UK's Search and Rescue network to be maintained

[Pink Panther]

UK's Search and Rescue network to be maintained | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/4392/uk-s-search-and-rescue-network-to-be-maintained/)

[[email protected]]

Not a very well written piece since it keeps mixing up the number of crews and the number of bases.

To clarify - the RAF have 6 SAR flights, the RN 2 and the MCA 4. This announcement only affects the RAF flights.

The RAF SARF cannot maintain 24/7 cover and man the Falklands with 24 crews which we all knew but some Air Ranks didn't believe and so, after trying to take us down to 24 from the 28 we had, we are being taken back up to 28 so the resources match the task (tricky concept that:)).

Because we were actually undermanned on rearcrew in the first place, reducing crews further has seen the need to bus winchmen and radops around the country to plug gaps in the shift plots of flights who lave lost crews to the Falklands.

The resulting fatigue levels have been assessed as a Flight safety hazard by the SARf Cdr so until the manning is back up to full strength, whichever flight loses a crew to the Falklands will go down to 12 hour shifts with the intention that no two adjacent flights eg Boulmer and Leconfield, are on 12 hours at the same time. A new crew goes every 3 weeks to the Falklands and the detachment is 6 weeks.

This 12 hour manning is temporary and nothing to do with the SARH planned reduction in SAR service post 2012 which will see Portland, Chivenor and Boulmer reduced to 12 hour cover PERMANENTLY in order to save the contractors money.

The concept of SARH was to provide no less capable a service which sits at odds with cutting 3 flights down to 12 hours:ugh: I am sure someone somewhere is 'managing the risk' - well right up to the point where lives are lost because the cover wasn't there when it was needed.

One other point of fact - at Chivenor, a third of our rescues are at night and I suspect the same is true for most SAR flights. Who will pick up the slack or is it postcode lottery time for SAR now?

The standard answer is that faster helicopters allow medium risk areas to be reached within the hour which, on the face of it seems obvious but that is only true if you count flying time. If you accept that RS45 means exactly that then your superfast new helicopter has only 15 mins flying time to make the medium risk area from the time of the CALLOUT, not the time of the takeoff.

This is where the 1 hour fudge is applied - the intent of the 1 hour to medium risk areas is time from callout but some have used time of takeoff instead to justify fewer bases and less cost. Unfortunately, if they want to go down that road you could cut the number of bases even further since with a 150 kt helo you only need 150nm between flights.

Fewer helicopters means less flexibility and almost no surge/concurrent ops capability - this is where the great PFI that is SARH is leading us and it stinks.

[leopold bloom]

I don't think Crab is embracing change, do you?:confused:

[500e]

LB Do you think all change is good,
Would you rather float about in the oggin for say 20 minutes flying time from say Chiv or an hour + from some other base remembering survival times in the English Channel.
There is a training requirement for the service personnel, if so why give a private Co Public money to do a job with a lesser degree of cover, either they can do the job to the same standard or they cant, if not why are we even discussing it.
You can bet as soon as privatised there will be a Co spokesperson saying that is not what was agreed sub section 6. para 8. line 3. we take that to mean something entirely different, and with the governments track record it will cost us dear.

PS I have been in the channel in winter its f***ing cold after 10\15 minutes could not stop shivering or hardly stand when I was pulled out, by the boys on the boat (my alarm went off as I hit water they dropped sail & hit MOB button started motor and did fig 8 pattern still don't know how they found me)
I fell of, my fault safety line not clipped on, 1Hr + don't think I would here

[[email protected]]

Leopold whilst I am more than happy to embrace change where it brings clear benefits and increased capability, I don't think we should be selling our souls for some shiny new toys which we won't be allowed to play with as much:ok:

[Torcher]

