SARH to go

[[email protected]]

Rottweiler - the difference in capability between mortal (non-NVG) mountains and NVG mountains is enormous, I have done both and wouldn't go back to mortal night flying. Stornoway do go into the mountains at night but with no NVG making them a lot braver than me:ok:

Bigtop - how am I misinformed? The 139 does not have a night wet winching capability at the moment and won't have for a while yet. The 101 is probably fine over-water as long as you don't mind the downwash (how many small vessels, surfers, kids on lilos or free swimmers/drowners have you done in it)? It is less suitable for cliffstickers, cragfast climbers or confined winching areas.

[NavyTorque]

"Like so many others, you have believed the 'it must be cheaper to civilianise' argument just because it seems obvious if you don't know anything about SAR."...........

There you go again Crab - making assumptions! Well I'll let you into a secret; Rottweiler was flying SAR before you even started at Cranwell. Rottweiler has also flown extensive Civvy SAR.

Be very careful of your assumptions because again you touch on Civvy NVG CAA clearances and make wholly misinformed assumptions; I am sat next to the same CAA Flight Ops Inspector who was extremely interested in your suggestion that a (Commercial Air Transport) helicopter returning with a single engine failure should climb to 2000' and then Autorotate to the runway with 20 POB as a safer option! You even then continued to argue on that thread when the ex CAA Helo Perf Consultant pointed out the mathematics and probabilities of serials failures!!!

Before you start again - yes the Flight Ops Inspector was an Ex Military QHI (You would probably now resort to asking which service).

You continually set yourself up as the master of all things SAR when you have actually very limited and "blinkered" experience.

You talk about Military also probably being the cheapest - well I have also flown Military SAR and Civvy SAR - you may be surprised to know that Stornoway / Sumburgh / and Lee often would provide 24/7 SAR cover with ONE aircraft out of ONE and with 1 engineer and 1 labourer on Duty! My experience of Navy and RAF SAR squadrons was many more engineers and many more aircraft - I know I know that the military aircraft have other tasks etc but that doesn't present well from an economy point of view.

Now before you spout more of your opinions about civvy SAR let us all know what your experience of anything civvy is? I won't have the time to reply to all your doubtless comments because unlike you I am contracting now on a civvy Oil & Gas unit where manning is Lean (yes that is coming the RAF way too) and I do what I am paid to do and the company makes a profit (or not) and is accountable at the end of the year!

I would however be extremely interested in your opinion (if Harmonisation goes ahead) as to why you feel the need for ANY continued SAR exposure to RAF crews because as we all know CSAR and SAR have only the letters SAR in common and anyway SAR as you and I know it would be covered by the Royal Navy at sea - a secondary task all RN helo crews are trained in!

Finally can you assure us all that your ridiculous banter on here is restricted to your time "Off Duty"?

Look forward to interviewing you in the civvy world!

[NavyTorque]

I doubt that the MCA cabs venture in the mountains at night to conduct what mil operators would class as 'night mountains'


Detgnome for the record your doubt is incorrect - I have flown many missions at night for Stornoway Civvy MCA SAR "In the Mountains" negative NVG until the final throes of Bristows when NVG was available although handheld and limited!!!

Again guys; you are writing a lot of stuff on this forum based on what you think!!! Feel free to ask becaus ethere are many pilots out there who could "fill in the gaps" for you all.

Regards

[Vie sans frontieres]

Rottweiler was flying SAR before you even started at Cranwell
Is his age quoted as 38 because he's having a bit of a mid-life crisis then?

Oh, and I think the moderators may have a message for you.:=

[detgnome]

Navy Blah

There is a world of difference in what you can achieve in the mountains at night with NVG when compared to without, which is why I compared it to what mil operators would class as 'night mountains'. If all you have done is fly around with a pair of hand-held gogs then it might be a fair assumption that you are not aware of the difference in capability they bring and are therefore talking about things based on what you think. I believe that you will find many pilots able to 'fill in the gaps', just ask!

[NavyTorque]

I doubt that the MCA cabs venture in the mountains at night to conduct what mil operators would class as 'night mountains'


Oh dear DetGnome you as well as CRAB@ looking to blindly follow your assertion that Military SAR is the only SAR and if you talk to a Navy Guy it would be RAF SAR is the only SAR. Then if you spoke to another RAF base then you would prob argue Valley only really do SAR??

The point I make is that civvy SAR have done "Night Mountains" for many years.

I have flown military SAR before and after the introduction of NVG and civvy SAR without any NVG. I cannot recall a night mountain job I have done that was called off whereby NVG would have made the decision any different. It was usually cloud base over the Cullims that precluded a helo lift out.

yes NVG would undoubtedly have made many of the jobs safer but the point I was making is just stop assuming and ask! I remind you what you said....... "I doubt" and then went on to make your point!

Thank you for doubting on our behalf - perhaps you will be imagining soon for us all as well?

Regards

[edwardspannerhands]

Just a quick question for anyone on here who has experience flying any MIRG team - Are there any regulations / risk assessments regarding their kit? i.e. are their BA Sets classed as D.A.C.?

Thanks in advance

ES

[detgnome]

I cannot recall a night mountain job I have done that was called off whereby NVG would have made the decision any different

I don't know what kind of night mountain jobs you have been doing, but I have completed many where the transit to the area would not have been possible without NVG, yet alone the actual rescue itself.

NVG would undoubtedly have made many of the jobs safer

This is correct, but if this is how you view NVG then I would suggest that you have failed to fully appreciate the utility of NVG and the additional capability that they bring. As an aside, can I establish exactly what was your previous mil NVG experience?

[rottweiler]

Yes the age is incorrect, looks like somebody has rumbled me, but thanks for pointing it out, however cant be bothered changing it.

Yes I have extensive experience in a number of areas. Especially SAR, as the writer suggested both civ and mil.

There is a wealth of talent out there that is not confined to the military. You make incorrect statements on this forum which are obviously intended to mislead, or made through genuine ignorance. You ought to talk to your civilian counterparts then you may be able to reach out to people from a more informed position. However I strongly suspect your civilian counterparts will be reluctant to talk to you after having questioned their professionalism on so many occasions, even if it has only been by innuendos. You do yourself and your service no favours. I am sure you do talk to some recently de mobbed military counterparts who hold the same views through blind loyalty. Try taking a step back and look outside your bubble. To answer your question "Vie sans frontieres" it seems I would know a little about it. Never assume. However I am sure you will get all the info on your handover from crab@.

May I also suggest, that if it does get civilianised put in for one of the 60 positions, or volunteer for the front line. Having thought about it, even if you do put in for a position there could be a CRM issue with the civilians.

NVG blah blah blah, have any of you made any enquiries in to the kit on the S92, there is kit on their that is streets ahead of what you have and a great improvement to flight safety. But the civilians dont see the need to bleat on about it they just get on with it. I have tried to suggest but will now be blunt, the civilian crews, i would suggest on the whole are more experienced than there mil counterparts as 90% are ex mil.

detgnome, you are incorrect on the mountains issue i will give you stornoways number, however they will probably hang up on you.

[Vie sans frontieres]

NVG blah blah blah

Mmmm. Well reasoned argument. There speaks someone who's never worn them.:ugh:

[rottweiler]

Once again your assuming-incorrectly. But cant be bothered with the discussion. It is but one tool of many, and the new contract has it in.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Sweeping statements are being made regarding capability and experience. Of course the civil SAR crews have more experience in terms of time spent in the air - by and large they're older! (There's a good sweeping statement for you!:))

What's increasingly evident reading these pages though is that the anti-RAF brigade really don't fully appreciate the extent to which RAF SAR crews train - not just the amount of time spent in the air but the number of different exercises that pilots and rearcrew have to cover a) to get on the front line and b) to stay current.

Additionally, self-directed training on the squadrons where exercises are developed to test the individual's ability to deal with the unexpected are par for the course. It's not uncommon for a whole hour to be spent doing drums for example. Not just moving in and picking it up once or twice but building in hoist failures, intercom failures, doing them on AHT, doing them doppler-out AHT, doing them with the Aux Hyds failed, doing them with an extended cable, doing them with an extended cable on AHT with a hoist failure! You get the idea. This is just one example of how the training can be developed when you have four hours a day to play with. The same of course also applies to wets, sits and decks. Dinghies, multi-seat dinghies, drowning & panicking 'survivors', unconscious 'casualties' in the water, trapped decks, stuck-rudder decks, 'survivors' under overhangs, 'survivors' on pinnacles, cliff hangers, roped-on cliff hangers, cliff hangers with injuries, multiple 'survivors' in the water, 'casualties' below decks, AHT decks. And of course, all the above by day or night.

You name it, it'll be tried in training. Scenarios are developed to the 'n'th degree so that all four crewmembers avoid becoming stale and are as well prepared as possible for what the big bad world may throw at them. Making use of a 'survivor', getting the winchman to deal with an injury or an awkward situation, re-creating what might be encountered on a job. Rarely is the training bog standard and as such the crews are as well prepared as possible to deal with the complexities that are thrown up by SAROPs. Is this the case in civil SAR or do time, financial or other pressures prevent training being developed to this extent?

(And I didn't even mention NVGs once!)

[Winch-control]

Or option 'B', maybe to achieve the same outcome, the civilian world isn't as narrow, to consider two hours day, two hours night, decks, sits, drums is needed to effect a successful rescue?

[[email protected]]

I cannot believe we are still going round the same buoys:ugh:

You cannot rely on experience alone, you must have constant practice and training.

The arrogance of those who suggest that you can maintain the comprehensive skill set needed to be effective SAR crews (that is competent not just current) without lots of training is staggering and will eventually bite someone on the a*se.

There is nothing on the S-92 that can replace NVG capability for night overland SAR work, especially mountains - I'm guessing the writer is ex-RN and thinks FLIR is a viable substitute because he has never used it.

So we should talk to our civilian counterparts but not the ex-mil ones because they are biased - that is truly comic! Instead I should only ask civilians who have no knowledge of RAFSAR and cannot therefore compare the 2 by your logic:rolleyes:

BTW Navytorque - who was it who taught the RN to use goggles at Prestwick? Oh yes, that was the RAF SARF dragging you into the 21st century. Who was it that led on paramedic training in response to civilian clinical governance requirements - oh yes that was us as well and, not surprisingly, the College of SAR Medicine, where CHC send their winchmen for training, is at an RAF base as part of the RAF SARF HQ.

We take a lot of stick in RAFSAR, mainly from those who haven't been in it and, as Vie has said, haven't got a clue how we do business.

One last thing NavyTorque - try flying that single engine profile and the CAA approved one and see which one ensures you can always make the runway if the other engine fails.
I don't suppose the CAA expert has the probability figures for an Airbus losing both engines after takeoff due to birdstrike and I don't suppose ditching in the Hudson is amongst the approved CAA flight profiles but it saved 155 lives when a pilot thought outside the box following an emergency that shouldn't have happened.:ok:

[busdriver02]

I don't mean to stir the pot, but do the civi SAR guys not have NVGs and NVG compatible cockpits?

[Hilife]

I believe the S-92 cockpit is NVG compatible, but not sure about the AW139. I cannot see CHC having any requirement for NVG requirement under interim contract.

[stickjockey]

This is painful to read and has now become the ultimate 'my dad is bigger than yours'.

[DanglyBob]

This page is painfully similar to page 32, or was it 31 or 33....
Names may be different, but the arguments the same...

And, Yes, the 139 cockpit is NVG friendly.

[edwardspannerhands]

I interrupted this slagging match yesterday to ask a question about MIRGs. Granted it's not related to SAR-H, but as MIRGs have been mentioned on this thread I thought somebody might take time out from 'having a go' to answer my question. Alas not.
So, once again, is there anyone on here who has experience flying MIRG's to an incident. If so, are there any rules/ regulations concerning their kit. Specifically, are their BA Sets classed as D.A.C.?

ES

[DanglyBob]

Edward, if I remember and get a chance I'll look through some paperwork tomorrow.
Unless someone answers beforehand.

[edwardspannerhands]

Thanks DB.

[thorpey]

Have flown with both CG and RAF with B.A. on exercises, never been a problem. Can u enlighten me to what the initials stand for in your question, many thanks, thorpey.

[Cabe LeCutter]

Spanners,
A complete risk assessment was carried out when the MIRG was started. I have flown with the BA bottles stowed in the approved MIRG bags, they were lashed to the floor along with the other kit. I think you will find that under the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, they come under section 3.2.2.2 Division 2.2 Non-flammable, Non-toxic Gas. I believe they also come under 3.2.2.4 Exemptions as stored under 200kPa at 20 degrees C. Unless you know better!!

Heads down, look out for the flack

[[email protected]]

Edward - the initials stand for Dangerous Air Cargo and the BA packs are not a problem. The only consideration when flying a MIRG team is that their Board of Trade approved lifejackets have auto-initiators which would inflate immediately on ditching (very bad in an enclosed space as you can't get out). The MIRG team hand the auto initiators to the crewman before flight and get them back when we drop them on the boat.

I asked the question about NVG compatible cockpits on 139 and S92 many moons ago and was told that you can have them if you pay for them but since the present contract doesn't call for them they aren't fitted. BTW NVG friendly and NVG compatible are not the same thing.


SP I think it's Hamster not Hampster:)


About time someone took the "p" out of this thread ;)

Splot

[3D CAM]

Edward.
I think RAF Leconfield took the Humberside(or is it now East Yorkshire) MIRG team to a ship last Friday.
3D

[Bertie Thruster]

When we first started flying the firemen out, in the '90's, from Manston then Wattisham the only thing that needed sorting were the autoinflate jackets, (for safe evac on ditching). The rest of the kit we just secured down. Dangerous Air Cargo? Who cared...it was a mil operation!

We were also flying the bomb disposal guys out to trawlers with fished up WW2 mines....They had loads of explosive DAC goodies with them on the helo.

We also had another interesting task at that time........

....mid '90's there were a lot of flights staging through Uk from somewhere to somewhere else ........landing quite close to Wattisham. In event of a crash landing and release of a "dust cloud" down wind, the duty crew were to fly the good old SAR Seaking through said downwind area with a small funny box we would be given at the crash site. The op order then gave us a remote landing area where we were to "leave" the Seaking and wait to be collected.

It didn't say what would happen to the crew (or the Seaking)!

Dont suppose such ops would be factored into SAR-H!

