearcrew involved (experts in their field with honours degrees and MScs) shouldn't even have been allowed to take part in the SARH proceedings, even though they were the guys who actually checked the bidders claims aginst the aircraft specs and found all sorts of factual distortions and misinformation.

[detgnome]

Does anyone have an official press release relating to the current status of SAR-H - I have looked on the DES (formerly DPA) website but there is no information at all. Seeing as a few posters have alluded to the current state of play I would be interested to know if there is an official release...

[skyepup]

Crab,

The way things are in the MCA right now, they wont have any coastguards to do any comms with the aircraft, they will all be outside the MRCC`s on the picket line. :bored:

[Tractor_Driver]

A real SAR machine!
Bet Crab will have it on his locker.
TD

[Flag Track]

Does anyone know how the Portuguese are getting on with their SAR Merlins? Do they have a rear ramp for easier Cas off-load or is it traditional on SAR that casualties/unhurt survivors have to jump/be assisted from the side door on the ac? ISTR from a Wessex chap 'the Seaking won't be as good in the mountains, downwash, cab too big' now this is being said of Merlin, well, downwash anyway. If the SARF were to get Merlin then the crews could alternate on posting with SH, keeping crew conversion down? Still, politics and logic, an oxymoron if ever there was one.

[[email protected]]

Well TD - it's just like a real SAR helicopter.......only smaller:):)

[leopold bloom]

Size isn't everything:=

[[email protected]]

I think it is in the back of a SAR helicopter:ok:

[Mars]

It really was inevitable (from the Sunday Times - 030808):

The RAF is being forced to pull a fifth of its helicopter crews out of Britain’s search and rescue service and send them to Afghanistan in an attempt to stop soldiers being killed by roadside bombs.

The move will drastically reduce the number of RAF Sea King helicopters available to rescue people in trouble at sea or caught in disasters such as last year’s floods.

The RAF crews respond to an average of 1,000 emergency calls a year, varying from rescuing holidaymakers in difficulties to the 2004 floods that devastated the Cornish village of Boscastle.

Cutting one of the five crews from each of the six RAF search and rescue stations around Britain will put at risk the current ability to respond to any emergency within an hour.

The cuts, due to come into effect over the next few months, will leave most RAF search and rescue stations with only one helicopter on call instead of two, leaving no back-up for big incidents.

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, whose North Devon constituency includes the RAF’s Chivenor search and rescue base, said: “There have to be grave concerns they will be left shorthanded.”

It is the first time search and rescue crews have been cut to help frontline forces.

Extra helicopters and crews in Afghanistan are seen as vital if the number of soldiers dying there is to be prevented from escalating. Twenty-seven of the last 33 soldiers killed in Afghanistan died as a result of roadside bombs or landmines.Commanders say unless they get them, more soldiers will die.

Just 16 transport helicopters serve British troops in Helmand, an area five times the size of Northern Ireland. Concern over rising numbers of victims of roadside bombs led to an emergency meeting on Thursday chaired by Des Browne, the defence secretary, to raise helicopter numbers.

Merlin helicopters bought from Denmark and revamped special-forces Chinooks, previously deemed too dangerous to fly, will relieve pressure in the short term. However, budget cuts could mean total helicopter numbers dropping from 525 to 220 within eight years.

The importance of rescue helicopters was highlighted this weekend when an RAF crew saved six children and two fathers. They had become stranded yesterday afternoon while travelling in an inflatable boat down the River Tees at Dalton-on-Tees, North Yorkshire. With the boat trapped on an island in the middle of the rising river, the helicopter was scrambled and winched all six to safety.

The MoD confirmed the cuts in crew numbers but said the RAF’s search and rescue would still have “at least one committed standby helicopter at six bases . . . This will not affect normal capability”.