After 20+ years in the military including 10+ years of SAR duty, I decided it was time to try different pastures, so I joined a civilian company. After close to 2 years in the civilian outfit, I have come to the following conclusion: If a country can afford to, It should stick with a government run and operated SAR service. This has nothing to do with civilian aircrews or helicopters capabilities. It all boils down to "The commercial aspect" of it. The things I have been witnessing over the last year in that respect, has not impressed me at all! Commercial companies will by their nature do just about anything to maximize profits for their owners. This will at some point in time hurt the enduser of any contract, especially a SAR service, which is a very resource demanding business to be in.
So, does it have to be a military outfit? In my opinion no. As long as the state itself is the owner and operator of the service. One could see a system in place where the "Government SAR service" owned and operated the helicopters, and "bought" support as necessary from the military, or civilian commercial companies. That being training, logistics etc. This could be the best of both worlds. An independent state operated SAR service, with no ties to any ongoing conflicts around the world (military), with the freedom to shop support from wherever (civil)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Torcher - Heaven forbid that we should fall into the trap of imagining that any government run organisation can be cost effective - name me one that is !!!

Maybe we should give the RNLI the job? Good God - that would mean we could have an Integrated Rescue Service - no more turf wars ........... yeah, in my dreams.

Leave rescuing to the rescuers and let the military do their own stuff with their own expensive bullet-proof toys. RNLI-AIR could pick up downed jet-jockeys around our shores as well as anyone could.

From what Gordon Brown's lot are saying the light blue helicopters are going be needed for military duties in Afghanistan for the next 10 to 20 years.

G :ok:

[leopold bloom]

Sorry Crab, just my feeble attempt at sarcastic humour following the rousing address from the head of the MCA at the SARF Conference. His point, mainly aimed at the military detractors I felt, was get on board with SARH or find alternative employment.:)

[Spanish Waltzer]

One other point of fact - at Chivenor, a third of our rescues are at night

Crab - I dont wish to be pedantic about your point of fact but for clarity, are a third of your rescues in the hours of darkness or during the proposed period of stand down which I believe will be 2100-0900?

The two are not the same for much of the UK year.

SW

[[email protected]]

Spanish - there is a reasonably even spread through the night and whilst some do occur before 2100, lots come after that and well before 0900. What you gain by operating up to 2100, especially for the 'cut off by the tide' as it gets dark in Autumn and Spring, you lose by not being able to react to the first light search.

As it happens our busiest period for all jobs is the Summer months where it's not dark until 2100 plus o'clock - our ratio of day to night jobs might go to 80/20 but that is still 20% of jobs that will get done late or not at all. Fine if you are compiling stats but bad if you are getting hypothermic in the Brecons or Dartmoor.

A lack of local knowledge will also be a factor - that helps enormously at night because you know what the area looks like during the day, where the nearest assets, fuel and hospitals are, what the HLSs are like, liaison with the local agencies etc etc.

When Valley and Culdrose have to cover Chiv's patch at night, what will happen to the medtransfers that often get done then? Will the ARCCK task Valley or Culdrose to do a Cardiff to London job or an ECMO to Leicester which will leave either the whole of the SW or nearly the whole of the W coast (including Snowdonia) devoid of cover? I don't think so - which leaves us with another hole in the capability.

If you want to civilianise us and give us new helicopters then crack on but just don't do it for profit - the need to make money out of the SARH contract is what has already compromised much of the credibility of the process because neither of the remaining bidders would be able to deliver what was originally promised and make a profit.

Torcher's words of experience will be what people are saying about SARH in a few year's time:ugh:

Leopold - yes I gather some of the keynote speeches were rather dreary - it just shows how little the big MCA really know about helicopter SAR and big business:(

[Pink Panther]

It all boils down to "The commercial aspect" of it. The things I have been witnessing over the last year in that respect, has not impressed me at all! Commercial companies will by their nature do just about anything to maximize profits for their owners.

Interesting observation torcher, and mentioned in crabs last post. I just hope it is not the case where commercial pressures are put on duty SAR crews to go punch holes in the sky :ugh:. Nothing being achieved currency wise,all to make a few quid for want of a better word . If it is the case than that is truly a dangerous road to be travelling in my opinion :{. I do hope you are wrong.