[arandcee]

Flame me and/or just dismiss the question if you wish but here's a question.

The 747 is forty this year, the JetRanger (to my untrained eyes) hasn't changed external appearance for decades and, according to another thread there are plans to start remaking the OV-10 Bronco. IF it were decided that the new kids on the block (139, s92, 101) weren't fit for purpose (just IF, don't start!) could AW or someone re-start a Sea King production line and produce new build SKs with uprated goodies where required?

What's stopping them, cost or wish to push their new toys?

[Vie sans frontieres]

Quoting myself :

You name it, it'll be tried in training. Scenarios are developed to the 'n'th degree so that all four crewmembers avoid becoming stale and are as well prepared as possible for what the big bad world may throw at them. Making use of a 'survivor', getting the winchman to deal with an injury or an awkward situation, re-creating what might be encountered on a job. Rarely is the training bog standard and as such the crews are as well prepared as possible to deal with the complexities that are thrown up by SAROPs. Is this the case in civil SAR or do time, financial or other pressures prevent training being developed to this extent?


The silence from the usual suspects is deafening.

[[email protected]]

Arrandcee - unfortunately the costs of retooling to produce a few Sea Kings would be uneconomic and the airframe itself would have to be greatly altered to comply with modern airworthiness standards. In order to cater for the largest market possible, modern helicopters tend to be 'jack of all trades' rather than role specific and, other than the US military, no one customer has the clout or budget to create a competition to produce a SAR specific helo - even if they did it would not be suitable for all SAR roles.

Vie - not really a surprise since their arguments were just based on slagging us off and telling us how good they used to be:)


Hurray!!! got to page 40:ok:

[busdriver02]

Seriously no need for NVGs? Personally I wouldn't want to fly unaided to anything other than a runway that way. If you're flying a helo to un-improved LZs, you should want and demand NVGs. There is a reason this is a big point of contention in US HEMS operations. If UK S-92 crews are flying SAR ops unaided, I feel for them, that really, really sucks.

[rottweiler]

The silence from the usual suspects is deafening.

No just bored with it, if it makes you happy, we do no continuation training.

[edwardspannerhands]

Thanks to all those who answered my MIRG question. Fly Safe & fly happy:)

ES

[Vie sans frontieres]

Clear patterns emerge on this thread when the teddy gets thrown and the anti-RAF brigade realise that they've fallen short in an argument. For example, s92fella's oh so adult response to crab when perfectly valid questions were posed about the RIPS :

Infact i have just read back through some of your posts........:ugh: Actually i can't be a*****.

Now, we have rottweiler realising in his heart of hearts that crab et al may actually have a point about training :

No just bored with it, if it makes you happy, we do no continuation training.

Child-like responses tell us so much.

[s92fella]

Well i couldn't be!!!!!!!!!:p:p

Plus its a bit to much for peps who fly 30 year old aircraft.

Well you could always apply for a job with the SAR H winning bidder. ;):p

[SASless]

Anyone who suggests night flying without NVG's is a "good" thing has never flown with NVG's!

None as Blind as though that cannot see....and going from 20/200 vision to 20/40 vision as with NVG's cannot be logically argued against.

When one can do confined area operations in the pitch dark...middle of a Pine forest....without any difficulty at all but cannot see the ground from a hover with the naked eye.....that should tell you what the difference NVG's make.

Been there....done that!

[[email protected]]

S92 fella - is there a problem with the wonderful RIPS on the Stornoway aircraft? I note it has been on the RCS as only being able to operate down to minus 5 deg for the last couple of days. If you can be a*sed to answer that is;)

[Sven Sixtoo]

S92Fella

Well you could always apply for a job with the SAR H winning bidder.


Sorry, do you know something that Abbeywood doesn't - do tell!

[[email protected]]

Sven - since one of the bidders has 2 ex-Gp Capts on board (3 if you count Andy B.:)) and the other only has one, it should be a straightforward decision:ok:

[s92fella]

S92 fella - is there a problem with the wonderful RIPS on the Stornoway aircraft? I note it has been on the RCS as only being able to operate down to minus 5 deg for the last couple of days. If you can be a*sed to answer that ishttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif


Yes i can, i don't work there so i don't know!:}

Plus ref the winning bidder, you have 2 choices so when it is announced you will be able to apply then!:ooh:

[SASless]

Ex-GpCapts?

You don't retain your rank when you retire anymore?

[Clever Richard]

Vie sans frontieres,

A very perceptive post Sir. If you read the threads that Crab gets involved in he is, almost always, asking genuine questions of those who seek to rubbish mil-SAR and who claim that civvies can do the same job cheaper. Having done so, he is usually treated to a tirade of personal abuse and little by way of helpful or knowledgeable replies. Admittedly, he is prone to getting a bit emotional but then he is defending an organisation with an enviable reputation recognised worlwide (otherwise, why would the RAF SAR standards unit be in such high demand) being slagged off by the woefully ignorant.

I sincerely hope that the more offensive responses, if they are from genuine civilian SAR operators, represent the views of the minority. Before any civilian operators get upset, I think the same about military operators slagging off their civilian counterparts.

CD

[hoistop]

What a great thread -eventhough sometimes getting far from constructive debate...
Her is my 5 cents worth. I had a privilege to fly several operational missions both with Coastguard (then Bristows) S61N in Lee on Solent and spent several days with 202.Sqn in Lossiemouth. Back home I work hoist ops in mountains daytime only (for now) (but do other things at night including NVG, FLIR) and can say that both experiences were great - those five days in Lossie were one of the finest (and exciting) days of my life!
What I observed was:
S61N was much better equipped aircraft and also much more reliable for my taste - I only couldn`t understand why they were not using NVGs, since they put so much money into those (bit old) machines and crews had their military experience with NVGs, so???.
Both crews were doing things in very similar ways as Bristows crew were all ex-military - older, more experienced but, these skills are still a bit perishable, as we all know...
I was amazed on how much training time was available to RAF crews - we spent a good 3 hours a day training, compared to much less at Lee. What is best? If you ask beancounters I know what the answer would be.. but cannot and will not agree.
SeaKings are, for my taste, in need of... well, retirement. As I have engineer background I easily noticed several things that surprised me and even all those great engineers up in Lossiemouth could not make a miracle.
But, on the other hand, I would say that "cheaper" does not necessarily mean lowering standards - it can also mean improving efficiency. In Lee, there was only one engineer on duty, but dispatch reliability was very good while in Lossie, three engineers "attacked" only the hoist after each overwater sortie (washing, etc.), let alone other work done, but still could not prevent helicopter going off line too often - by my humble opinion.
Back home, after landing, I do helicopter postflight and the hoist cable inspection and cleaning by myself.. and other crew will lend a hand if necessary.
I cannot agree that civillians cannot maintain standards to RAF/Navy levels - particularly as long as RAF and Navy suppllies experienced crews to commercial operators. Once this source is depleted, it can still be done-even from scratch. The only question is, who will pay and if there will be enough money put aside to do the proper training-and keep the acquired skills sharp.
May I ask a question to the audience-why London Metropolitan police, as first non-military non-big commercial company operator in UK has such big difficulties bringing hoist operations to life? Does it have anything to do with "it is OUR calling" attitude?:confused:

hoistop

[[email protected]]

Hoistop - thanks for your post, it is unusual to get an unbiased view of things here:)

To answer some of your questions:

NVG - the CAA has not yet approved NVG for civilian ops although some police ASUs do have a limited clearance.

Aircraft availability and serviceability comes down to how many hours you fly on it - as you saw, we (RAF) fly a great many more hours than the MCA crews because we have a healthy training budget. More hours means more servicing and whilst I accept that we do possibly over-service our SeaKings, I do not believe that one engineer could keep up with our flying rate and still achieve the same availability.

The RAF Sea Kings are more complex mechanically, having a folding head and tail which generates a lot of servicing even if we don't need the folding capability.

I am pleased that you reach the same conclusions that I have in that UKcivSAR looks cheap at the moment because it takes experienced ex-mil crews who are already trained whereas in the future it will have to train its own and pay those big bills.

I think the Met police winching capability was aquired for reasons other than rescues:ok:

[3D CAM]

Crab


since one of the bidders has 2 ex-Gp Capts on board (3 if you count Andy B.

Perhaps you would like them back to train as winchmen?:ok:
3D

[hoistop]

Thanx Crab,

I noticed those complex folding systems on SeaKings- and was told that it is so complex that no one really knows how it works (some pun intended)
Yes, it takes maintenance manhours to make it work, it adds complexity and weight=reduces operational availability for nothing, as it is never used. I meant that these choppers were off line but not for schheduled maintenance but for snags that needed attention quite often.
Lee on Solent base with one engineer of course is not running maintenance on one pair of hands - when I was there, the whole main transmission was replaced, of course with help from Redhill. But day to day operations were much more "lean" compared with RAF style - and the mighty IJ worked like Swiss watch.
NVG is used in UK non military helicopter for many years by Devon&Cornwall ASU, flying BK 117, as far as I know. I know this is not entirelly civillian, but it is 100% under UK CAA supervision - so why Bristows couldn`t go that way?
I am aware of reasons for hoist installation to Metpolice ASU 145s, but... this is still the first in UK air support and maybe this capability might trigger an idea about some little rescues here and there-remember the tragedy some years ago when boat, full of celebrating high school graduates capsized in downtown London? Would FLIR, hoist SX-16 etc. equipped chopper, being on scene within minutes, make a difference? I think yes, but maybe some people are not comfortable with that idea... that is what I was asking.

hoistop

[Tonka Toy]

Vie and Crab,

I would just like to say that in my experience there is a constant proccess of training and development within CG SAR, whenever one pops into the 92 bases there always seems to be a mug in hand and planning of the next training flight. Certainly the fixed wing assetts are always at it, but their experience comes from live ops. If you go around the south east coast I would suggest you may find that CG / MCA, RNLI units see more of and interact more or just as regularly with CG assets fixed or rotary as the 'yellow peril'! And speaking with some degree of night SAR ops experience, I would much rather undertake them with the use of FLIR systems or other than a pair of green tubes. These are all splendid skills sets to have and I'm not saying it to be-smirch anyone, its just that I am happier operating low level at night with the benefit of FLIR systems than NVG in my particular environment. Equally the NV systems we have probably come under the 'pre historic' bracket by comparison to those Crab is using.

Finally I know this is a place to have a rant on occasion but I have to say, Crab, you make me feel just a little bit nervous at the prospect of working with you at some point. Whilst we never have much to do with our own rotary bretheren in CG one is almost getting to the point of having preferred work colleagues, and subconciously I keep thinking 'Crab' when I see something yellow and start looking around for a bonkers belgian, senior service, our own or if I'm really lucky something pavey, even though the 53's are no longer with us.

I hear and absorb your arguments Crab, but you are beginning to make me and a few others a little nervous!!! :O

[Vie sans frontieres]

Tonka Toy - you're missing the point.

It's the content of the training sorties that is all important.

[Nicholas Howard]

It seems to me that much has been made about the amount of training the RAF crews (is it the same for the RN crews?) versus their civillian counterparts.

Presumably the RAF (if not the MoD if RN SAR is the same) have made a watertight case for sustaining this expensive continuation training (or the bean counters would have stopped it)?


Can I ask what the plan is for SAR-H? Will the Service crews fly from seperate bases with different training levels (like now), or will the crews be mixed together? If the latter, whose training regime will be in force? Or are all of the answers to these question commercially sensitive?

Just asking (and hoping for some sensible replies...).

Nick

[rottweiler]

No VSF your missing the point, I appreciate English is not your primary Language but try listening to a balanced argument.

Nicholas Howard- I would hope that our differences can be put aside, which I am sure they would and certainly over time I am sure they would all but disappear. I have worked with and learnt new tricks from Civilians, ex Navy, ex Air Force and ex Army they all have something to bring to the table. That’s one of its strengths. Of course there are disagreements but that’s normal anywhere.

A more pressing point which I am sure the relevant authorities have addressed! whose rule book do we work to. Initial suggestions were that some basses would remain manned by Military Aircrew, with a Civilian registered and supported Aircraft. Think that might no longer be the case, however will wait and see. There is a great deal of experience of Civilianisation in the Air Force with Grobs, King Air, and Firefly all being G registered, there may be more but that’s all I know off. But think this case might require more thought. But obviously this will all have been sorted out, with the relevant authorities being approached!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bertie Thruster]

there may be more but that’s all I know off

The Firefly in particular, eh Rottweiler! :ok:

[Vie sans frontieres]

No VSF your missing the point, I appreciate English is not your primary Language

So rich in irony.

[rottweiler]

Hi Bertie-Absolutely, obviously have a thing for yellow aeroplanes.

[[email protected]]

Tonka Toy - I'm not sure why any of my comments should make you nervous and I think you should understand helicopter NVG ops and how we use them and FLIR. On an overwater night search for a person, we would use the FLIR on autoscan and be looking out of the window using NVG - the FLIR would only be effective if the moisture content of the air is low and there is a good thermal contrast.

NVG allow almost daytime flexibility in manoeuvring the aircraft, not something that can be done looking at a FLIR screen and allow you to search visually just as you would by day (although everything is in shades of green). You certainly cannot fly night overland at low level using a FLIR tv screen and at the moment no UK SAR helos have a heads up FLIR display - therefore NVG is the answer. The modern NVG tubes are very good but the quality of the NVG picture varies with light levels and weather - NVG is a piece of p*ss on a nice night but very demanding when the conditions are not so benign. Lots of training is the answer because, just like instrument flying, NVG flying is a perishable skill. When and if the civsar crews are allowed to use goggles they will have a large training burden to add to what they already do - we do almost as much night flying as we do day flying.

[Tonka Toy]

Thankyou Crab,

I've clearly not had the exposure to moisture content you have had in the NVG environment. Wouldn't mind an up to date look though from your perspective. Do you think the Watti or Lossie flts might allow a tag along for a look see one night?

I would say that it is incredibly hard to provide a quality service in the commercial environment. A bidder cuts his margins to the bone to win a contract, he therefore does not wish bright ideas or kit development to eat into that margin of profit. That management does not care how you do the job and has little understanding of what is involved, just don't touch his/her margin. I don't think you will enjoy a civil SAR set up, where even at the basic level, you pay for much out of your own pocket or take your chances!

