PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 27th Jul 2011, 10:03   #61 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Quote:
They would look a lot better in Dark Blue
With a token yellow blade to make it fair
Oneclub is offline   Reply
Old 27th Jul 2011, 14:35   #62 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 4,111
The only things that look better in dark blue are Wrens

If anyone wants to see how not to run a SAR setup then see the CHC operation out of Stanley for the oil rigs. Only because 2 ex-RN SAR guys were employed is there any semblance of professionalism but that is because of their efforts, not the company's.

The original plan was to have the aircraft engineer act as the winchop and lower a basket to the survivors!!! Bear in mind this is for an opeartion in the South Atlantic where sea state 6 is normal and the sea temp is plus 5 at the moment.

Fortunately the ex-RN chaps have begged borrowed and stolen (not really stolen) sufficent safety and role equipment from UK SAR contacts to at least provide a winchop and winchman combo who have a chance of actually rescuing survivors - at least by day because their aircraft has no auto-hover or rad-alt hold!!!

Now even this would be almost forgiveable if they hadn't been operating the rig shuttle for several months before the SAR capability became a reality (which was only a couple of weeks ago).

So, in summary, a professional helicopter operator gets a lucrative contract to provide rig shuttles and SAR cover and tries to do it as cheaply and minimally as possible - surely not the attitude required to run UKSAR!
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline   Reply
Old 27th Jul 2011, 15:08   #63 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Hague
Age: 48
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
because 2 ex-RN SAR guys were employed
you missed the BHL CG, Jigsaw and GFS bit.......
212man is offline   Reply
Old 27th Jul 2011, 19:32   #64 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
you missed the BHL CG, Jigsaw and GFS bit.......
212man - I'm not sure what you mean by that, please elucidate.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline   Reply
Old 27th Jul 2011, 21:15   #65 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 29
As deplorable as the company-proposed response might have been, they will only have been providing what the customer required. If the customer only wants a big hook dangling under a Bell 47, and only offers enough money to pay for that, then a contractor wouldn't be either likely or able to provide an S-92 or EC225 with all the bells, whistles and SAR-experienced crews. The fault would lie particularly with those who decided on what was required in the first place...unless, of course, the Bell 47 was genuinely sufficient for the customer's requirement.

Besides, with an RAF SAR unit just down the road, why pay for an all-weather(ish), day & night capability?

Louis
louisnewmark is offline   Reply
Old 27th Jul 2011, 21:22   #66 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 4,111
Iron - so you think therefore it is OK to put oil workers lives at risk (because that is what is happening) because it is only a 1 year contract

Please define 'limited SAR' - you can either rescue people or you can't - you would seem to define it as pretending to be able to do the job in order to get paid without actually having any of the required equipment, training or personnel. Is this really the reality of civil SAR and if so who is regulating it?

The rigs are over 200nm away from Mount Pleasant so, with the best will in the world, at night or in poor weather we won't get to them for 3 hours or so - even if anyone hears their mayday.

Their 'limited SAR' aircraft doesn't chase the ferry aircraft so there would be a 2 hour delay by day if they ditched at the rig.

Such delays might be acceptable in the relatively benign conditions of the N Sea but in the South Atlantic???

Oh, did I mention that 2 of the pilots have never hovered over the water before and there are no training hours allocated?? What a recipe for disaster. But it's OK as it's only a 1-year contract!!!

Oh - and if 'gold-plated' means being able to do the job you are paid for and expected to do - then surely all aviation should be 'gold-plated'.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline   Reply
Old 28th Jul 2011, 09:48   #67 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 182
Crab you're shouting at the wrong people:

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisnewmark
they will only have been providing what the customer required
Is the sad state of affairs when it comes to contracts, that is defined by the client not the provider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crab@SAAvn.co.uk
Iron - so you think therefore it is OK to put oil workers lives at risk (because that is what is happening) because it is only a 1 year contract
No that is not what Iron is saying, again the client probably decided this and the provider is supplying what was required. The cost of a person's life is what the oil companies play with not the provider. Feel free to join the many anti oil company rallies around the world, but it is a sad fact of life nowadays.

Si

P.S. What has this got to do with the thread title?
bigglesbutler is offline   Reply
Old 28th Jul 2011, 12:14   #68 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Borneo
Posts: 245
Ah Crab,
You have dipped your toe into the world of commercial offshore flying and contracts. Something that a mil pilot wouldn't understand.

Contracts and the way they are run are regulated very closely by the customer and their aviation advisors/HSE. I should know i deal with them all the time.

I hope the 2 Ex Navy SAR pilots you mentioned apprechiate your post.

I admire your passion for MILSAR and long may your posts continue on this subject.

chcoffshore is offline   Reply
Old 28th Jul 2011, 17:44   #69 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 11
Unhappy

Worth pointing out that BI who were servicing that contract were refused permission by the UK CAA to conduct precisely the type of "Limited SAR" currently being provided by CHC, even though there was plenty of ex RN (and RAF) experience available.

They have achieved this by operating on the Cayman Islands AOC....some of us are very upset at the obvious double standard being applied!
WIGYCIWYT is offline   Reply
Old 28th Jul 2011, 19:50   #70 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 182
May we get back onto subject, damn THAT's why my teachers always got angry at me at school.