[helmet fire]

Government (Mil or semi mil like Coast guard) owned V Commercial Contract is always a contentious issue.

Govt advocates point to benefits of customer outcome (community, patient, etc) and the downsides of commercialism being static investment and development, no focus on profits at the expense of patient outcomes, etc.

Commercial advocates point at the benefits of leaner meaner operations converting into better equipment, the value to taxpayer per patient and the flexibility of being able to modify and adapt to changing requirements whilst pointing to the downsides of govt being enormous overheads and waste of the taxpayers money, inflexibility, a lack of accountability, management incopmetence, and old ingrained systems and methods.

I think there is little question that the type of funding model largely determines organisational outcomes and focus. Commercial companies ONLY exist for return on investment, and governement organisations will ALWAYS be competing for funds in a competitive and defined funding pool, and rarely be able to respond to change outside long term government funding cycles.

I will put forward a third model that sits in the middle. Having worked for the previous two models in my career, I put this model forward as the most appropriate for HEMS and SAR. I currently work for a NGO charitable organisation and I consider this model very effective, however I believe there is an even more effective model.

During a study trip of international HEMS SAR organisations, I became convinced that the model most suited to producing the most responsive patient outcome focussed and cost effective solution is this third model. Look to NOLAS (Norwegian Air Ambulance), OAMTC (Austria), Rega (Switzerland) and to a slightly lesser extent ADAC (Germany). These models are not the same, but are similar. They hold various levels of government funding (generally representing less than 30% of costs) and are topped up by some form of membership to a medical or automotive "club" with benefits beyond just the helicopter response.

Given that the typical patient load of a primary response based HEMS program is around 54% road trauma (car, bike, motorbike and pedestrian), then a very strong case can be made for a road registration increases to be diverted into the helicopter response system. This is a small contribution per person based on the number of road users, but its strength is that it burdens the primary customer with the costs. In the case of NOLAS who do not link funding to road registration costs, around 70% of the adult population have joined an association which offers free helicopter transport to members and a host of other benefits such as free overseas travel insurance and repatriation.

Either way, these models have achieved several of the positives that have been discussed above, with few of the downsides, but there are qualifications to this model being successful; the most important of this is objective and transparent governance, with management appointed independantly. So many charities suffer from management appointments that have been a reward to those whose passion and drive started the concepts (and without whom HEMS would still be a pipe dream), rather than those who are more suited to managing the growing organisations. An independant board with at least a couple of governement representatives is linked to this theme of appropriate governance.

Those organisations mentioned above have achieved both the funding model and the management transparancy - and our assessment was that they most certainly have produced world leading provision of HEMS. Is this a co-incident? I really dont think so.

Is SAR really that different as a role that we cannot look to the HEMS models? In Australia, our organisations do both, and we dont break them into separate roles - so I would see the possibility. But that may be a contrarian view to those of you whom have grown up with two separate roles as embedded in your cultures - indeed in Norway, NOLAS does not really do the SAR role, they are HEMS. No stress - it is the funding model that is the key, as I believe it does produce certain outcomes, unintended or otherwise. So lets look most closely at that aspect first.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I think HF has some valid points. Funding model and transparency of governance are key issues. I wasn't joking when I suggested that the RNLI get involved is SAR. They are, after all, key players in the UK rescue business. Their 'volunteer' model wouldn't necessarily work in aviation where not paying the professionals at the sharp end may produce some difficulties.

When I was involved with the start of HEMS in the UK the model I put forward was based on commercial sponsorship, something I believe still has a place, but it was badly handled and opportunities lost. When the 'charity' concept arrived it was very much opposed by the people in charge of my project for they feared losing control of this embryonic service. Time has proven that the charity model can work and yes, the operators and the customers have to cede control to the funders. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

As a funding model HF is right to observe that those best equipped to raise funds are not necessarily those best able to manage the service. If we wanted to create 23 Air Ambulance Units in UK we wouldn't have started the way we did - but we are where we are and every charity values it's autonomy almost above everything else.