[Tonka Toy]

Vie,

I suggest then that the content of the training is still going to boil down to the bottom line, -money! Something budget wise that the military don't have too much of a worry about. Where as in a civil environment we see more of Oliver and his begging bowl.

I think over the next few years in a civil SAR environment, we will see more efforts to cut cost by the use of fixed wing assetts to do the donkey work, the searching, and then bring in rotary assetts when required. 'Releaving' a bit more of the budget for rotary to train. Puts the onus on fixed wing but would only work if fixed wing is properly equipped, which it isn't at the moment!

[Clever Richard]

Tonka,

The point you make with regard to training is the one that Crab has been making for years and one that results in personal abuse, but little construtive comment, every time. We all know that the civilian crews could do everything the military crews do if they were allocated the same number of training hours and could operate to the same limits.



CD

[Hompy]

Just thought I'd have a look and see if the SARH contract or contract winners had been announced? Wasn't it meant to have happened last month? Any news anybody?

Just to add my 2pence worth to the preceding discussion, I think we should have an egg and spoon race between a nominated pilot from RAF SAR, Navy SAR and civillian SAR. Whoever wins will decide once and for all, who is the best SAR operator of them all! Egg and spoon requires the participant to demonstrate high levels of hand eye coordination under high levels of stress, physical fitness and spoon control.

Hompy

[[email protected]]

Ah but Hompy, if the RAF won the others would say it was because we had done too much training for it, the RN would claim a moral victory because it is only a secondary role for them as they are resting from proper 'front-line' egg and spoon races and the civilians would claim victory because they did it cheapest but with a really shiny new spoon:)

[leopold bloom]

I hear that final submissions will go in for examination in May with the outcome announced in July.

[rottweiler]

Got to agree with you there crab@. Now just lets see what fast balls the credit crunch can throw in to the melting pot.

[Bertie Thruster]

Good point there Rottweiler.

I wonder how much local support charity funded SAR helicopters would get?

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

As a Lakenheath brother in SAR, I can see the regional success of a charitable SAR service doing very well along the Southcoast whereby affluent patrons could get their names emblazoned on the nose of a shiny SAR helo. But dovetailing charity support into a UK MoD PFI would be a bit daunting don't you think? ;)

[Sven Sixtoo]

The big issue is that UKSAR is a NATIONAL resource.
So, when the Southern flights are all doing (eg) Gloucester floods, there is an Officer at Kinloss who has both the responsibility and the authority to redeploy assets so as to maintain the best coverage in the event of another emergency.

UK EMS helos are all charity funded, and are all tied to localities. With the greatest respect to the work they do, they are organisationally like the Royal Flying Corps in 1916. The advantages of air power - speed, flexibility, mobility, are being sacrificed on command and control boundaries.

The RAF SAR Force responds, as best as it can given the shoddy state of its machines, to any emergency anywhere in the UK regardless of conditions (other than temperature beow -7 in visibility below 1k)

EMS turn up within county boundaries. UKSAR will do its best wherever the incident happens to lie.

Is that not what we should expect from Government services?- regardless of the name on the side of the machine?

Sven

[Bertie Thruster]

UK EMS helos .............are all tied to localities

EMS turn up within county boundaries

Not our area of the UK!

Also during 7/7 incident we were put on standby (by ambulance control, following their national emergency plan) to move "down to East Anglia to cover their area if they are needed in London"

[3D CAM]

Sven

Is that not what we should expect from Government services?- regardless of the name on the side of the machine?

Spot on!:ok:
3D

[Tonka Toy]

Don't suppose PAVE driver was involved in the long range SAR the other month, way out west? Wouldn't it be great if we could all tank!

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

Tonka Toy,

Wasn't me, but was a couple of good friends that did it. Pretty challenging mission, tough winds and seas. Well planned and risk mitigated. Tanking is a blessing and a curse. When you exceed the PoNR and you have to tank to RTB in turbulence, it's a little nerve-wracking when the hose and drogue are bouncing around while your fuel gauge continues to drop. It's also a curse in that you can't get out of the seat in a 60 to stretch your legs or go to the non-existent crew relief tube.

I'm curious how you guys think it'll work with mixes of civil and military crews. How will the civvies get certified to the weather minimums that the military guys are used to? How are the MCA (CHC) guys doing it now? Waivers? Some interesting crew training dynamics could develop there but as previously mentioned, there's good techniques to be shared/learned by all.

Cheers and keep up the good fight for SAR-H.

[[email protected]]

PAVEHAWK - it was a good job well done without doubt but, out of interest, how many assets were required to get perform the rescue? I only ask to highlight the fact that such a capability only exists within the Military (even if it isn't ours).

I am led to believe that SARH will be military registered (civilian) aircraft to allow military rules and regulations to be used (neatly sidestepping civil regulation issues with NVG). Anyone from Soteria or Air Knight care to comment as this is the message we are getting from the IPT?

[rottweiler]

Sven Sixtoo-None of the Air Ambulances I know have been constrained by county boundaries, in fact they are generally keen to expand their exposure and hence revenue gathering potential. They are tasked by Ambulance control, not by the charity, by and large. So they could be brought in to play in any National Emergency as seen fit by Ambulance Control. Yes it is something that could be tidied up but if the Government gets involved costs will spiral, serviceability will collapse and we will have more civil servants than front line staff.

As for a charity funded SAR Helicopter, ask the RNLI about that.

Can not comment on Civilian/Military registration as I don’t know. Would suggest that getting dispensation for Civilians to fly to Military rules would be harder to get than an NVG clearance from the CAA, as by law we have to comply with CAA rules. Also you have to look at the engineering side, another can of worms. Not aware of any precedence in the UK for Civilians Flying Military with this complexity, in this country. But there are several units that have G registered aircraft flown by Milatary/Civilian crews. Bristows have a proven track record(20 years SAR) with getting things done with the CAA, get them to right the book and present it to the CAA. I am sure the relevant management teams will have thought this through!!!!!!!!!!!! And presented a solution to the authorities!!!!!!!!!!

[[email protected]]

Rottweiler - look no further than the Defence Helicopter Flying School at Shawbury to see civilians (no licence required) flying contractor owned, military registered (dual in fact I think) and operated aircraft to military rules and regs, including NVG.

The problem with the Air Ambulance setup is that it is parochial by nature and, whilst limited cross-border ops are not unusual, I don't believe a National response is possible under the present command and control structure (local assets for local people;))

[onevan]

Crab

I think you'll find the Mod has pushed the bidders to Mil registration as the IPT have stated that military crews will not be licensed. Something to do with colour of grass!
The CAA will accept NVG etc and are quite happy to go down the state aircraft route but they will not go against JAR OPS (rules) and EASA ( come 2012 - law) and allow you to use the old 'rule 26 - mil aircrew flying civvy machines to carry out their duty'.

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

Crab,

The job was done with two HH-60s, an MC-130P tanker, and a Nimrod for high flying C2 and RCC coord. Tons of other help from C2. Too many to name.

[arandcee]

Is the conversation about charity funded SAR serious?

Devon maintains two Air Ambulances through charitable donations and as advanced as they may be surely charitably funded SAR would be significantly more pricey?

AFAIK they only operate in the light, two crew(?), and an SAR machine is of course much larger/more complicated etc etc

Could you get one SAR machine for two air Ambulances (Ambuli?)

Compared to the one SAR machine you get, how many SAR helicopters of all colours are based in the SW Peninsular? Perhaps if you sell the Cornish AA and another county one (Dorset?) you could get another SAR helicopter?

Sorry if I'm taking this too seriously, or perhaps over-simplifying the argument. Do the RNLI have helicopters or have I mis-interpreted Rottweiler's comment?

Please ignore or flame at will . . .

[SARowl]

A friend in civvy-SAR has just told me that CHC is haemorrhaging money from the UK SAR contract and is about to make swingeing cuts. No pay rise, roster changes, no leave and even possible redundancies.

Blame is being laid at the amateurish management, poor planning and lack of knowledge about SAR. Obviously the Pilots are livid and BALPA are backing them up. Watch this space...

[Bertie Thruster]

Shades of Ruskin!

Common Law of Business Balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law_of_Business_Balance)

I wonder if Bristows will need a transition team to get it all back to square one?

Talking of transition teams.....I bet they got shafted too!

[SASless]

Sounds like the history of the GOM!

[[email protected]]

Sarowl - strangely, we had a visit from Soteria (CHCs partners in SARH) last week and they, by all accounts, were very upbeat and positive. Time will tell:ok:

Goodness me! Maybe I was right and there really is more to SAR than just civilianising it because it looks cheaper (if you don't know too much about it that is);)

[rottweiler]

Bristows managed it cheaper and more efficient for 20 years maybe they should get it back. Anyway crab how do you know it’s cheaper you can’t tell us how much you cost, too embarrassed maybe.

[Clever Richard]

Mr Rottweiler,

If Crab doesn't know how much MilSAR costs you obviously do otherwise you wouldn't be able to state that Bristows did it cheaper and more efficiently for 20 years.

Please provide a cost comparison at your earliest convenience.

CD

[detgnome]

Here here!

[jcheeverloophole]

A friend in civvy-SAR has just told me that CHC is haemorrhaging money from the UK SAR contract and is about to make swingeing cuts. No pay rise, roster changes, no leave and even possible redundancies.

Blame is being laid at the amateurish management, poor planning and lack of knowledge about SAR. Obviously the Pilots are livid and BALPA are backing them up. Watch this space...

An acquaintance advises its already started at CHC ABZ/UK who are seeking voluntary redundancies all round or flexible working with reduction in wages for certain non flying/non eng type disciplines.:uhoh:

The late CHC founder Craig Dobbin will be turning in his grave - it's an absolute disgrace :{

[[email protected]]

Yes Rottweiler - I would love to see those figures...cheaper AND more efficient for 20 years.... that must be why they lost the interim contract then:ugh:

Bristows crews had an excellent record in UK SAR and I believe their crews provided the backbone of the CHC effort when the contract changed. None of the cock-ups and problems are about crews, it is all about management, or lack of it, and money.

[Bertie Thruster]

The closely fought contest pitted CHC against the current operator, Bristow Helicopters, and British International Helicopters teamed with EADS.Although the interim five-year contract is expected to be worth only about £50 million ($86 million), the competitors saw it as an important stepping-stone to the larger SAR Harmonisation project, which envisages replacing all the UK’s existing civil and military SAR helicopter fleet from 2012.

Doesn't appear to be much chance of any profit there for 4 SAR bases over 5 years! Especially with 3 being 24hr ops.


Sounds just like the old Police air support unit story! Next thing you know the resident SAR pilots will be suggesting direct employment to the MCA!

[jcheeverloophole]

Isn't one of the bidders backed by RBS - given todays announcement about losses , wont be any money in the coffers then

Will one of the bidders kindly leave and close the door behind them :{

[Tonka Toy]

Soteria is effectively RBS - way too many fingers in the MCA pie there I think. - RBS and off shoots of! I suggest BT knows very well that the Transition team people didn't really have a very nice time of it and if Crab knew the real reason Bristows were divested of the contract he'd be violently ill, go and check his wardrobe was made up entirely of saville row suits and that there wasn't a bit of smart casual in site!! Because a bad night on Ben is going to look a dream after five minutes with the civil service!!:ok:

I mean that Crab! - It wasn't funny!:eek:

[rottweiler]

Clever Richard- Cost- That’s the real easy bit. Manpower is the most significant overhead or cost for any employer. MOD more so than anybody else, so all you have to do is compare manning. Go work it out for yourself as you are obviously Military. I am poacher come gamekeeper, have seen it from both sides, it’s a no brainer. Also it’s unlikely to affect me, so have no axe to grind except to stop the waste I have experienced. Mind you waste is not confined to the Military.
If your charity run Air Ambulance who also holds down a day job can give you running , start up and all other costs, why can’t MOD. As for working out the costs let the three big companies Auditors see your books, they will work it out for you, but then probably put in a bigger bid. By the way is there any truth in the rumour that UK Mil SAR has achieved the staggering serviceability rate of 72%. Even the Air Ambulance, bless their cotton socks achieves a significantly higher serviceability.

[[email protected]]

Tonka - that is a very intriguing post, would you care to elaborate (even by pm and discretion assured):ok:

[rottweiler]

Just read this today on BBC News

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: "This report shows that the MoD is riddled with incompetence.

Looks like even the Liberal Democrats have rumbled you.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

all you have to do is compare manning


If I read this right, are you saying that military SAR is therefore more expensive than civilian SAR because military SAR units have more people?

If so, then you're not comparing like with like. Each mil SAR unit has 2 aircraft and crews for both aircraft (current manning crisis permitting!) and a permanent overseas commitment. Unsurprisingly, the mil units need more people as they are providing a greater (NB - greater, I'm not saying better) service. If 2nd Standby is dropped, and mil SAR units operated a newer, less labour-intensive aircraft, and the Falklands commitment was removed, the manning requirement would drop significantly - which rather destroys your argument about manning costs.

Nor should 2nd Standby be frivolously cast aside - even in the last year or two, there has been plenty of trade for the 2nds aircraft all round the country, either assisting the 1st Standby at a major incident (floods passim, train crash etc), or dealing with a separate incident.

And did I hear recently that the SAR-H people aren't even going to undertake a direct comparison of the cost of a mil aircrew personage with a civ aircrew personage of the same trade? Could it be that the result of such a comparison would expose the fallacy of the inexplicable 'max 66 mil aircrew in SAR-H' policy?

[Clever Richard]

Rottweiler,

Excuse the pun but you are barking up the wrong tree. I am not military but have worked in the procurement world for some time hence my interest in your post earlier in this thread.

I'll take your response to my original question as 'don't know' unless, in the light of my civilian status, you are able to provide more details on those costings of civ v mil SAR.

CD

[3D CAM]

Torque,
Manning!!!
Crab and I have done this one to death, read back through the posts, we just go round in circles!:ugh:
3D

[leopold bloom]

I hear Bristows are going to re-join the fray with Air Knight.

[rottweiler]

3d cam- You might have done it to death, but you still fail to answer the question. You always come up with something to muddy the waters. How much do you cost, Simple. If you need to, put a caveat on it, like, we do this, this and this as well, then do it.

