Mozambique & Madagascar

[distings]

Why did our bosses leave it up to Uncle Sam's Forces, H.M. Govs Forces and the R.S.A. Forces to save lives over there?
A U.N. appeal for helicopters surely should have meant S-61s etc winging their way over there within a couple of days.
It's not too difficult to work out a mobilisation and demob cost plus a sensible daily rate and flying hour cost, and pass that to the U.N. before you leave.
I heard that one North Sea operator had the 61s available, but because they had just fired all their senior pilots and engineers to save money they could not man the aircraft.
But for the other guys, was it the U.N. that made it difficult? We know they take forever to pay, unless you need a U.N. Mercedes for a function, but surely there was somebody out there in a helicopter suit that tried to say "we'll be there in a couple of days". I would have gone....but nobody said lets do it in our company. Any answers as to to why it was too difficult to save lives?

[mrfish]

"You're good man charlie brown"

The answer in not so much simple as it is frustrating! Having worked with/for and under the UN for 2 years (flying helicopters) I can say that I believe their only interest is self-serving.
Im sure there is some excellent work going on in the bowls of the ship, as it were, but no politician (and they all are!) is ever going to put his/her secure, extremely well paid job on the line but simply signing a piece of paper that gets the job done.
Damn the initial cost when it comes to saving lives!
Instead they'll organise some multinational working group to think about the options for a while....(but only until 4.30 and not on weekends)
Sadly I have seen the UN 'cost' an inordinate lives - only last October did they admit to causing 7000 deaths in Bosnia, when they abandoned a 'UN Safe Haven'. But do you think anyone lost their job....the only thing lost would have been the paperwork.

[212man]

I love the name! sounds familiar.
Bit suspicious of the single post, so won't say much though.

However, surely as a general truism, if an operator has n contracts requiring x aircraft and y pilots/engineers to run, it will be difficult to suddenly fulfill another obligation at very short notice. The alternative is to run in an overmanned/machined state, which I guess the bean counters don't like much. But that is a different tale which could run and run....

_____________________________________________

"Flexibility, the key to air power"

[distings]

Just for 212 man, this is post no 2.
Youre last line " flexibility etc etc" sums it up.
I can't help but feeling that Alan Bristow or Eric 'Winkle' Brown would have had a Whirlind over there, and then of course,ah... can you stay out a bit longer chaps... there may be a job in Timbuktu.
Those were the days...or maybe not, when you have six kids.
Still, I have this uneasy feeling that lives were lost due to what mrfish says.
Frustrating, all we need is a map and a compass and we're there (and perhaps a GPS and co-pilot who knows how to switch it on).

[MaxNg]

What about the EH101s all dressed up and knowhere to go (just burning up hrs on maturity trials in Aberdeen?

What a PR op that would have been ? All the worlds press looking on?

Maybe thay thought it might embaress itself in such trying conditions?

[Agaricus bisporus]

Forgive me for transferring this post of mine (3 days old)here from the Africa forum but it seems to fit the current drift:


"It seems a terrible waste to me that there are pilots, groundcrews & engineers out there who would happily give their time at times like this, and governments around the world have hangars full of defunct military helos that would be ideal for disaster relief.

Yet nothing happens for a month or so while governments whinge about the costs, politcs and permissions etc to do what was needed so desperately weeks ago.

A multinational (God help us, perhaps UN funded) reserve of old Hueys (the US contribution) and even Gazelles/Wessi (UK)could be pre positioned out of storage in Arizona/Shawbury to somewhere south of the tropics and then onto freighters or, wait for this, ferried out!!!, to disaster areas as required. If enough volunteers were available to fly them
could we not have something like a UN emergency airwing all up and running and just awaiting the call to go! This would certainly include fixed wing too.

I realise that the UN is probably the last organisation that could make this work; my idea is to suggest a way of providing a quick reaction force with minimum-cost hardware and volunteer crews that could react a bit faster than the month it has taken to help Mozambique.

It annoys me hugely to see the news crowing over the arrival of a handfull of Pumas which are pretty uninspiring machines at the best of times, let alone in 40' of heat, or a mere five anti sub seakings dragging a ton and a half of sonar kit being touted as useful loadlifters/SAR.

Given the outrageous costs charged by the military for these sadly inadequate and often inappropriate machines its little less than a scandal that this wastage is not more widely known.

A well thought out reserve of volunteer run mil surplus machines just might do the job at a sensible price.

Go on, shoot me down!"


"EDIT" May I add Im NOT having a go at the UK Services for their contributions, far from it. It is not their fault the system works slowly or issues them with sometimes inappropriate kit. If pinger Seakings are all thats available in the Indian Ocean then its Hobsons choice then the Andrew will do its best as always, as will the Puma guys.

Someone might analyse the needs and tell us how one Puma/SeaKing at £MOD,OOO / hr compares to 6, 8, 10 Single Squirrels at the same total bill on commercial rates? Which is more useful?

The scam over landing/handling/cargo/import fees & controls is a sick indictment against the powers that be in field, and is, as many know, far from restricted to Mozambique or even Africa in particular. It is, however, a problem that needs to be broadcast far and wide and shamed out of existance (Any Journos reading this??)

You guys are dead right re idle S61s etc, what better use could they find?
What superb (lost) marketing initiative by the EH101 team who failed to dispatch their toy/s south in a highly publicised ferry flight to do "something useful". Sure the cynics would whinge at cynical use of disaster for advertising drone drone; but if it were done operationally it could be a real result for all involved, especially the poor victims. (not Westland shareholders, the evacuees)

But the thought of all those idle ex mil helos makes me fizz. Written off, totally serviceable, spares up the ying-yang and doing stuff-all until they get auctioned off for peanuts as static exhibits cos the CAA wont let them fly with the wrong mark/mod of fuel control unit.

Imagine what could be done with packages of Hueys, 100 at a time positioned strategically in ready-use storage around the world with field spares awaiting the call..and at what cost to Uncle Sam / UN / EU?

Ill shut up before I get accused of ranting more than usual..

AB



[This message has been edited by Agaricus bisporus (edited 15 March 2000).]

[EESDL]

Would you fly an ac that has been rushed out of storage by the UN? Having seen the UN at work, I certainly wouldn't!

The Gov introduced, ney, forced upon us the concept of cost centres and accountability, then has the nerve to bemoan the price. True, the price should not have mattered, and the FO or other dept should have said "Hey, let's stop ****ing about, we'll sort the bill out when you get back". The Gov seems to have been 'lynched by their own petard'!

I was put on 24 hr standby to take an example of one of our finest Alberts down that way, until someone realized that none were serviceable. The Armed Forces can do about anything if allowed, it's the Politicians scoring points that delay things.

Considering Claire Shorts views of the military that she's expressed in the past, I'm surprized anybody listens to her anyway