[branahuie]

Coastguard chopper forced to make emergency landing - Stornoway Today (http://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/Coastguard-chopper-forced-to-make.4350226.jp)


Coastguard chopper forced to make emergency landing

THE NORTH WEST of Scotland was left without Coastguard emergency search and rescue helicopter service this week when one of the Stornoway based Coastguard choppers was forced to make an emergency landing.
At around midnight on Monday night, the S92 aircraft made an unscheduled landing in a field north of Glasgow whilst transporting a patient to hospital.

The landing came after indications from an alarm of a possible fire in one of its two engines.

The medical evacuation was later completed as the helicopter returned to its mission with the affected engine shut down.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency spokesperson Fiona Warren expanded: "The S92 from Stornoway was tasked to two medical evacuations last night.

"On scene, the aircrafts was forced to put down between Lochgilphead and Glasgow due to fire alarm activation. The medical evacuation was completed on one engine."

She added: "Unfortunately the spare aircraft cannot be used since it also has mechanical problems."

With the second aircraft out of commissions, the drama left much of the northwest Scottish coast and islands without Coastguard cover until 9pm on Tuesday.

Cover is provided – as a matter of routine in such situations – by RAF Lossiemouth and the HMS Gannet Royal Navy base at Prestwick.

After engineers completed work on the S92 on Tuesday afternoon, the aircraft then returned to Stornoway and was serviceable later that day.

[Artic-Warrior]

Yes to Afghanistan.
Still the sun tan is not too good in the south west so crab might like a top up trip to show him how much fun!!!!!!! the rest of the helicopter crews from all of the services are having (not).

[NRDK]

See link to Send RAF SAR to Afghanistan letter.....


http://www.pprune.org/forums/military-aircrew/234093-raf-sar-deploy-afghanistan.html

When you off CRAB??:O
Good luck to all those going, well done and keep safe.

[Bootneck]

:):):):):)

I'm waiting to hear the excuses proffered by some to explain their inability to go.

Got to take the children to their tax payer funded educational establishment.
Got to take the chil.... bugger used that.
NECrab is unable to attend today due to a very nasty paper cut.


What an opportunity, now they can practice their CSAR techniques. Not to be missed or scorned. Off you go Crab, go on, stop dripping, you only need your log book and etcha sketch. Everything else will be provided. Enjoy. :ok: :E:E:E

I know, I'll never get to heaven. However, as an agnostic atheist I don't have much to worry about.:E Did anybody else hear a crafty scuttling noise? :)

[chcoffshore]

Just think of those lovely OPERATIONAL medals you'll get. Have fun!:rolleyes:

[Lost at Sea]

Cover is provided – as a matter of routine in such situations – by RAF Lossiemouth and the HMS Gannet Royal Navy base at Prestwick.


Unfortunately it wasn't that night as both those units were off line which is why the S92 was down in Glasgow in the first place. So in actual fact the only seviceable SAR aircraft north of the border was the Coastguard aircraft in Sumburgh that night. :ooh:

[[email protected]]

Ah yes, a particularly brilliant piece of journalism from the Times. Some journo has read that the SARF is having to reduce from 5 to 4 crews per flight as a result of PR 08 (money saving measures) and that SAR winchmen are already doing tours in the 'Stan as medical team leaders in the back of Chinooks and put 2 and 2 together resulting in a sloppy 5.

Quite how having a SAR helicopter in province will stop soldiers being blown up by roadside bombs is a little difficult to conceive:confused:

Apart from the performance problems mentioned earlier, none of our engineers would be able to deploy as they have all been civilianised!

Hey, if the man says go, we go but it would be an indication of how desperate things have got and how little either the top levels of the military or the ministers actually know about SAR and its lack of relevance to CSAR.

Lost - that's something to be proud of - one S92 only able to operate on one engine and the other U/S in the hangar - what was all that guff about modern SAR being the way forward:ugh:

As for SARH - if it is all civilianised then there will be no deployability at all (personnel or aircraft) - something else to consider eh?