Torque-If you want a standby crew, put it in the contract and it will be provided. Same goes for NVG or anything else for that matter including 2 hours on drums. Whatever you want can be provided, it just needs to be written in to the contract. Then if it is not provided there will be penalties. It is that simple. However like you I felt uncomfortable without a standby crew. Now having been exposed to it I do wonder how cost effective it is. But that’s one for the bean counters and the crew that’s stuck in the water 200 miles offshore!

Clever- as you are no doubt well aware, the mil will not tell you how much they cost, state secret. However I know their manning levels and their commitments as I was one. Also when I was in I felt as they do, however in these financially tight times I want to see taxpayers money well spent not wasted. There is little to no Military gain from SAR, the crews are not rotated through so they spend their entire career at home (I know standfast Navy). The guys on the front line are hard pressed and could do with being rotated to a cushy number-SAR. The MOD is bankrupt and needs the cash elsewhere, kit for the troops on the front line. The Hierarchy has taken their eye off the ball with SAR, quite rightly, to concentrate on the front line. That’s why they have been thrown to the wolves. If this argument was fought on an R & R tour for the hard pressed front line I would be on their side. There are also other arguments for it remaining as it is, but in my opinion they have chosen the wrong argument to retain it. Mil manning, by its structure which they have failed to address, means they will always have to have more people on watch. That’s even if they have the same aircraft. The amount off backroom personnel would also not be entertained in the civilian world. As you may be aware personnel costs in the Mil are significantly higher, generous pensions, free medical care, etc. Their inability to get their aircraft serviceability up to a reasonable standard is not the guys on the grounds fault. But it is damming. Don’t let them fool you with the amount of hours flown, a North Sea aircraft flies significantly more hours and still achieves a much better serviceability rate. If the SAR aircraft is not on state there is no penalty, whereas the Civ company will be fined a significant sum, that tends to make them a bit sharper. There is more but I don’t want to bore you. The Air Ambulances/Police are much misaligned on here, yet they have a lot to teach the Mil in terms of cost and efficiency. As I have said before both worlds have something to give but some people don’t want to listen. Think that lot should get me shouted at.

[Jackonicko]

Or perhaps just quietly pitied?

[Clever Richard]

Rottweiler,

You made a lot of points in that last paragraph, many of which damned the military for being more expensive and less efficient than civilian SAR. In addition, you now state that the Air Ambulances have much to teach the military about efficiency.

My procurement background is getting the better of me, and I hate to sound repetitive, but unless you can provide a cost comparison you are merely making meaningless statements with no basis in fact. Of course you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it seems to be.

CD

[detgnome]

Last time I looked, provision of first aircraft availability (within the RAF) was up at around 97-98%. Not bad for an old aircraft which has suffered from poor spares provision in recent years.

[[email protected]]

Rottweiler, you are sadly revisiting all the points made on this and other threads about SAR and you have not brought anything new (except a bit of a rant) to the table.

The milSAR crews are being reduced to 4 per flight which still includes manning the Falklands and providing 2nd standby- the civsar crews need 5 per flight to meet EU working time directives.

You don't have a clue how much your operation costs so constantly banging on about how much we allegedly cost is pointless. Our engineering has been civilianised for over a year now so all the 'waste' has been removed according to your logic.

If milsar is so expensive, why do both remaining contractors want more than the 66 milpers in the final solution?

[Hilife]

I hear Bristow’s are going to re-join the fray with Air Knight.

IF true, then I’d imagine the price of teaming-up would be to accept all the risk on the technical side, with only a fraction of any reward and possibly a limited say on any platform solution.

It would also suggest that there were other reasons for pulling out last October - Lehman Brothers, base numbers and platform solutions come to mind.

Whatever, time will tell.

[rottweiler]

CR Without wishing to bang on if the mil would provide us with some figures we might be able to compare , ours are out in the open where are theirs. I can tell you the exact cost of a Civ SAR Captain, but I am not gonna.

[rottweiler]

detgnome- your having a laugh.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

read back through the posts, we just go round in circles


3D - Fair point, but we've got to keep this hamster wheel turning!

Rottweiler - What's funny about detgnome's post? His stats are accurate and surely those stats are worthy of praise given the circumstances.

TOTD

[gedney]

Rottweiler says that that the military's costs are a 'state secret', and laughs at the assertion of 97-98% first standby availability for the RAF SARF. Rottweiler, why not put in a freedom of information request asking for the military's cost and availability data; after all it's your right to do so as a taxpaper. You'll get the answers that you're looking for in due course, and when you do, why not post it on here?

He also says that his organisation's costs are out there for us to read - can we have a link to where to find them please, as recourse to the Freedom of Information Act doesn't exist for commercial organisations unless I'm very much mistaken?

[Justintime80]

Last time I looked, provision of first aircraft availability (within the RAF) was up at around 97-98%. Not bad for an old aircraft which has suffered from poor spares provision in recent years


Remind me again which day that was :ugh:



Justin

[rottweiler]

gedney- Just look back through this thread and you will find exactly how much the interim SAR cost. However I will give you something, I think its way to low, must be a loss leader.

[Winch-control]

Cost of a Civ SAR Captain? I can tell you, its the same as a Mil SAR Captain...Priceless, if it's me on the end of the wire!

[[email protected]]

Cost of a MilSAR captain - could be a first/second tourist on circa £40K or could be old knacker (like me) in the top 60s - CivSAR £65K to £70K minimum from what I read on these pages.

Most of our milsar flights have the younger, less well paid captains (about the same as the civ FOs I would guess) as the majority whereas all the civsar captains will be paid about the same. Who was cheapest again Rottweiler?

As for the 'I know the cost but I'm not going to tell you' remark - that really belongs in the playground and undermines any value of the rest of your posts:ugh:

Justintime - those availability figures are an accurate average over the last year.

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

UK PT War Pay - Academic Work, governance, and mod (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3398598/UK-PT-War-Pay)

Comparisons wouldn't be too tough. Happy computing!

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

UK PT War Pay - Academic Work, governance, and mod (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3398598/UK-PT-War-Pay)

Happy computing!

[Sven Sixtoo]

I'll just confirm Crab's point on pay.

27 years of MilSAR, 24 as a Captain, and I get about £65k. I am happy to do the job for that money - because for all its faults I am a member of the RAF team.

Any 24 yr CivSAR Captains out there willing to state what they earn? Without risk of going to Iraq (one shooting war) AFG (avoided thus far) or FI (2 yrs and 1100 flying hours)?

And BTW the RAF SAR Force currently has at least 6 people committed to ops in sandy places, and the rest of us are covering the resultant gaps in shift manning. Respite tour? I don't think so.

Sven

[Night Watchman]

Sven,

Not a problem. Civ P1 pilots anything between about 65k and 88k.

BUT what you have conveniently forgotten to mention is your index linked non contributory FINAL SALARY pension scheme and all the school fees!
I wonder when you consider that what your real salary would be?????? :ooh:

I'd love to have a tax payer guaranteed and funded final salary pension scheme and put my kids through private school. But to get the same benefits I would have to save a huge part of my pay which in real terms would make my pay less than yours.


Anyway, jealously isn't a particularly pleasant trait so enjoy your retirement when it happens, when I'm the same age I'll still be working.:ok:

[[email protected]]

Nightwatchman - the pension is good but the boarding school allowance is there to give kids stability instead of moving them every 2 years. It is the main reason that many stay in (me included) and the MoD knows it, it is the best retention measure that exists for those that want to take it up .

In real terms, I would have to earn another £50K to generate the £30K the MoD pays for my two kids to go to school. It's not everyone's cup of tea sending kids away to school and we only took up the allowance because of the poor local state schooling available here - just because I am serving doesn't mean my kids should be denied a decent education.

As Sven says - it is all the other crap that we have to put up with, which we would get paid extra for in civvystrasse, that balances the equation - FI, OOAs, ground tours, secondary duties etc etc. And we are not remunerated for extra qualifications - as an A2 QHI/IRE I don't get any extra dosh for the extra work or responsibility where a civilian equivalent would.

[Bertie Thruster]

Don't forget the (BALPA facilitated) annual pay bands for the off shore/SAR companies. Bristows already had (Sept '08) a line pilot earning £100,000+.

[Night Watchman]

Crab,

I’m not saying you guys don’t deserve the allowances you get. You work a difficult lifestyle and should quite rightly be compensated for it and certainly your kids schooling shouldn’t suffer because of it. :)

However, both you and Sven seem to be implying that a RAF pilot is cheaper than a civilian SAR pilot because you are paid less which is clearly not the case.

If we use your and Sven’s figures we accept that and RAF pilot earns between 45k and 65k (although Crab said top sixties we’ll work on the lesser one).

By your own admission you get 30k from the MOD for your kids schooling which takes the cost of an RAF pilot to around 75k-95k. (That schooling allowance would be equivalent to 48k pay increase, before tax, if you had to fund the schooling from your own pocket.)

Now we need to add the cost of a non contributory tax payer funded and guaranteed final salary pension scheme to the cost of an RAF SAR pilot.

I am no expert in pensions so I’ll need your help in working out exactly what your pension pot is worth. So if you could tell me what your pension will be when you retire, at what age you retire and how long you have to serve to get it, we can work out how much it costs to provide you with such a generous pension scheme.

As I said I have no issue with you being paid these allowances and in getting a non contributory pension scheme. I have to fund my own pension from my salary although my employer does contribute around 6.5k a year towards it. Unfortunately I have to suffer the vulgarities of the stock market to determine my final pension

You guys are on a first-rate deal (Good for you!) but let’s not mislead the forum by suggesting that an RAF pilot is cheaper!:=

[rottweiler]

Its how much you cost to the employer that counts. Thats where you mil guys will be expensive, just how much only the bean counters will know.

Your right crab I should have said not sure I should tell you, as I am not sure how commercially sensitive that kind of information is. But it adds up to substantially more than my pay and i dont have a final salary pension in there.

[Sven Sixtoo]

I see several points out of the recent posts.

Firstly, I'm surprised at how much Crab is getting in Continuity of Education Allowance. I hadn't realised that anything like that sum was available (I don't have children).

Secondly, while acknowledging that you would need a very big pension pot to guarantee the pension package I expect in a few years, it isn't non-contributory. Service pay is abated by, I think, 11% against the civil comparators used by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, to allow for the costs of pension provision. Now I doubt that 11% of my pay over the years, properly invested, would buy my pension, but it would go a substantial way towards it.

Most importantly, if we are having this sort of difficult conversation regarding pay in an online forum, what's it going to be like if those discussing are sat in the same aircraft doing essentially the same job? Are the divisions going to be a permanent source of friction, or will people see that the whole remuneration vs obligation package is actually significantly different for the different employment conditions of civil and military personnel?

And after we land away on Ops, will the civilian members of the crew do the post-op paperwork while the military chaps try to claim the cost of lunch on JPA? Or are civil company allowances equally as tedious to actually get your hands on?

Sven

[[email protected]]

Nightwatchman - the point that needs highlighting is the number of pilots who actually claim boarding school allowance (or CEA as it is now known). On the flight at Chivenor, I am the only pilot who claims it - as I said, the majority of RAF SAR pilots are younger guys and gals. I suspect that across the SARForce the percentage is very similar so our overall cost is much lower than you assume.

As for lack of final salary pensions - who chose to work in civvystrasse? No-one seems to get final salary pensions anymore - the fact that they exist in the Services is used to offset our pay levels which would have to be higher if we had to sort our own pensions out so it's a case of swings and roundabouts. Hopefully the only real advantage is that they are paid from the defence budget instead of some dodgy hedge fund - the only thing more gold-plated than that is to have been the boss of RBS:)

[Night Watchman]

Hi Crab,

I think I made it clear in my post that I have no problem with you having a final salary pension scheme. I don't like the pension arrangements I have but that was what is on offer and thats what I have to accept. You guys have a fantastic and very generous pension deal and long may it continue for you. :ok:

You and Sven were trying to imply that an RAF pilot was cheaper than a civilian pilot because you are paid less which is not true. If you were to take your pension pot and convert it to cash required to reproduce a similar scheme my guess is that in real terms an RAF pilot is paid a lot more than his civilian counterparts. I take your point that not everyone is in receipt of the £30k schooling provision.

To give you an idea my pension pot gets 14.6% of my salary each year (7.3 % comes from me) after 22 years I will get an estimated (cos it depends on the financial markets at the time) pension of 13.9% of what I am earning now.

You guys are paid less but you don't pay into your scheme so what % of your salary do you get and after how long? When we know that we can work out what your real pay is when you include your pension provisions.

And I'll say it again, I really have no problem with you getting a non contributory final salary scheme and your school fees! :) :)

[[email protected]]

Nightwatchman - according to the Armed Forces Pension calculator (available online) at the age of 55 (34 years service) as a Flt Lt on the Professional Aviator pay spine and the AFP05 pension scheme my final salary (at level 35 on PA) will be £74K and my pension will be £34K.

Suppose I live to 75 having retired fully at 55, I will get £680K to live off (just one year of Sir Fred Goodwin's pension!!!).

If you stay working in civvy flying until age 60 you will earn another 5 years of full pay (@£75K that is £375K) and then get 15 years of 14.6% (£11K) giving £165K and a total of £540K. If you keep flying to 65, that makes £750K pay and £110K pension giving £860K total.

It has been said that one reason Military pensions are so generous is that statistically not many of us live long enough to take them for very many years:{

[Tonka Toy]

Crab, how could you say such a thing about Sir Fred? he's (was) bank rollng Soteria - don't cha know!!! :E:mad::E

[[email protected]]

It will be interesting to see how much the financial viability of the 2 bidders determines the outcome of SARH. The technical details of the platform, training, basing etc don't leave much in terms of variation in order to meet the spec but awarding the contract to someone who isn't rock-solid financially would be an error.

[Tonka Toy]

I suspect that a large amount of 'stuff' is about to be shoved in the fan again regarding CG helicopters. :uhoh:

[Clever Richard]

Tonka,

You tease. Don't leave us in suspense with such a post.

CD

[[email protected]]

Well maybe we could borrow some CG rearcrew since we don't have enough for full SAR cover at the moment:(

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

not everyone is in receipt of the £30k schooling provision


I think it's worth reiterating the point Crab has already tried to make: very few people draw the CEA (rather than 'not everyone'). Crab is indeed something of a fogey amongst a reasonably young and somewhat impertinent RAF SAR Force!;)

Not a single SAR aircrew person at Boulmer did when I was there - Sven, any info from further down the east coast?