What chance of bringing them into a pool with the government - zero, like me they trust them not. But what about in a pool with RNLI assets - that could also be pooled with SAR too? Much closer to a possibility I would suggest.

The RNLI could benefit from central funding and then for the first time in UK history you have some joined-up Public Service Helicopter/Rescue/HEMS units that have a charitable foundation, transparent management with key professionals employed to do all critical functions. Nationwide, efficient and effective with all the economies of scale required for success financially.

Nobody can get money out of the public quite like the RNLI.

Nobody has to profit from the misery of victims. I think that might almost be a definition of PUBLIC SERVICE. The thought of some fat-cat in an office making cash out of people in trouble sucks just as the notion that the military have an automatic right to be represented in this field. Focus on the needs of the customers, not the players.

G. :ok:

[Torcher]

Geoffers said:
"Nobody has to profit from the misery of victims. I think that might almost be a definition of PUBLIC SERVICE. The thought of some fat-cat in an office making cash out of people in trouble sucks just as the notion that the military have an automatic right to be represented in this field. Focus on the needs of the customers, not the players."

Good one Geoffers, it pretty much sums up my points exacly!

Now to Norway and HFs post. I agree that we probably have one of the best HEMS services around. The only negative thing being voiced from the HEMS community itself, is the way the contract processes plays "musical chairs" with the providers every 5 years.
This could very well complicate things for a SAR type operation. The reason for this being the more complex and resource demanding operation a SAR unit is supposed to be able to handle.
With complexity comes the need to recruit, train, and KEEP the people you want. That is were both the current military (FIGMO), and the "rotating every few years" contracts go wrong.
Stability for the people involved in the service, should be a high priority in whatever system you choose.
The Norwegian helicopter rescue service (Still part of the Airforce), has had great success keeping motivated people in the service. Moderate pay increase, and stability for the people involved, being the key factors in this. With skilled, experienced and motivated people, comes the ability to streamline and further develop the operation. A lot of the time and resources that used to be spent on initial, and recurrent training of aircrews, is now available for actual missions, and to develop new skills and procedures.

(FIGMO-F**k It, Got My Orders)

T

[[email protected]]

It would be heartwarming to think the Govt knew or cared enough about SAR and emergency service provision to even consider a joined up structure for the UK - the fact that we do have lots of empires all pulling in different directions points to a different outlook entirely.

Many of the suggestions above might work, even in the UK, but they are not going to happen and instead we are left with the flawed SARH process which, in terms of what was promised and what will be delivered, is tantamount to fraud.

The detractors of military SAR forget that without it you would have been held to ransom by a commercial operator long ago and would not have had the operational capability that comes from being able to operate to military rules and regulations - the CAA still hasn't come up with the solution to NVG overland ops into unrecced sites.

My objection is not to being civilianised - it is the only way to bring new investment in equipment because the military are utterly disinterested in owning SAR - it is the capability reduction that has already been sanctioned and what more will come due to operating costs that worries me.

Unfortunately the MoD are happy with the process because they don't pay the full cost (70%) until all the mil flights are rolled over so it counts as money available now (planned purchase of Chinooks I believe) and worry about the real costs in another 5 or 6 years.

It would appear that the MPs for the Boulmer, Chivenor and Portland areas were already briefed up on the partial closures long before the news broke so writing to your MP to complain is probably a waste iof time.

The SARH process should undergo Commons select committee scrutiny to ensure that all the fudges and dodgy dealing is made public.