[Rescue1]

So reading between your line's Crab you wouldn't be happy going because you couldn't take your engineers with you :)

Ok we'll put that down in the book of excuses could be the first of many :)

Oh and please don't slag off the S92 you know what they say "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones":=

[Fareastdriver]

I'm with Crabb on this.

What's the point of sending out an SAR pilot on an SH job. He doesn't know the business, doesn't know the aircraft, he's just a liablity. He is more likely to lead to the loss of an aircraft and other more valuable members of the crew. If you are going to have to train him to do the job then you're just as well employing civilians. Dangle a twin turbine heli course, lots of hours and £30K tax free and there would be stacks of PPL(H) and hour-building CPLs queuing up.

[Lost at Sea]

Lost - that's something to be proud of - one S92 only able to operate on one engine and the other U/S in the hangar - what was all that guff about modern SAR being the way forward

And let's not forget about all the u/s seakings. Oh you have - how convienent, once again you ignore the problems with military SAR's old aircraft.:= And let's not forget that all the CG boys only got what the RAF technical advice gave them.

As for the military SAR going to abroad it just shows how the country needs a complete civilian SAR setup so the people of the UK have a permenent SAR cover and are never let down again.

[quote]As for SARH - if it is all civilianised then there will be no deployability at all (personnel or aircraft) - something else to consider eh? /QUOTE]

Are you saying that if we have military SAR then all the assets can be removed from the country if required - and that's a good thing????? :ugh:

[Flaxton Flyer]

Crab said -

"Quite how having a SAR helicopter in province will stop soldiers being blown up by roadside bombs is a little difficult to conceive:confused:"

Don't think you'll be needing your SAR helicopter Crabman - From the BBC story -

"They will pilot transport helicopters serving British troops"

"Helicopters are a preferred mode of transporting troops in Afghanistan, as they avoid the risk of roadside bombs"

Ass and trash for you from now on, boy.:ok:

[Bootneck]

I sit here, pissing myself laughing, imagining the conversations in various smoke free environments around the Crab SAR world.

Surely the opportunity to experience a real combat environment is a chance worth grabbing? Think of all the extra mullah.....and Mullahs. :ok:

On the other side of the coin the conversations in Sumburgh, Stornoway et al must be worth recording. ;)

[3D CAM]

Crab
Never mind, we will look after your patch while you are away.:D:D Just like you look after some of ours after 2100hrs.(When you are serviceable that is.) Ooh. Got to be careful there haven't I? Our record is not so good at the moment with our new Italian speed machine!:mad:
Take care!!:ok:
3D
P.S.
I see Bristow are advertising for drivers.:) Go on, you know you want to. Just don't tell them who you are.:D

[[email protected]]

Flaxton, had you any military experience at all you would know that you can't control the ground without ground patrols - therefore all the helis in the world won't stop the roadside bombs and suicide bombers. I've done ash and trash enough to know it is the most tedious experience in the world - I might not have been to the Stan but S Armagh in the 80s and Beirut still count I think:)

I think you'd be surprised how many SARboys would go without complaint but that doesn't suit most of the ignorant stereotyping that goes on here.

Lost - I think we establised fairly well that the MCA got what their much vaunted aviation consultant agreed to - the RAF technical advice was mostly ignored. The s92 is supposed to be better than the Sea King, it is after all brand new but seems to have as many technical issues as we do - hardly progress is it? I'm not going to defend our serviceability but those with broken S92's shouldn't gloat when the Sea King is U/S.

Nobody has been let down as no change to the SAR cover is going to happen - the piece is journalistic fabrication. If I thought you knew anything about UKSAR I might argue the pros and cons of mil SAR again but you don't and won't listen anyway.

Bootneck - just as well you're not bitter:8

3D - careful chap, the ARRCK have it on tape this afternoon from Brixham CG asking for a Sea King to attend a yacht taking on water because Quote' the new CG helicopter (139) isn't any good for this job' unquote - 13 Pob!!!:) And we'd have been first on scene but were stood down when the Torbay LB got there.