[Tonka Toy]

CD - wait for it, I can feel it in the air tonight!!!

Crab, Quick crash course at Valley and I'll happily exchange for a while!!

[Sven Sixtoo]

Nightwatchman

Crab and I are probably the two highest-paid non-executive captains in RAF SAR. So the RAF payscale stops at about the point that the civ payscale starts. Pay the differential (£23k on your and my figures) into a pension fund and what do you get over a career (OK, a banker with a lot of money, but you get the point?). The real point on this, though, is that we all made our career choices and we are where we are. When we (or people very like us a few years hence) are shoved into one crewroom with two very different employment structures, is it going to work? And if the answer is "maybe not", what should we be doing now to change that?

Sven

[[email protected]]

Sven - I keep being told that the 66 milpers will be integrated into the civsar flts but with very little detail as to how. One suggestion is to have Mil flt cdrs so that they can look after the career/trg/AT/leave issues of the mil pers. However, unless the flt cdrs are on the FI roster as well (unlikely since they need to be the flt cdrs), that reduces significantly the number available for the FI. I also can't see the civilians being happy with a mil flt cdr so maybe there will be one of each (which seems equally unworkable).

I don't believe the RN have fully grasped the implications of SARH and will probably declare UDI and maintain at least Culdrose as a RN unit (if they are allowed to). If so, will they be on the FI roster? If not and they are counted as part of the 66 milpers, that leaves about one flt's worth of RAF SAR to man the FI - how is that going to work?

If the milpers are integrated into the civsar flts and, according to EU working time directives it needs 5.7 crews to give 24/7 SAR cover, how many crews will need to be established at each flt to allow for the milpers being sent to the FI? You can't send the civvies to the FI because they need to be reservists to preserve the bayonet strength of the FI and, if that does happen, you have to say that just civilianising the FI det completely and letting Brintel do the lot is a much more sensible solution.

The most ridiculous situation is that of Wattisham - the worst place in the world to put a SAR flt but, in theory, it will remain because the 12 existing base solution has been mandated by the IPT.

Frankly a bit of a bugger's muddle.

[Bertie Thruster]

Crab, presumably MIL SAR captains still do their share of LHS (ie '1st officer' duties) on the Mil SAR flights? (in the '90s it was common practice for a Captain to do 5 out of 10 shifts in the LHS)

Wonder how the Civ units do this? Are 1st officers just LHS until promoted? When promoted do the Captains just stay RHS?

[Tigwas]

Crab, you make some valid points. However, I guess they will all be irrelevant by 2017. My guess is that by then there will be no Mil FI SAR requirement (probably no FI deployments)and the 66 Mil SAR personnel will be reduced to zero as it is finally recognised that the SAR skills necessary for SH and OOA operations can be met by the current helicopter training system. These unpalatable decisions will be forced on the military because of the lack of money available for Defence and the RAF will give up peripheral activities. This is not the cynic in me saying this but a pragmatic view of where we are. I understand that such thoughts are not new to those in power and it is only a matter of time.

[[email protected]]

Bertie - yes it still happens that way so that the copilots get to develop their handling skills in the RHS with an Op capt in the LHS.

Tigwas - the problem is that under SARH, the MoD pay 65-70% of the bill which is increased towards that maximum as each mil flt is handed over. It is in the MoDs interest to slow the transition down otherwise they are still paying for the Sea Kings (OSD 2017) as well as the SARH aircraft. If the military is removed completely from the equation then the bill will have to be paid from another govt department.

I don't know how easy it will be to amend the contract once it is signed but I expect it to involve lots of lawyers and be expensive so it is better to get all the problems ironed out before the signature.

All of these issues could have been resolved if the govt and the MoD and been able to concentrate on the issue instead of fighting wars on two fronts. The contract award is due later this year and signatures expected early 2010 so there isn't much time to sort out the detail of how it will all work.

The FI situation won't go away as long as Argentina still lay claim to the Malvinas and the Islanders still want to remain under British rule. I can't imagine the govt easily giving up something we went to war over, has potential oil and mineral wealth and is a strategic access point to the Antarctic.

[SASless]

strategic access point to the Antarctic

Perhaps there is still hope for an Empire yet....huh Crab?:rolleyes:

[handysnaks]

Sort of war we might win sas, a barren desolate sh*thole with very few people living there!!

[[email protected]]

We can still build empires Sasless - take a look at the new SARFHQ at Valley;)

[SASless]

Complete with a new golf course perhaps?

[[email protected]]

Sasless - I thought you were a Telegraph reader not the Daily Mirror!!;)

[JIGSPY]

Has CHC given up on the SARH contract as it seems to be alienating its specialist workforce?:ugh:

Amazed!!

[bleepup]

Shame the guys and girls work hard for the company on the islands and the management have really done themselves no favours.

[3D CAM]

Jig
CHC would not give up on SARH! There are too many managers and hangers on creaming off large salaries for that.:mad:
They are more intent on screwing the whole existing SAR team.
Then they can claim that they are not in a position to go any further because their Crews have all done a runner!!!:ugh:
3D

[[email protected]]

Where's Arthur Scargill when you need him?

[bleepup]

Then they can claim that they are not in a position to go any further because their Crews have all done a runner!!!


But haven't the 3 that left up North been replaced! But i believe 2 new recruits have had a phone call to say sorry no job now!

[Fareastdriver]

Perhaps there is still hope for an Empire yet....

Much in the same way as the Marianas, Samoa and Guam.

[SASless]

Crab,

Actually I have never been able to keep it straight.....Sun or Mirror and keep getting it all confused. Why they waste two full pages defeats me!:E

[[email protected]]

So is this really going to be the future of UK SAR? A contractor with dodgy funding who first puts aircraft not fit for the job into service and pretends everything is OK - then when the money gets tight starts to screw the professionals at the coal face by changing terms and conditions without negotiation, asking for more work for the same money and pushing the boys and girls towards industrial action.

In the Military this would be considered a Flight Safety hazard and certainly not conducive to providing a top quality, well motivated SAR force of the future.

I have no idea if Air Knight would be any better but so far CHC seem to be demonstrating all the reasons why I have had such deep misgivings about the whole SARH process:(

I understand the desire to civilianise SAR but if it has to be so, it should be a 'not for profit' organisation so that the bottom line doesn't keep compromising the front-line.

[Hoppit]

Crab,

I wouldn't worry much about CHC. As they eagerly pi$$ off and alienete the entire work force, it will undoubtedly come to a grinding halt soon.

Wether it be Oil & Gas or SAR, the management seem keen to mismanage their way to destroying the business. :ugh:

Sad........:sad:

[Clever Richard]

There is an article in the latest Flight International about the delays and cost overruns of the US Presidential VH71 programme. An alternative that has been proposed is an upgrade to the USP's current fleet along the lines of the Carson blades/glass cockpit project.

I won't spoil the surprise about the savings that can be made, see for yourself, but they are enormous. To be honest, I don't have the technical ability to know how to post a link, sorry.

Now, if it's good enough for the President of the USA ...........

CD

[Tonka Toy]

Crab, great idea, 'not for profit', maybe a small one but more the priviledge of holding the contract and doing the job than any profit motivation. Any for lord sake, someone at the MCA who can stand up to contractors and say, don't crap and don't perform like crap!

[SASless]

Perhaps the CAA would like to take this over as they are in the forefront of safety and innovation. Add the small profit that could be made as suggested and they could add that to their requirement to be self supporting.

The flying opportunities for their Inspectors would be a real boon. They could be put on rotating rosters much as military pilots are moved to desks between flying tours.

There you go Crab....problem sorted!

[[email protected]]

No Sasless - that is an empire that really doesn't need to be built:)

[flyer43]

Where's Arthur Scargill when you need him?
Surely you wouldn't want him to get involved. He failed last time!

[sapper]

Regretably Chivenor drops to 12 hour SAR cover, 0800-2000, for the following days 11,12,13,22,23 March.
Sorry it's come to this but understandable.

Spr

[[email protected]]

Yet the Falklands is fully manned with 2, 4-man crews:{

[3D CAM]

If Crab has got any hair left, I'll bet it is getting ripped out now!:sad: Chin up fella, it can only get better!:hmm:
I've got to ask though, who is covering the Western area of Lyme bay at night? That's quite a long slog for Culdrose!
3D

[[email protected]]

An excellent question 3D - probably the French!!!

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Oh.. that's alright then! Makes me feel a whole lot better!:D
3D

[sapper]

3D & CRAB

When this restricted cover was announced it was suggested to the ARCCK that as the Portland SAR flight has always been day cover 0900-2100, would it not be better for Chivenor to cover the nights for these 5 days.

Suggestion turned down, possibly along the lines of "not invented here" :hmm:

[TwoStep]

AirKnight and Soteria announced their preferred helicopter types today.

AirKnight: EC225
Soteria: S-92

No mention of the 139...

[Spanish Waltzer]

No mention of the 139

In some ways doesn't that prove the worth of having had an interim contract. The 139 was considered a sensible option for UK SAR. It has been operationally 'trialled' and as a result of a range of factors a decision has been made not to look to continue with it. The S92 in the same vein has also been 'trialled' and come up as the preferred contender from one of the bidders. We now have 2 options on the table both with a pedigree of SAR ops behind them. Surely that can only help the decision makers in their final deliberations?

Imagine the costs / knock on effects if an S92 / 139 mix had won the full SAR(H) contract and 5 years down the line they tried to stop 139 ops. Crab would have had a field day:ok:

[TwoStep]

Fair point SW, but a surprise when you consider how much a two-type operation was talked up. I wonder if the EC175 was ready in time, would the idea be looked at again.

[boomerangben]

So no surprises there then. But what concerns me is the ability of modern high disc loaded helicopters to recover people from life rafts. Viz the helicopter only recovering 3 out of 18 people from the recent North Sea ditching (although I don't know if that was due to the aircraft or because the standby boat got there first). Has anyone any experience of this on the aircraft types proposed? Will the bidders be required to demonstrate this and other abilities prior to a choice being made? Does this issue matter to the SARH team?

[TwoStep]

Soteria announces S92 solution for SAR-H

Soteria, the team bidding for the harmonised UK search and rescue helicopter (SAR-H) contract, has announced the Sikorsky S92 as its preferred choice of aircraft for the new service.

The Soteria Consortium – comprising CHC Helicopter Corporation, Thales UK and the Royal Bank of Scotland – says the aircraft is already proven in the SAR environment and represents an effective, reliable, value-for-money proposition.

Soteria is taking part in the competitive process led by the Ministry of Defence and Department of Transport to create a single SAR helicopter entity to succeed the existing service, provided across a number of organisations.

David Rae, Soteria Bid Director, says: “We are absolutely confident that the S92 is the right aircraft for this new era in UK SAR services. Specifically configured for SAR operations, it has already established an excellent track record and possesses the power, speed and technological capabilities to deliver SAR services in the most testing of conditions.

“As a platform it is safe, robust and dependable. It is versatile and well suited to performing tasks across the full spectrum of SAR activity.

“The Soteria team brings together partners who offer diverse yet complementary skills and experience to deliver an innovative, value-for-money solution, and we believe the S92 is the right choice of airframe to meet the demands of SAR-H in the long term.

“We have been determined throughout to create an offering that meets the very specific challenges of a service to be provided from multiple bases for the 25-year plus lifespan of the contract, and the S92 is absolutely pivotal to that offering.”

CHC already has significant direct experience of operating SAR S92s in the UK, deploying them from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) bases at Stornoway and Shetland as part of its interim contract with the agency. The S92 has proved extremely successful in the most challenging environment that the UK has to offer and it has been repeatedly tested in response to a diverse range of operational SAR missions – totalling over 300 to date - while maintaining impressive aircraft availability levels in excess of 98%.

The S92 is a technology-led aircraft that represents the long-term future of UK SAR and Soteria is proud to have the aircraft at the heart of its bid.

AIRKNIGHT ADVANCES SAR-H SOLUTION BY SELECTING EUROCOPTER’S EC225

AirKnight, the teaming of Lockheed Martin UK, VT Group and British International Helicopters, is advancing its solution for the UK’s Search and Rescue Helicopter (SAR-H) programme through selection of one of the world’s most advanced and versatile helicopters, the Eurocopter EC225.

SAR-H is a joint Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA) Private Finance Initiative project for the provision of a harmonised SAR helicopter service around the UK, and the Falkland Islands. Starting in 2012, SAR-H will see a new fleet of dedicated rescue helicopters that will provide a harmonised service for the UK for up to 30 years.

“The new SAR-H service must continue the legacy and outstanding reputation the current service has established. AirKnight will offer a low risk, responsive SAR service that the UK public can depend on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” said Tom Gordon, AirKnight bid director. “Lockheed Martin and VT is a proven partnership with the right combination of skills and experience to deliver a comprehensive SAR service and the financial stability to deliver this PFI programme.”

Lockheed Martin and VT are recognised as leading providers of critical services to Government customers ranging from emergency services to air traffic control, and have a proven track record of successfully managing risk and delivering high availability on capability -based contracts in demanding environments. Through the Ascent joint venture, Lockheed Martin and VT are working together to deliver the UK’s Military Flying Training System programme. British International Helicopters has extensive helicopter experience in the challenging Falkland Islands environment.

“To complement our robust service offering, AirKnight has selected the EC225 helicopter, which is performing SAR operations today in some of the harshest maritime environments with unmatched mission and cost effectiveness,” adds Tom Gordon. “It has an outstanding safety and service record, was initially designed for the demands of search and rescue missions, and is extremely reliable.”

The EC225 is the latest member in the long-serving Super Puma family of helicopters which have flown in excess of 4,000,000+ operational hours. Well suited for SAR, the EC225 can carry 12 or more casualties, fly for more than 500 miles unrefuelled and has a door each side to ease casualty recovery. Coupled with a unique 4-axis automatic flight control system specifically designed for helicopters and SAR, the EC225 has been selected for SAR and Coastguard applications in countries including Japan, China, South Korea and Norway.

“AirKnight’s heritage, coupled with the EC225’s performance, is an incredibly strong base for SAR-H,” said Tom Gordon. “The strength of this team will guarantee the successful delivery over the full life of the programme.”

[Spanish Waltzer]

Has anyone any experience of this on the aircraft types proposed?