[Tallsar]

Geoffers - you hit the nail on the head re the RNLI - its a sound and sensible idea in principle - although I suspect they would end up contracting it out to a "helicopter provison company" in reality and what difference to SAR-H then? Your point about volunteers etc is the show stopper - I heard it from the previous RNLI "horse's mouth" - they do not want to be perceived as loosing their volunteer status - they believe (quite rightly no doubt) that this is one of the main drivers for them being such a successful charity. Hence they have considered entering the British helo SAR game in the past but have rejected it so far.:hmm:

[Geoffersincornwall]

The vast majority of UK HEMS helicopters are funded by a variety of successful charities yet they employ professionals at the sharp end. No problem there Tallsar. Granted I doubt that any can match the RNLI for the amount of cash they raise but using paid professionals is all part of the RNLI strategy as the vital crewmen on the lifeboats are retained professionals.

My advice would be to give them one area to manage, like the south coast, and see how they get on with a thoroughly integrated system. Helicopters, lifeboats, inshore rescue craft and lifeguards. Once they have learnt the ropes they can take on the next area and so on.

Time to wean ourselves off the current system that only serves to put money in the wrong pockets or subsidise the military PR machine.

If we took our collective heads out of the sands we would see that other models such as the Swiss rescue service can also be successful without the need for either profit-motive or military leadership.

Empires, turf-wars and egos, that's all that stand in our way.

G. :ugh:

[keepin it in trim]

Geoffers

It has been many years since I did SAR, but I did do it for some time. At no point going out the door on a "job" did I or any of my colleagues think, "time to go subsidise the military PR machine". Your remark is crass and insulting to the many dedicated people who currently fly in the military SAR organisation.

That aside, I have had no dog in this fight for several years, all I would like to see is the people who risk their lives doing this job, being properly resourced, and with capability and coverage enhanced not reduced. I don't care whether it is the RNLI (for whom I have the greatest admiration), the military, a commercial operator or any combination of the above. What I do care about is that it should be properly funded.

Enough money was found to save those idiots who run the banks, you wouldn't think it would be such a big ask to find the funds for a national helicopter rescue service!!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Keepin it in trim

Hear hear on all your points!

As far as I can see (albeit I have had some wine!), you have neatly summarised the arguments which Crab steadfastly puts forward, in his own inimitable style, but in your case without rubbing anyone's nose in anything.

TOTD

[sunnywa]

One way to fund any programme is to do it the same way as Maryland in the US. The HEMS and SAR organisation are rolled into one and operated by the Maryland State Police (upwards of 10 helos I believe). It is completely funded by a $5 tax on every vehicle (thats Vear-hicle) registration, and gives the required amount of funding. From memory (I can't find the article at the moment), they do something over a 1000 HEMS and 1000 SAR's per year, all publicly funded and operated by a public body. They have recently gone out to tender for three new aircraft and operate a fleet of twin engine aircraft (mostly AS365N3's).

I'm not going to get into the debate about Commercial vs govt funding but in my utopian world, SAR and HEMS would be:

a government funded organisation with a defined stream of income (like the registration tax),
Have a defined goal and response times to those goals, (a contract if you will),
managed by professional non policital, aviators,
the ability to avoid the govt tendering process and buy on the open market the best equipment they could get, as long as it was transparent(and cheaper through avoiding the tendering process),
pay their crews well to make sure they hang around for years,
Have a defined training and currency regime,
Not have anything to do with the CAA and their stupid rules on NVG, winches etc (luckily the rest of the world is considered capable of using the green screen)But I'm dreaming, or is that when I wake up next to Jennifer Hawkins (no wait, if I wake up next to her, I can't be dreaming can I?):)

[lost horizon]

I'm new to this posting business although i did have some first hand experience as a SAR "user" many moons ago so have been reading all the interesting (and passionate ) posts with great interest. As i understand it, there are 2 consortia bidding to take over heli SAR at the 12 bases currently manned by the MCA, RN and RAF. One is Air Knight which is Lockheed Martin, VT Group and British International, the other is the same outfit which is operating at the moment at the 4 MCA Bases. On the face of it, that does seem to give the latter an advantage. Does anyone have any idea of the pros and cons of each bidder? Comments please

[Geoffersincornwall]

Please be assured no insult of the kind was intended. I too was one of those military SAR guys a million moons ago. It's not the guys at the sharp end I'm getting at, its the MoD bunch.