[Bootneck]

Bootneck - just as well you're not bitter


:) Moi? :) Not in the slightest, just enjoying my fertile imaginings.

I do have a serious question. Is it known whether this new edict will require you to convert to Chinooks, or are they going to send you out to bolster the junglies?

[Artic-Warrior]

Crab
"I've done ash and trash enough to know it is the most tedious experience in the world - I might not have been to the Stan but S Armagh in the 80s and Beirut still count I think"

Glad to see you hold your fellow aviators in such respect. I do not think that the boys and girls on the ground are thinking the same way. As for over the water, you should not require the same amount of requalifying time. "Beirut", well the "waddi runners" had already cleared that issue before any RAF cab got anywhere near the land as it was a bit too far for anything except a Chinny and they had to refuel on the RFA.The RN were already operating from said ship. Still good try.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
the new CG helicopter (139) isn't any good for this job' unquote - 13 Pob!!!
Totally agree!!:ugh:
13 pob?? No problem! 5 at a time, 2/3 drop offs somewhere, 1/2 refuels somewhere! Yes a great leap forward from the 61!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
If you recall an earlier discussion, this was exactly what I said could happen. Remember "Ice Prince"?
And don't you think this worries us as well??? We are all here to provide a service to the British public. Only we are trying to do it with one hand tied behind our backs through the "expert advice" of someone from the RAF. We all know who that is!!!! I think the last comment from that person on here went something like.. "get on with it!!" Well that is exactly what we are trying to do!!
You may have beaten us there but we would have been able to get some great footage for the press to show how the premier SAR boys do it!!:DBefore they go to the Stan!
Again, take care.
3D

[Lost at Sea]

Crab,

It doesn't matter how much you try to cover it up we all know the expert advice came from the RAF and you said SAR would be better because of it. Do I really need to start quoting you again? And now your saying the technical advice was ignored - utter rubbish and you know it but another spectacular change of story by you! You're inconsistency is now becoming legend.

Why not just except the fact that you and your RAF collegues got the interim contract badly wrong like they did with the chinooks, nimrods and countless other MOD screw ups which costs the taxpayer a fortune!

[skyepup]

"careful chap, the ARRCK have it on tape this afternoon from Brixham CG asking for a Sea King to attend a yacht taking on water because Quote' the new CG helicopter (139) isn't any good for this job' unquote - 13 Pob!!!:) And we'd have been first on scene but were stood down when the Torbay LB got there."

Dont know why you were tasked in the first place........ It was a non event and the people never wanted to come off the yacht!

Just aswell you had your, oops sorry I mean, the CG pump with you though....

[heli1]

Sad to see the in fighting here...shouldn't we be directing our fire against an incompetent Scotsman who has managed to reduce the military and coastguard helicopter scenario to a point where one big shipping incident offshore in the Channel...or an inland flood disaster could leave us unable to deploy enough capacity to do anything ?

[Flaxton Flyer]

Crab -

Flaxton, had you any military experience at all you would know that you can't control the ground without ground patrols - therefore all the helis in the world won't stop the roadside bombs and suicide bombers.

I may not have any military experience but it is obvious even to me that they are talking about moving troops around by air to avoid having to travel on dangerous roads. I can't recall mentioning replacing ground patrols???

On a happier note, I think you would feel quite at home flying in Afghanistan - it's very similar to Rotorheads. Every time you poke your head over the ramparts, you get shot down by ignorant, ill-educated non-military types:)

[[email protected]]

Heli 1 - valid point.

The rest - keep on blaming the RAF for everything if it makes you feel better about the present situation and the likely future. We'll just keep on doing the best job we can and setting the standards (on which SARH is based) for UK SAR.

Arctic warrior - this was Beirut in the 80's when it was a proper warzone:ok:

[Artic-Warrior]

Arctic warrior - "this was Beirut in the 80's when it was a proper warzone"

Yep that is what my medal says. That is why i said what i said.