I think the CHC S92 / JIGSAW super puma operators in scotland will have had their fair share over the past few years.

[Jackonicko]

What a delicious irony!

The UK manufactures probably the best SAR helicopter in the world, in the shape of the AW101, and shortlists the S-92 and the Super Puma.

Yes, yes, I know, it's the bidders' choice, and we're selecting bidders to run a SAR service, not aircraft. And we're doing that because it has to be a PFI.

Remind me again, why do we want to go down the PFI route?

From April it's no longer 'off book spending', and aren't there some difficulties in the financial markets that make PFIs a tad tricky, at the mo?

Haven't PFIs been discredited enough yet?

Is it really so vital to funnel taxpayers money into shareholder profit for the bid teams that we need to procure the wrong aircraft and flush a gold standard (military run, not-for-profit) SAR operation down the toilet?

Or am I being naive again?

[Spanish Waltzer]

Or am I being naive again?

....no Jacko just bringing that hamster wheel back round to the top again:ugh::ugh:

Seriously though I think most people agree with / support the 'not for profit' argument but that only works if the govt of the day are prepared to fund the service out of public money - whether it be channelled through a military department or a dept of transport / coastguard one. Can you honestly see any of the clowns in the circus of westminster fighting that corner in the present climate.

Next best option appears to be PFI and there are some success stories. Look at DHFS.

regards,

SW

[[email protected]]

Jackonicko - not quite sure where you got the idea that the AW101 is probably the world's best SAR helicopter from - was it an AW press release perhaps?

The unfortunate thing about stating a type at this stage is that we may end up choosing the bidder by platform rather than by the quality of the bidder.

I think from a pilot's perspective there may not be much to choose between the S92 and the EC225 but from a rearcrew standpoint, the S92 wins hands down in terms of space and ease of movement in the cabin.

[mick2088]

Wouldn't the AW101 have been offered for the Air Rescue consortium that pulled out last year and included AgustaWestland?

[SASless]

AirKnight heritage?

Lockheed Martin using EC-225's?

Whoa....what about the VH-71 Airframes that might be surplus in a few weeks?

[leopold bloom]

rearcrew standpoint, the S92 wins hands down in terms of space and ease of movement in the cabin
A very subtle pun there Crab.:D

[[email protected]]

Mick 2088 - yes it was but because of the extra cost of the 101, the sums only added up if there were less than 12 bases. Once the 12 base solution was mandated it made things a bit tricky.

[[email protected]]

Sapper - I think the real reason for choosing to give daytime cover is for FJ flying (our primary duty). It is not the MoD's fault that there is no overnight winching cover in the Channel - see CHC for that one.

On that note- any further developments regarding pay, terms, conditions and possible industrial action?

[Jackonicko]

".......where you got the idea that the AW101 is probably the world's best SAR helicopter from - was it an AW press release perhaps?"

AW releasing anything useful or relevant? YGBSM.

No, not from a release, just from talking to Canadian operators who seem very pleased with it, availability aside. And they do have a lovely new shed to make up for the spares they didn't buy.....

The Danes seem to be pleased, too, now they have finally got it into productive service.

[sapper]

Crab

Re Industrial action. A deathly silence covers that subject, didn't partisipate anyway.
Spr

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

Thought it would be fun to mix up the discussion a bit and discuss one of the consortium names. Has anyone noticed the ironic trademark name? This is purely in good fun not malice!

Soteria. While in the simplest interpretation it’s the latin translation of the greek word for salvation or "to save" which on the surface seems appropriate for the mission. If you break it down etymologically though, you find that Sot = stupid or drunk to the point of stupidity. and eria being an organism, disorder or disease. So, one could say that Soteria is a painfully progressive stupidity disease, or that they’re a bunch of drunk SAR crews and businessfolk. Either way I’m sure you brilliantly-witted British rotorheads will come up with some funny repartee on this theme.

Further digging in Wikipedia reveals that Soteria is also a center for holistic mental illness treatment. No matter how you slice it, I believe that thorough trademark research wasn't conducted for this business name. It's just too easy a target :D Thoughts, volleys, parrys?

[Jackonicko]

Parries, surely?

Sorry, but your intelligent linguistic/semantic questions made it irresistible.

What do you make of US101 (HH-71) for CSAR-X?

[Hilife]

I would have thought the biggest threat to the HH-71 is the spiralling costs of the VH-71 program.

That aside, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if C-SARX didn’t feature in the 2010 US Defense Budget.

[[email protected]]

Pavehawk - I think Soteria's problems lie in two 3-letter areas at the moment - CHC and RBS :)

[Bertie Thruster]

Some still around the SAR world remember this as the best SAR cab.......

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/CCF03032009_00000.jpg

[mick2088]

Kind of defeats the purpose of PFI doesn't it? The now majority state-owned RBS part of Soteria (who I'd assume were the financial backers for the bid). Might as well keep military SAR as it is, get some new helicopters on COMR and sign a partnership agreement with a company to maintain the things once in service.

[ninefromten]

Bertie Thruster - not the best example of the whirlwinds performance as, a few seconds after that photo was taken, the helicopter suffered an engine failure and ditched off the back of the boat. It was a demonstration to the press off Thorney Island in 1955 to mark the the re-formation of 22 Sqn in the helicopter role. Fortunately happened as the helicopter was moving back in to pick up a 'volunteer' reporter strapped into a stretcher.

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

Jacknicko, :O Touche! You caught me. In my zeal to be humorous, I forgot my audience and the Queen's English..

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

Jacknicko & Hilife

While the VH-71 may present some challenges for CSAR-X I believe that the vendor has sufficiently distanced themselves from that program to avoid collateral risk. The bigger issue as Hilife pointed out is the 2010 budget. If OSD decides that each service must sacrifice one or two big programs to fund the perennial war on terror, then it'll be up to each service Chief of Staff to prioritize and defend his key programs. Gen Schwartz has twice now said in public that he would cancel some other program before his top two priorities (tanker and CSAR-X) so time will tell. We pray CSAR-X doesn't get cancelled because our Hawks are dying on the vine from overuse.

[USAFPAVEHAWKDRIVER]

Crab,

I apologize for not being "up to speed" as a new member of this thread. What do you mean by "Soteria's problems"? I wasn't aware that they had any with all the good press about MCA Shetland and Sumburgh rescues; barring of course the publisized one where the S-61s had to come in and perform. It seemed that they were doing well. Do tell..

[[email protected]]

USAFPAVEHAWK - it was a dig at a consortium who are bankrolled by RBS (who should have been allowed to go under) and use the management skills of CHC (trying to change terms and conditions of crews without negotiation, introduced a SAR aircraft into service that wasn't fit for the job - accepted by an offshore pilot with no SAR experience I gather - and employ a guy who was universally hated when he in the RAF and who seems to be doing a similar job in civvystreet).

Apart from that Soteria are doing fine, after all they have the lovely Nicky working for them;)

[Spanish Waltzer]

From another thread:

MGB failures been my biggest fear flying the 92. We have had a number of failures in the last 12 months, all fortunately over land, and this has had us all waiting for the inevitable water ditching. The problems are known, and now Sikorsky must ground the fleet, and fix this problem before this happens again.

and:

I have never read a thread where drivers are asking so explicitly for a fleet to be grounded till the problem is resolved. I hope somebody of the investigating body is reading here....


It is still very early days but there surely will be an impact of this on the UK SAR S92 operators now and not good timing for the soteria bid.

SW

[Hilife]

SW

Whilst noting your comment on the fallout from this tragic incident, there have been three Puma accidents (two over water) already this year with two of them also resulting in fatalities, so not a good start to the year for either platform.

2009 has not been kind to the rotary industry, so hoping the outlook will improve.

[Tonka Toy]

Don't think this yera sbeen tolo kind at all to anyone really - unless you paddle the Hudson.

Tell us about Nicky Crab, I could do with some entertainment!!! . . . . . .shes not a he is she!!!?:\

[thorpey]

Definately not! Only met her twice and definately a her.

[[email protected]]

Yes, she has a couple of outstanding features...........................her eyes of course;)

[Tonka Toy]

I'm still completely clueless about this Nicky!!!?

Q. If Pave had a choice would he trade in his 60 for a 53?

[busdriver02]

I don't know if you guys would consider the Pavehawk a "high disk loaded" helo. But, I have found that when dealing with a raft, a higher hover (around 70ft) alleviates the raft flipping phenomenon. If I was doing this purely visual, it'd be very hard, but with INS referrenced hover cues, it's pretty easy and if you through in a hover coupler, it's a complete non-event.

[[email protected]]

Not so busdriver since the INS hover cues and a hover coupler will not keep you over a raft which is subject to wind, waves and downwash. All you need are reasonable visual cues and a good winch op's patter.:)

[busdriver02]

crab, I know what you're talking about, but all it takes is a bit of re-caging your brain to what a "stationary" hover is. If you center the cues and the hoist operator keeps telling you to stop right, then you figure out that a left drift is required to stay over top the raft. I've found the more I do night water, the less I rely on outside references and the more I rely on hover cues and the back-end talking to me. The normal hover height for a hoist is 40ft for us. I started using the higher heights in the Gulf of Mexico, where the waves are very small. Rotor wash seems to be a bigger problem in flat sea conditions than it does in higher sea states. Although I will admit, my experience in heavy seas is only about 3 months old.

My hover coupler comment was intended to reference the systems where the hoist operator actually controls the aircraft, of which I actually have zero experience since our system is basically an Atari brain and very poor at holding a hover.

[Spanish Waltzer]

student,

There have been many before you who have asked similar questions. Stand by for a torrent of abuse about not being the right sort of character to be a mil pilot if you are already thinking about going civvy. The mil lifestyle is such that to get to the point where you become 'useful' to a civvy company, either fixed wing or rotary, means a significant personal and professional commitment to whichever service you join. In other words dont even consider joining if your actual reason is to get free flying training before jumping ship...it simply doesn't work like that.

With regards to SAR, RN pilots have generally done a number of years 'front line' before being given a SAR tour. Some might then manage to stay SAR for a while, others will just do 2-3 years before returning to other duties. Post 2012 when SAR-H starts to take hold the numbers of mil pilots in SAR will be massively reduced. You can work it out for yourself but the chances of new mil pilots getting in will be equally massively reduced as the old boys who for whatever reason are not transfering to the new company will be hanging on in there.

Good luck and if you succeed in your ambition to fly for the RN you will be joining a fantastic family - you just need to make sure you join with the right attitude and expectations otherwise you may find fitting into the family more difficult. :ok:

[HeliEng44]

Is see most of this thread is about the cons and pros of the aircraft, terms and conditions, the difference between civvy and military? What about the engineers where are they going to come from it is generally excepted that there is a shortage of B1-3 and an even worse shortage of B2 engineers, are there enough out there and how many would you require per base it seems that this side of the of the argument has been forgotten

[Spanish Waltzer]

HeliEng

I agree - particularly as the majority of the present civ engineers working the SKIOS programme are not / and do not require to be licensed. I would hope that once the winning bidder & aircraft are announced then those working in the SKIOS deal will be approached with an attractive training plan. At the end of the day these guys and girls are already based at the locations and working within the SAR ethos so seem an ideal source of engineering manpower....we shall have to wait & see.

SW

[[email protected]]

It will probably depend on whether the aircraft is CoCo, CoMo or CoMr.

Student - the RN regard SAR as a secondary role, the RAF regard it as a primary one - take your pick:ok::)

[Spanish Waltzer]

crab - not sure the RAF, outside the SAR Force, regard it is a primary role anymore either :ok::ok:

certainly, as things stand, post 2012 RAF manpower in SAR will be extremely limited too.

SW

[3D CAM]

HeliEng.
Recent advert in Flight for Engineers for SAR. As well as crews!! Someone is at least trying to think ahead! Soteria??:hmm: Air Knight??:hmm: But just where they are all going to come from is a mystery?
3D

[[email protected]]

SW - sad but true, the 'big RAF' will miss us when we're gone if only for the PR.

As for mil manning, I believe 2/3 to 1/3 RAF to RN and I'm not sure if that means the RN will be joining us for our increasingly regular trips to Mount Pleasant.

[Tonka Toy]

Crab, you know full well the RAF have the finnest PR machine of the lot! And they do't have to do a thing! It's all done for them!!!!!

[[email protected]]

Nice to see the 139 from Lee at Chiv today, thanks to the chaps for showing us round it:ok:

Sexy looking machine but not built for SAR (when people say the cabin is small they mean the cabin is small!) - however, Lee to Chiv in 45 mins isn't to be sniffed at, if we manage a return visit in the SK it will take an awful lot longer than that!

[Tonka Toy]

Crab!!! -You be careful, your heirs and betters will read this and lump you with one! - You know you won't like that!!!

3D try Qatar!!

[Walrus75]

and use the management skills of CHC (.... and employ a guy who was universally hated when he in the RAF and who seems to be doing a similar job in civvystreet).

Would that be a certain nasty little man with a massive Napoleon complex by any chance?? :* All this talk about the mis-management of CHC personnel et al is certainly worrying, which leads onto...


...I would hope that once the winning bidder & aircraft are announced then those working in the SKIOS deal will be approached with an attractive training plan. At the end of the day these guys and girls are already based at the locations and working within the SAR ethos so seem an ideal source of engineering manpower....we shall have to wait & see.
Here's hoping, fingers crossed.

[smc33]

Just watched on Sky News, the 4 S92 SAR helos in the UK have been grounded following the Newfoundland crash......anyone got any info??

[Walrus75]

the 4 S92 SAR helos in the UK have been grounded following the Newfoundland crash......anyone got any info??

Something to do with this maybe...
http://bondpapers.*************/2009/03/s-92-crash-investigation-finds-broken.html

[Oldlae]

smc33.
Have a look at the Newfoundland thread.

[Clever Richard]

This, normally very active thread, has been very quiet for some time. Is there no news to report? In the absence of news I'll settle for rumour, no matter how unsubstantiated.

CD

[SASless]

Crab,

As the RN once trusted me to recover their super secret torpedo things up at Rassay.....as a civvie.....why not just contract out the most enjoyable posting down south. I am sure Bristow has a few SAR capable 61's left in the stable collecting dust.

Likewise....contract out the Chinook flying to Columbia and Bob's yer uncle!