Think about it for a minute. There you are part of the military machine and your colleagues overseas are crying out for the precious resources you hold captive in home waters. Shouldn't they be deployed where they are most needed? A civvy S92/AW139 cannot do what you guys do in an operational environment but they CAN do what you do here. So why aren't you out there in the front line? We are desperate for helicopters in Afghanistan and you guys can surely lend a hand. Isn't that what you are trained for?

If I have it all wrong please tell me and please let's keep emotional arguments out of it and focus on the arguments about practicalities. I'm willing to listen but from where I stand the facts seem to speak for themselves.

Rgds

G. :ok:

[IAMTHEMEAT]

Are you for real?

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - I am sure that the whole of 771 are just desperate to get to the stan along with all the RN Merlins, Lynx and every other helicopter in the UK armed forces. Strangely enough, only those fit for purpose in such an environment have been sent since a non-Carson, non-DAS equipped Sea King is about as much use as tits on a bull over there. Sending SAR Sea Kings or MK 8 Lynx or ASW Merlins clearly isn't the answer or they would be there already.

I rather suspect you spent you military time in war and sea dodging drafts as you are so keen to send everyone else there - or were you just a failed SARboy?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Ah well, another touchy-feely sharing-the-love bridge-building contribution from Crab...:ooh:

Not that you're actually wrong though;)

[keepin it in trim]

Goeffers

Given your post, I accept that you did not intend to cause offense, but as you say yourself, lets keep the emotion out of it, so please think a little about how your comments can appear to others.

As to the rest, I refer you to the last 2 paras of my previous post, I have been out of the military and SAR for several years. All I would like to see is a properly run, equipped and funded, national helicopter SAR service, that maintains, or enhances, the current level of coverage and capability, NOT a situation which is spun or twisted to make it look that way, when it isn't, whoever is providing it.

If it is correctly resourced, the organisation running it is almost irrelevent. Other countries run successful services that are either provided by the civil sector, the military, or a combination. We found money for banks, you would hope that someone would feel that this is a priority.

As to Afganistan, yes the crews would probably be useful, after some pre-deployment training, the aircraft? - if my memory serves, the dear old HAR3 is not, in any way, equipped for the task.

Apparently we could have had rather a lot of BlackHawks about a year or so ago. All enquiries about where that all went wrong should be addressed to Mr G Brown, Chief Miser to the MoD, London. Which is probably where all of this is going to come un-glued as well.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Keeping it in trim - I take the points that both you and CRAB have made about the suitability of equipment. Not being familiar enough with the terrain or the task it's not possible to judge so I'll take your word for it. In the days of 'Confrontation' we stripped out the Wessex 1 and used it in the mountains of Borneo. In the FI we stripped out the Wessex 3 and used it in the mountains of South Georgia. Neither were particularly suited but that's all we had.

Surely their Lordships ARE doing everyhing to help the guys on the ground avoid IEDs. Would more Carson blades help? Would more crews out there mean more flying hours available to the troops? Try explaining to the familes of the fallen that military SAR was more valuable here than it would be in Afghanistan. You may be technically correct but the layperson doesn't necessarily understand your reasoning. Once again I'm not pointing the finger at the guys at the sharp end but at the policy-makers and the politicians.

Thanks for the regular abuse CRAB, it always feels uncomfortable when you don't dish it out. I'm not sure how you would define a 'failed SAR-boy' but my C-in-C's Commendation for one of my early ventures into the world of SAR gives me some hope that I may not be in that category.

When are you due to do a tour out there?

G.

[[email protected]]

Yes, probably too much of a tired and emotional post from me, apologies for the personal slights - they were unneccessary - just a reaction to the ridiculous notion that sending yellow (and grey) helicopters and crews to the 'stan would help in any way shape or form except to placate the Daily Mail readers who don't understand the difference between types of helicopter and their capabilities.