[Bootneck]

The rest - keep on blaming the RAF for everything if it makes you feel better about the present situation and the likely future.


Crab, I believe that you may have inferred from most posts on this and other threads that people don't respect the RAF's SAR coverage. Not the case from my reading of the forums. If anything it's quite the contrary.

What is noticeable is the response from a group of laconic, long in the tooth pilots to your ripostes. I nearly, repeat nearly, wrote 'arrogant ripostes'.

I wrote a few months ago that it would be better for all parties if you remained in the services and didn't pursue a career with a civilian company. Nothing I have read recently has given me cause to change that view. :)

It would be an interesting exercise for a reality TV show. "Crab jumps ship." Your first visit to the line shack would be very interesting viewing. :ouch: :E

[267.4FWD]

your inside lane seems to be ahead of the rest of us on the SARH situation,maybe you would like to enlighten the readership on your source of information.
On the S92 SAR variant you have no idea of the aircrafts capability and more to the point seem to want to remain ignorant despte fellow SAR crews invitation to enlighten you by a welcome visit to an operational base.
We up north will even fund your visit,the glove is down.

[scottishbeefer]

My dear Crab

Just to be naughty, may I remind you that it's the RN that have been setting the standards for SAR over the last few years. There's a little outfit tucked away in Jockland at the top of the heap by a fair margin (again).

Good on Crab for keeping the debate spicy - it wouldn't be PPrune if it didn't degenerate into a slanging match eventually.

It's a shame the civ's feel so precious about their tenure - anyone who knows the likes of the ex-RN SAR pilots/divers working out there knows they're all bon oeufs who can do the business. One probably couldn't say quite the same for the ex-mil non-SAR boys who always find the going tough for a while.

We might as well start dissing the sidewalkers for their lack of spunk when it comes to taking the MR off the hill post-job, or their average age being too old to actually get a job with CHC et al!!!

SB

[[email protected]]

SB - it depends what you mean by setting the standards - if you mean the most jobs every year, it's a pretty close call between Prestwick, Valley and Chivenor - if you mean providing the best capability, who was it came up to get Prestwick NVG qualified a couple of years ago? Oh yes that would be the crabs then:)

267.4 I am not at liberty to reveal my sources, I sometimes receive information from various people that I cannot repeat and only allude to on this forum but trust me when I say that I don't make it up. Send me the tickets and I'll be there:)

Bootneck - so maybe my qualities of being loyal to my employer, a team player, proud of my job and not too shabby a SAR pilot make me unsuitable for civilian work - I guess I'll have to leave it to your superior judgement:)

[serf]

Crab=FIGJAM !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cyclic Hotline]

One day, maybe there will be a realization that lots of different operators around the world are equally capable of performing the same function without having to spend the rest of their time proclaiming how spectacularly they do their job and how no-one else could ever be as good as them.

This never ending superiority argument is entirely tedious. Will it ever end?

[scottishbeefer]

Crab - Paul Humphreys did a grand job for sure! Having gogs first doesn't make you the daddys of SAR, although I must admit the RN are certainly the poor relations of the RAF when it comes to support for the job. I think you'll find there's a fair bit of daylight when it comes to the jobs totals between PWK vs any other base mind you.

I would certainly concede the SARF HQ is the hub about which even we turn but when it comes to "setting the standard" - that could be an argument that could rage well into the small hours of the next Conference!!!

:ok:

SB

[Oldlae]

As I see it the RAF SAR bases have to do some clever/flexible crew rostering and the 'liberated' front end crews will probably be converted to the Chinook and sent to Afganistan to relieve the present crews.

What is happening to the RN SAR crews, shouldn't they be scheduled in a similar manner to fly the RM around or dare I say the Army?

As a civilian I have little knowledge of the air operations out there but it is obvious that every service is overstretched.