[Cabe LeCutter]

SASless,
I think that the place that you mentioned has already been covered. It is still classed as an Operational Theatre for reasons that cannot be discussed here. The military guys are part of the bayonet strength ie they can be used as troops when the chips are down, that is why the civilian engineers are all military reservists.
The helicopters are not owned by the SAR force, but by the Permenant Joint Headquarters ie the guys who mount the deployed operations, the crews are on loan and the chinook has been withdrawn for some time.
I for one would be delighted not to ever go back to the place and I am sure that others would agree, but at the end of the day, the army want a platform that they "think" has military capabilities. Army, think !!!!!!!!!!!:p:p

Head down, look out for the flack

[OC Briz]

AIRKNIGHT propose new platform choice to align with MOD funding profile.....


http://www.heirloomwoodentoys.com/Air-Knight-Pedal-Airplane-Red-pr-18795.html

[leopold bloom]

Is it true that Service SMEs reviewing the bids were asked to sign an undertaking not to join either of the bidders in the future and some refused? If so are the bids being reviewed by credible SMEs? Perhaps Crab could enlighten us?:confused:

[Clever Richard]

Mr Bloom,

Try submitting a Freedom of Information request. If your concern is genuine, and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, then it is a legitimate question to ask given the importance and cost of the SAR-H project. Also, it definitely qualifies as being in the public interest.

CD

[[email protected]]

Leopold - I can certainly say with confidence that all the Service SMEs are 100% credible and also that they have brought the quality of the bids a long way in the last couple of years. Many pertinent and probing technical questions were asked by them about claimed capability and training and the bidders have had to raise their game significantly.

It isn't a surprise that they might have been asked to sign a contractual waiver and I'm also not surprised that some might have told people to ram it - these guys have been working very hard to improve the future of UK SAR and the MoD doesn't want them so why shouldn't they work for the winning bidder? None of them will allow that to skew how they view and rate the bids because, unlike our politicians and many businessmen, they have integrity.

[L2driver]

From AINonline today

<H1 class=head_cblk_18px>Conclusion in sight for UK’s SAR competition

By: Bernard Fitzsimons
June 1, 2009
Rotorcraft (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/conclusion-in-sight-for-uks-sar-competition/news/rotorcraft/)


Selection of a preferred bidder could emerge before the end of this year in the UK’s search-and-rescue helicopter (SAR-H) procurement process, which aims to replace the country’s existing mix of military and contractor-operated helicopters with new machines operated by a single commercial consortium under a private finance initiative (PFI) contract.

The two groups still vying for the contract recently revealed their choice
of platform. The AirKnight teaming of Lockheed Martin, VT Group and British International Helicopters is proposing the Eurocopter EC 225, while the rival Soteria consortium of CHC Helicopter, Thales UK and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has opted for the Sikorsky S-92.

A third team, UK Air Rescue, formed initially by Bristow Helicopters, Serco and FB Heliservices and joined subsequently by AgustaWestland, withdrew last year, citing unspecified commercial reasons for bowing out. It had been expected to offer the AW101, probably in combination with a smaller type, but the other bidders’ selection of a single helicopter suggests the option of a mixed fleet might have been ruled out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and Ministry of Defence, which are managing the SAR-H program.

The winning bidder’s machines will replace the 30 search-and-rescue Sea Kings operated by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy from eight bases. Helicopters at
four other locations are operated under a five-year interim contract by CHC, which currently deploys S-92s at the northern Scottish bases of Sumburgh and Stornoway and AW139s at two bases on the south coast of England. The SAR-H contract is due to start in 2012 and run for up to 30 years at a cost of at least £3 billion ($4.5 billion).

Revealing his team’s choice of platform, Soteria bid director David Rae said it was “absolutely confident that the S-92 is the right aircraft for this new era in UK SAR services.” The type is specifically configured for SAR operations, he said: “It has already established an excellent track record and possesses the power, speed and technological capabilities to deliver SAR services in the most testing of conditions.”

CHC says its S-92s have proved extremely successful in what it describes as “the most challenging environment that the UK has to offer.” They have been called out more than 300 times and recorded availability levels of better than 98 percent.

AirKnight bid director Tom Gordon pointed to the EC 225’s ability to carry 12 or more casualties and fly more than 500 miles unrefueled, and the provision of doors either side of the cabin to make casualty recovery easier. “It has an outstanding safety and service record, was initially designed for the demands of search-and-rescue missions, and is extremely reliable,” he said.

An AirKnight spokesman said the two teams are engaged in an ongoing “competitive dialogue” with the MCA/MoD. A new technical tender is due to be submitted this month, followed by a best and final financial proposal later in the summer, with selection of the preferred bidder possible before the end of the year.

</H1>

[leopold bloom]

Crab, thanks for the info glad to hear the A team are still on the case.:ok:

[carlhooper]

Just to add a quick question..? Will the 92's be cleared to land on un-prepared sites? They've had problems in the mountains recently. What will change if they get preferred bidder? I thinkit's a ground clearance + nvg limitation.

[Lioncopter]

Eh what specifically have been the problems with the s-92's in the mountians?

[Bucaneer Bill]

Presumably those that are not included in the sixty six will be available to join their light and dark blue brethren in expeditionary adventures? I don't know how the figure of sixty six was derived, but I understand that the idea is that miltary SAR skills will be maintained for use in the front line? What sort or turn around do you anticipate between SARF and expeditionary duties?

[detgnome]

Bill - I suggest a trawl through the previous 49 pages will provide a great deal more information on the brigading of mil personnel within SARH

[L2driver]

Maybe I am thick, but what does this mean:

Presumably those that are not included in the sixty six will be available to join their light and dark blue brethren??

I have flown in the North Sea for 30 years, not in the UK mind you, but I have no idea what you are talking about and I have read previous posts in this thread.
light and dark blue brethren?? SARF??

Why don't we stick to language that we can all understand? :}

[212man]

L2,
SARF - Search And Rescue Force
Light Blue - Royal Air Force
Dark Blue - Royal Navy

I'm assuming you know what Brethren means :ok:

[[email protected]]

Bill - the 66 was a figure plucked from the sky as a suggested minimum for the number of mil pers in the SARF post 2012 that would be needed to man the Falklands and provide some (theoretical) transfer of skills from SAR to SH. Unfortunately the minimum, due to some crap staff work and poor decision making, suddenly became the maximum and no-one has had the balls to change it. All the bidders wanted more mil in the mix because it made things easier but once SARH had chosen its path there was no turning back.

There will be very few of the present SARF who will join their bretheren on expeditionary ops because most of them will be required to leave and transfer to SARH or remain in the mil within SARH or the whole system won't get off the ground.

I think most will opt for the transfer option just because of the shabby way we are being treated by the MoD - forced down to 4 crews per flight (because some 2/3 stars didn't understand how our shifts worked and thought they could spread the pain of undermanning) just as the EU working time directive shows that to run 24/7 SAR you need over 5 crews (and that's without including any extra duties/tasks/dets).

The fact is that the military have about 64 pilots 32 winch/radops and 32 winchmen currently employed in front-line SAR (8 flights, 6 RAF, 2 RN at 4 crews per flt) - that's 128 total.

Post 2012 the SARF will need 12 flts x 5 crews (minimum) which is 120 pilots, 60 radop/winchops and 60 winchmen = 240.

Take away the present CG crews (4 flts x 5 crews = 40 pilots, 16 radop/winchops and 16 winchmen) leaves you 80 pilots, 44 radops/winchops and 44 winchmen short.

The 66 mil pers remaining will probably be about 4 flts worth - similar in number to the present CG contingent so you will still be short of about 4 flts worth of trained personnel. There is only one place that experience and skill level can come from and that is from the present mil SARF.

[Tigwas]

Crab

You're a little on the lean side. Don't forget that the Mil crews have to cover FI and there is a Training and Standards organisation. The total number of crews to be recruited will therefore be far more than you state. In addition there will be an extra crew or two to cover risk (any shortfall in Mil manning has to be covered by the contractor - so sickness, training failures etc will leave a hole and the penalty regime is tough) In order to attract that number of crews the bidders will have to have deep pockets and pay similar rates to North Sea.:ooh:

Tigwas

[[email protected]]

Tigwas - I was being deliberately optimistic in my figures so that no one could claim I was making mountains out of molehills but all your points are eminently valid and, to my mind at least, half the mil crews should be written out of the manning equation just to allow for the Falklands roster.

There are some plans to put some military posts (possibly standards and trg) outside the 66 pers fence but I can't see Mod wearing that somehow since manning are notably reluctant to create pics for jobs and there will have to be lots of staffwork to justify extra posts outwith the contract.

In theory it is the civilians presently on the CG contract who will see the most change since they will be required to do night overland (using NVG) SAR and complete training levels similar to the present military crews in all disciplines.

I am still at a loss to see how mixed flights will work with differing terms and conditions of employment, leave, allowances etc whilst trying to maintain a military ethos with those still serving. It still seems a better answer to blob up all the mil guys in one place and run the FI from that.

[pasptoo]

Crab, :mad:


There will be very few of the present SARF who will join their bretheren on expeditionary ops because most of them will be required to leave and transfer to SARH or remain in the mil within SARH or the whole system won't get off the ground.Why not? Don’t the RN return to frontline after a tour in SAR? I’m sure there are plenty of exMil SAR crews, front and back seat, willing to do the job again, leaving those on retirement plans to stay with their chosen force!

There is only one place that experience and skill level can come from and that is from the present mil SARF.

I’m sure that the foreign elements of CG SAR may have something to say about this, so in short SARF is one place crews may be recruited from, as well as other militaries and SAR organisations.

In theory it is the civilians presently on the CG contract who will see the most change since they will be required to do night overland (using NVG) SAR and complete training levels similar to the present military crews in all disciplines.
Yet again you seem to be professing about stuff you know little about or at least don’t listen to others posts. Aren’t CG crews made up of a mix of civilian, ex RAF, ex RN, other military crews including QHIs and NVGIs ??? My understanding is that in the order of 30% are previous NVG users both frontline and SAR. Training levels require to be sensible and fit for purpose, SAR NVG is not "black light magic" but a useful tool. Great idea to do 2hrs day and 2hrs night every shift! Lets not get blinkered into “RAFway or the Highway” Surely ALL parties have something to learn from each other? Don’t the CG conduct overland SAR dependant on weather conditions, light levels etc. Mmmmmm - that would seem very similar to flying on NVG???? Goggles don’t turn night into day – they just make it green!

You would seem to have some good reasoned discussions then let it all down with poor overall perception outwith the air force. You give the impression that RAF is an acronym for SAR ???? Aren’t you mostly failed jet guys? :E Shame that my first post has to be tainted. :sad: However, I am happy to be enlightened and proved wrong.

PAS.

[Spanish Waltzer]

breathe crab...breathe :ok: :ok:

[Clever Richard]

Pasptoo,

I think you will find that the SAR-H bidders would prefer to recruit from the current UK mil SAR personnel be they RN or RAF to make up the numbers. Its a simple case of being cheaper and lower risk and that they are all in current flying practice across the full range of SAR skills, particularly NVG. Cheaper because they will just be converting to a newer type and lower risk because they have already been filtered by a very rigorous training system.

Civilian UK SAR contractors have not recruited from abroad in the past and I can't see them doing it for SAR-H unless they absolutely have to.

CD

[[email protected]]

pasptoo - the SARH contract is to create a service that is no less capable than exists within the mainly military UK SAR force at present. That means you need people who are current in UK SAROPS if you are not to face a huge training burden converting those who may not have English as a first language, may never have flown in UK before, may have never used NVG before or may be so long out of the SAR saddle that they almost need complete re-training.

I know there are lots of those who believe that because they did one SAR tour, once upon a time, that they are immediately qualified to jump into SARH demanding parity with those who have a current capability in modern, multi-agency ops. Being ex-mil, ex NVGI or ex-anything is not the same as being current and competent in role. Operational sharpness is like IF in that it is a perishable skill that you only realise has degraded when you try it out in anger - then you realise you are only as good as your next sortie, not your last.

Like it or not, the main shareholder in current UK SAR is the RAF and since most, if not all, of the SMEs (subject matter experts) in SARH have been RAF and both the remaining bidders have employed ex- RAF SAR people in key positions - the shape of SARH will be broadly based on what the RAF does now.

The RN will have a 1/3 share of the 66 mil pers in the military arm of SARH I am led to believe - whether or not they will continue to use SAR as a rest tour for 'front-line' crews I don't know.

This is where a fundamental attitude gap exists within SAR for RAF and RN, we don't regard it as a 'rest-tour' or a way of escaping going to sea, we regard it as front-line and many crews, especially the rear-crew, spend their whole lives within the SAR environment having a full career path open to them.

So when an RN pilot who has done 1 SAR tour claims to be an experienced SAR pilot compared to an RAF pilot who has 7 or 8 tours in different locations around the UK we are often not comparing like with like. I am not denigrating the quality of RN aviators, just pointing out different philosophies regarding SAR in the military.

The CG do limited overland night SAR but are constrained by weather - jobs like the Gloucester floods and many night mountain jobs are beyond their current capability and it is experience in these environments on NVG which is peculiar to the RAF/RN SAR crews.

It is the need for these experience levels post 2012 which will mean that simply putting bums on seats will not be enough - to avoid a capability and credibility gap in UK SAR post 2012, there is only one place the experience can come from.

Let's be clear that we are not just talking front-enders here - the biggest shortfall is going to come in the winchop/winchman area where the need for experienced operators who are paramedic qualified will strip the military completely, especially of trainers/QCIs - most of those posts are already occupied in the current CG setup by ex-RAF SAR winchmen - which should say something to you about quality.

I hope that you might come to realise that I do know something about UK SAR - I am used to being insulted - that happens when people don't understand or don't like what you are saying to them - it doesn't make me wrong.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Crab
I recently bought a replacement for my Jag but I couldn't afford to retain the standards I had grown used to and had to settle for a Peugeot. Why? Because the financial situation, rising costs and higher taxes, meant I had to lower my expectations.

Everything you have said, true as it may be, centres on the huge assumption that we can afford the luxury represented by the current SARFORCE. Assume for one moment that we have run out of cash and we have to re-trech and do things to a lower standard than we currently achieve.

There are many nations who meet their treaty obligations with SAR Units with much lower levels of expertise and capability. Maybe the price we will pay when the cut-backs come - and come they will - will be a cut-price service.