Anyone heard anything about the new, (new?) contract?

Si
bigglesbutler is offline   Reply
Old 28th Jul 2011, 22:14   #71 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Posts: 63
All potential bidders for the "son of Interim" contract had to have their applications in by today. So expect we will hear a bit more soon about that one.
4thright is offline   Reply
Old 29th Jul 2011, 09:10   #72 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 11
A brief googling only brings up Bristow as a contender. Guess we'll know more in the next few days.

Would CHC have the brass-neck to tender, I wonder?
sightlesseyes is offline   Reply
Old 29th Jul 2011, 12:44   #73 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 4,111
Bigglesbutler - there will only be more speculation and wild-arsed guessing as far as the new new contract goes - anyone with hard int won't post it here.

I should have emphasised that the 2 ex-RN SAR guys are rearcrew, not pilots and that is the only reason the back of the aircraft (not including any wet-fit) is adequately prepared.

How on earth do CHC get away with operating on a Cayman Islands AOC in the Falklands???? What is not clear is who is actually responsible for regulating aviation down here, one would have thought the CAA would be in charge given that it is British territory but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Back to the thread - will CHC have the brass-neck to bid for UK SAR again? Of course they will, it's big bucks and big kudos.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline   Reply
Old 29th Jul 2011, 14:02   #74 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 64
Posts: 9
Aircraft registered in UK overseas territories (including the Cayman and Falkland Islands) are regulated under OTAR's, which are essentially watered down CAA regulations, administered by ASSI. Google otars and all is there for you to read. The person responsible for regulating aviation in the Falkland Islands is the DCA, Mr. Andrew Newman, based in Stanley.

BIH operate G-registered aircraft, and therefore have to comply with CAA regulations, operating under a British AOC (I think), from which dispensations have to be requested from the UK CAA.

There is certainly one ex RN pilot working for CHC in the Falklands, and I'm sure they have other pilots perfectly capable of adapting to the role, in whatever definition of 'limited' is being used.

The only reason this SAR cover is being set up is because the serviceability record of the MPA machine is nothing short of appalling (I have heard 50%, which surely can't be true?). No SAR cover, no fly, with the result that for every day the oil fixed wing charter is delayed costs 100k - hence the quick fix. However, in the event of a real emergency, I'm quite sure MPA would get the first call, if they were serviceable.

Word on the street is that CHC are broke, and maybe going under?
Laundryboy is offline   Reply
Old 29th Jul 2011, 17:32   #75 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 2,830
I hope so.
What with the jungle drums bemoaning the lousy terms and conditions the pilots and rear crew are getting together with the debacle surrounding SARH, makes you wonder if they are on a suicide mission.
Plenty out there to fill the gap they leave behind though
Thomas coupling is offline   Reply
Old 29th Jul 2011, 19:31   #76 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 910
Quote:
the serviceability record of the MPA machine is nothing short of appalling (I have heard 50%, which surely can't be true?)
50% sounds rather unlikely (and anyway, it's 'machines' not 'machine'!). Crab might be able to provide more information?
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline   Reply
Old 29th Jul 2011, 19:37   #77 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by crab@SAAvn.co.uk
Bigglesbutler - there will only be more speculation and wild-arsed guessing as far as the new new contract goes - anyone with hard int won't post it here.
Oh absolutely, I couldn't agree more, damn I agreed with crab must need my head testing.

I suppose I was trying to prevent further mil-civ battles as there are other threads with such subject matter.

Si
bigglesbutler is offline   Reply
Old 29th Jul 2011, 19:40   #78 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Up North
Posts: 154
Also an ex-RAF SAR pilot down there as well which escaped a mention.

Anyway Crab if you are not happy about it why not take it up with CHC management instead of slapping your gums on here. Google CHC and I'm sure a number will come up.

Wiretensioner
Wiretensioner is offline   Reply
Old 1st Aug 2011, 11:13   #79 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SAR De Galles
Posts: 6
Quote:
The original plan was to have the aircraft engineer act as the winchop and lower a basket to the survivors!!! Bear in mind this is for an opeartion in the South Atlantic where sea state 6 is normal and the sea temp is plus 5 at the moment.
And what may I ask is wrong with that! Enough techiebashing crab, I'm SURE he would have done a sterling job. Raised strand / birdcaging on the winch cable, pah; do a trip. Hydraulic leak from winch return line; where's the ragspanner. How are those casualties doing? Casualties! Sorry was to busy listening to talkSPORT on the ADF, they'll be right, do a trip!
Pennyroyal is offline   Reply
Old 23rd Aug 2011, 18:20   #80 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Still about 275 from the ADN
Posts: 258
So onwards to 'Gap SAR', which appears to be the new name for the MCA contract. I see that the 'IPOD consortium' are bidding for the contract. Can anyone shed any light on which companies are in this group? CHC, not surprisingly, will be bidding to retain the contract.

Any knowledge of other bidders?

Last edited by detgnome; 24th Aug 2011 at 11:30.
detgnome is online now   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 20:48.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network