The Carson Blades are only a small part of the problem since the poor old Gnome engine wasn't built for hot and high either and they are going through them at a massive rate - the idea that the Sea King can be sustained operationally until 2017 for ours and 2020 (or later) for yours ignores the problem of spares.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I guess we haven't quite got to the stage where we throw anything into the frontline but it does give us an interesting perspective at events 65+ years ago when we put 24 year-olds just out of training in Swordfish up against battleships and Hampdens up against Me109s. Maybe these days the powers that be can sense the Daily Mail headines were they to put our boys in breathless Sea Kings and send them into battle. They would probably get a good slagging for wasting more of our precious treasure and asking the guys and gals to do mission impossible with ****e equipment. Where have we heard that before?

Do you remember that Labour minister standing in Afghanistan and pontificating that it would all be over in 6 weeks without a shot being fired. That does give us some indication of committment, understanding and preparedness. Who were his advisors I wonder?


G. :ok:

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - but then we were at war with a whole country (or countries) and trying to defend the UK from invasion - not quite the same as a nation-building exercise in a foreign country where we are defending the populace against terrorists funded by another state. The only similarity is that the politicians are trying to justify our presence there by saying we are protecting the UK from terrorist attack - given that the last series of terrorist attacks have been as a result of invading another country, that position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Back to SAR and regardless of what is happening in Afghanistan, the fact is that the British people and travellers through and across our territory should expect the highest standards of rescue, not the cheapest. A PFI is not the answer and, as I have got bored with saying, whoever flys the SAR cabs should not be doing it for profit. Time to tell the bean-counters to take a hike.

[Crabette]

Crab, you may just be right about standards dropping somewhat old boy. Rumour has it that the current SAR providers (and maybe hot favourites for SAR-H). No names, but initials sound like C*C, are about to take a paramedic off the street and ‘train’ up to be a winch man. :ugh:

All this ‘training’ will happen on a current SAR base with an in house training package using current allocated aircraft training hours. :=
Cost cutting the extensive (expensive??) route of RAF Valley training and its proven training methods?. What sort of starting salary is on offer I would hate to think! Anyone know?? I have a few old contacts in Eastern Europe keen for work in the UK doing something that doesn’t require too much knowledge/training to replace the aging very experienced but obviously expensive burden to the current and maybe next SAR-H providers. :D

How do the current crews feel about this proposal and the effect on their terms and conditions not to mention the ‘specialisation’ that was the hallmark of professional helicopter operations. Very sad to hear that the standards are being lowered in these cost cutting moves. Did the hard hit operators ‘Management’, get the Interim contract figures so wrong? Is it true that a ballot for strike over pay/erosion of terms and conditions is being undertaken as I go to print?

DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR SAR-H. Shame really, to see all those years of a job so well done by the Old providers undermined by the ‘Mismanagement’ of the current ones. Does the DFt/MCA/public accept this reduction of training standards with possible casualty, aircrew and aircraft flight safety implications; hmm one does wonder. :=

Fly Safe you SAR boys & girls. x

[SirSokky]

Crabette,

'take a paramedic off the street and ‘train’ up to be a winch man'....

Firstly: Paramedics are probably taken out of an ambulance or response car and therefore are quite probably on top of their 'medical' game and far more current / experienced than some Winchmen.

Secondly: in order for a Paramedic to be 'taken off the street' they would most likely not be willing to take a pay cut and therefore probably get paid more than most military winchmen!?!

Thirdly: It has already been done very sucessfully in the organisation you so covertly mention.

If the appropriate screening and testing techniques are applied to applicants from this background you get an extremely high standard of professional who then needs the appropriate training in aviation which can be easily carried out at an operational base over an appropriate period of time.

All this has been done, and I think you are being highly disengenuious to people you may have to work with in the very near future!! (Hopefully)

It is about time some of the 'light blue' began to open their minds to what may well be the way ahead!! You never know, you may even have to sit beside an aircraft commander who is civilian trained.........