Now here's the test. If I was your boss and I told you to do it for less where would you cut the costs? Your target is a 50% reduction in the cost of providing a national service. Will you halve the number of units or cut back on the capability?

By the way you will get a one-off grant to hire a PR company to 'snow' the public into thinking that nothing has really changed.

I hope I don't sound too cynical for I am deadly serious. If you truly know your business give me a plan that costs half what it does now.

G.

[pasptoo]

Crab,

I was not questioning your knowledge of RAF SAR nor the up coming bids, mearly making comment as to your content in recent posts– which I think you have missed my points.

Yes, I agree that NVG ops and OC are perishable like IF if not used, that could also be used in the number of call outs a unit can expect – no? (Chivoner, Lossie, Gannet 300+, Wattisham, Lecon, Sumburgh 100+) I’m sure everyone has thrown away at least one job? (much to their professional annoyance.)

As for currency, I can only assume that the transition from Sea King to the new type will take several months for PVR/TX date, type ratings and IRs etc, before returning to operational SAR as a civilian, that will surely be a shortfall of OC.

With the new aircraft, and perceived problems associated with the S92, will most not need re-training, current practice or not? I believe that the RN was non-NVG until about 5-6 years ago for SAR ops – they seem to cope reasonably well with “limited experience”. Prior to that it was white light overland – not something I’d relish.

I understand that RN SAR pilots until recently were multi tour guys/girls with a solid aviation background at both sea and shore before going into the more “dedicated” SAR jobs. Small ship flights would be on SAR standby as soon as the ship left the harbour wall until it got back. No “seconds” just “first standby” 24/7!

From basic flight school I was told there was more than one way to skin a cat! Everyone can learn from everyone else, don’t close the training office door! I assume from your “user name” you have done an exchange tour? Did you learn how they did their business differently, did you try to persuade them the RAF way or did you both learn from each other? I would like to think the later would make everyone a richer more rounded person.

I agree that most winchmen/radops/winchops/aircrewmen/obs (paramedics) will require to come from a preset path, however the drivers could come from many areas providing they have the requisite skills. You could train some paramedics to be winchmen? Air Knight guys will be somewhat down the line from military SAR currency if they are successful, does that make them any less capable?

My points were that most SARF members would not necessarily be “required to leave” to join SARH, it would up to the individuals and their future plans/pension/promotion prospects. Why not go to the dessert, you signed up to defend the realm. (OK so that bit does suck, but that’s what you get paid for). As I have said there is more than one SAR pool to drink from. Finally NVG, I’m sure there will be sufficient training in place prior to going live in 2012 (or whenever) for those “civilians without” and “ex mil with past” NVG time.

Your post(s) is(are), after all, your views, I do not intend to insult and do understand the maze that is becoming SARH, merely commenting on your substance.

PAS

[pasptoo]

CD

Civilian UK SAR contractors have not recruited from abroad in the past and I can't see them doing it for SAR-H unless they absolutely have to. :confused:


I've heard that some Germans, and French may disagree with your post?



PAS

[Artic-Warrior]

My understanding is that 66 mil posts are up for grabs and the MOD will decide WHO will get them, Yes or No?. The people who are not selected will then go into some other pool, Yes or No?
Or they can leave and try and obtain a seat (front or back) within the new employers set up.

If this is correct will the MOD let (acording to Crab) some 100 + aircrew just leave when they are already short in other areas. After all everybody signs up for a length of time. Can those allowed to leave get out in time to take up a post or will they have to gamble and leave early so to be available of said post??????
We have already 4 bases that are Civvi so they may require nothing in 2012 or type conversion in 2012. Possibly a rush in 2012 or not!!!!!!!!. If not then time to train.

[Clever Richard]

Pasptoo,

Forgive me for being a little too emphatic, I meant to say that not very many foreigners have been recruited by UK civvy SAR companies.

Arctic Warrior,

If the MoD try and retain so many aircrew that SAR-H can't be manned do you think the UK government will let that happen?

CD

[[email protected]]

pasptoo - If I missed your points, perhaps you have not made them clearly -

Yes, I agree that NVG ops and OC are perishable like IF if not used, that could also be used in the number of call outs a unit can expect – no? (Chivoner, Lossie, Gannet 300+, Wattisham, Lecon, Sumburgh 100+) I’m sure everyone has thrown away at least one job? (much to their professional annoyance.)

Do you mean we should accept a lesser capability because if we can't do a job we can throw it away? Not nice if you are the one who needs rescuing!

With the new aircraft, and perceived problems associated with the S92, will most not need re-training, current practice or not? I believe that the RN was non-NVG until about 5-6 years ago for SAR ops – they seem to cope reasonably well with “limited experience”. Prior to that it was white light overland – not something I’d relish.

Again not sure what your point is - the RN crews are in current SAR NVG practice - that is why they can do what they do. Any non-current SAR NVG pilots will have far more training required than a simple type conversion (which doesn't take long in civvystrasse because it costs money).

I understand that RN SAR pilots until recently were multi tour guys/girls with a solid aviation background at both sea and shore before going into the more “dedicated” SAR jobs. Small ship flights would be on SAR standby as soon as the ship left the harbour wall until it got back. No “seconds” just “first standby” 24/7!
Sadly the second sentence cost you a crew and a Lynx a couple of years ago - dedicated SAR means exactly that - it's not a secondary role when you train and perform it properly. I didn't say that RN SAR was full of first tourists, just that many of those who do it don't make a career out of it.

From basic flight school I was told there was more than one way to skin a cat! Everyone can learn from everyone else, don’t close the training office door! I assume from your “user name” you have done an exchange tour? Did you learn how they did their business differently, did you try to persuade them the RAF way or did you both learn from each other? I would like to think the later would make everyone a richer more rounded person.

So why is it that everyone is queuing up to tell the RAF how to do SAR - do they all think they have nothing to learn from us? All we hear is that there are other, better, cheaper ways to do it the way we do - usually from those who have no idea how we do business or the capability we maintain.

I agree that most winchmen/radops/winchops/aircrewmen/obs (paramedics) will require to come from a preset path, however the drivers could come from many areas providing they have the requisite skills. You could train some paramedics to be winchmen? Air Knight guys will be somewhat down the line from military SAR currency if they are successful, does that make them any less capable?


I don't know what you know about Air Knight that the rest of us don't but current front-line SAR is current front-line SAR whatever the uniform. The CG winchmen do the same paramedic training as the mil guys and at the same place (Oh look that was done through the RAF as well!)

We fly a lot of paramedics to familiarise them with what we do and how we can help them - how many of them would be prepared to face the physical danger a winchman does on SAROPs - precious few! And of those, how many would have the aptitude? Don't forget, SAR rearcrew are volunteers for good reasons.

According to your logic re NVG training - why don't the airlines take me instead of a trained person to fly 747s, after all I have 100 hours of single jet in my logbook and all I need are a few courses? Oh yes, I remember - it's cost of training and that is the issue regarding non-current SAR pilots and rearcrew vs current military crews - you get a proven recent track record and all the transferrable skill sets - you just add a type conversion and away you go - cheap as chips!


Geoffers - we are not replacing the SARF because it costs a lot (and like everyone else you assume it is more expensive without any figures to prove it) we are replacing a military SARF with a hybrid because the MoD has failed to invest in medium lift helicopters for the last 20 years and the ones we are using now are getting old and tired.

We started down the SARH path because of the ambitions of a previous Chief Coastguard and what could have been solved with a PFI for power by the hour on a new aircraft whilst retaining the present structure, has turned into a monster that will cost £3 -5 Billion for the next 25 years without bringing any new capability to the role.

All those who think it will be a civilian controlled environment are forgetting that the MoD is footing 70% of the bill for SARH so the defence budget is still hammered, there will always be a mil presence in SAR, and no-one will save any money.

[C.King]

we are not replacing the SARF because it costs a lot (and like everyone else you assume it is more expensive without any figures to prove it) we are replacing a military SARF with a hybrid because the MoD has failed to invest in medium lift helicopters for the last 20 years and the ones we are using now are getting old and tired.

Would it be unfair to suggest that an equally (more?) valid reason was that it was finally accepted that UK SAR is not 'core' business for the armed forces who are mighty stretched at the moment; and that rest tours and transferring additional skills back to the front-line notwithstanding (both of which might be moot points for the existing RAF setup) there are better things for the MOD to do with their assets (which includes the aircrew).

To paraphrase a flag rank some time ago "I'm struggling for a/c and crews in 'stan, so why on earth would I want to have NVG trained, Mountain experienced crews sitiing on their a***'s in the UK"

Priorities !

[[email protected]]

C King - a more accurate assessment would be: facing the results of ignoring the need for more SH (NAO report in 02 I think) due to important investments like Bowman and Typhoon - the MoD has failed in its duty to supply enough front-line helicopters (and crews) to the ops in progress.

Moving SAR to a PFI won't provide any more SH helicopters (because you need better aircraft than the Sea King) and precious few crews (who might be NVG and mountain qualified but are not tactically trained).

We have already been reduced to 4 crews per flight but this has mostly been managed by not posting in replacements as guys and girls move on to other flts/retirement/QHI/promotion etc - I suspect the number that have gone to swell the SH cadre is in single figures. Shawbury is pumping out baby SH crews by the dozen but it's no good if there are not the aircraft to fly nor the infrastructure to train them.

The MoD may have decided (erronoeusly) that SAR isn't core business because it is non-deployable (with the present platform) and non-warfighting - but that is because they don't understand (or choose to ignore) what we do and that bravery and devotion to duty isn't confined to the battlefield.

The Flag Officer who thinks that all SAR crews do is sit on their asses clearly has his head up his own.

How about freeing all those 2 1/2s from pointless staff jobs or DHFS or ground appointments if he wants experienced crews in the 'stan??? Oh no that doesn't match the 'blame SAR for all our woes' mantra.:ugh:

[Spanish Waltzer]

To paraphrase a flag rank some time ago "I'm struggling for a/c and crews in 'stan, so why on earth would I want to have NVG trained, Mountain experienced crews sitiing on their a***'s in the UK"


Because the harrier/chinook/apache/typhoon...(ok maybe not yet :ok:) guys who are doing such fantastic work supporting coalition troops in the sandpits for and on behalf of that flag rank need to be trained and train themselves before they deploy and know with confidence that if things go wrong at that stage then those NVG trained mountain experienced crews sitting on their a***'s in the UK will respond and come help immediately.

Because the British public who traditionally don't really quite understand what it is that the boys are doing in the sandpits although, thanks to the red tops and charities such as H4H, are now becoming more aware & support the guys more but in their eyes actually saving little Jimmy from the tide/mountains/lilo is what the UK military & Coastguard helos are renowned for and continue to receive fantastic public support for and therefore in turn provides fantastic PR for the UK military - needed in these difficult times & same argument as to why the reds are kept.

Because the UK stands committed to providing its international commitment to SAR provision for its region and unlike other nations is actually able to fully meet that commitment.

Because as things stand at the moment the UK military has a commitment to provide a significant proportion of that SAR capability so dont go blaming the guys and girls that are doing (very well) the job they have been given.

Because when the **** hits the fan in the UK through natural disaster / terrorism / large scale, mass casualty accidents / human nature and failings thereof the UK public are grateful & proud that there is a rehearsed and proven system in the UK that responds professionally and gets on with the job 24/7 in any weather.

Of course a 100% civilian provided service could and probably in a few years will provide an equally professional service for the UK masses to be proud of but you only have to look at foot & mouth, fireman strikes etc to see how quickly the UK fall back on their military for support in times of crisis.

Also the argument for employing guys in 'rest' tours will never be won either way but it is simple human nature that if you dont give them a chance to rest they will quickly become exhausted & disillusioned and look elsewhere for employment, taking their experience and abilites with them. I've always wondered whether the general RN ethos of SAR as a rest tour or the RAF ethos of SAR as a career has the stronger argument. Both have massive advantages and disadvantages. Both work for their own Service needs, both provide a professional SAR service. Both would be equally welcome should I need their services on a dark night but the arguement continues. I just feel the UK population as a whole are lucky to be in a position where effective SAR cover, whether RAF/RN/CG comes with the territory.

SW

[arandcee]

Crab, SW:

:D

[wrecking ball]

Crab,

There is a definate tone of resignation in your latest posts compared to those in the earlier pages. I am looking forward to Chiv becoming a civvy base, 6 shifts a month, no secondary duties, 250+ jobs a year and knowing your there until retirement. Fella, life on the civvy side does have its advantages once you get used to and then ignore the corporate attitudes that they try and apply to SAR. A close colleague of mine said 2 and a half years ago " the truth will out" and he was so right. Look forward to visiting the old base in the not to distant future just to re famil myself with the old haunts, ready for 2012 and the delights of transition. Hmm an S92 over Baggy. Now there is an interesting proposition on a slack wind day!! Adios Amigo!:ok:

[detgnome]

6 shifts a month

I think you'll find that it is going to be more like 8. Whilst some aspects will undoubtedly be easier under a civillian system, don't forget that an employer will employ no more crews than necessary and will extract between 90-100% of the maximum that CAA and other limitations allow.

[Justintime80]

I think you'll find that it is going to be more like 8


Nope your wrong it will be closer to 6 than 8

If the civ's work everyone up to 2000 hr's WTD there would be no flex
if someone goes sick and Pilot's/Crewmen are working to the max they can't or won't ( looking forward to that bit:)) step in to cover, so the company will pick up a large penalty.
It's a no brainer really but hey they will be a private company so who knows how they think.
Me I think keeping crews around 1800-1900 would be sensible.;)

[[email protected]]

Wrecking Ball - a few years ago I still though there might be chance of avoiding the SARH transition - naively hoping that someone in MoD/Govt would see what they were throwing away and just cough up some cash for new helos.

Now I am resigned to the inevitability but slightly heartened that the SARH process with the inputs from the military SMEs has at least ensured that what comes in 2012 will be as good as we can possibly make it.

There is still a worry that the contract will go to the cheapest bidder who will have skimped on training to make profit but I am told that the financial element of the bid only counts towards 10% of the scoring - hhhmmmmmm I'll wait out on that one.

Don't expect Chiv to be civilianised until 2016 or so, it will probably be one of the last to go (along with Wattisham) because we operate the Mk 3A instead of the very knackered Mk 3s.

I believe the WTD requires 5.7 crews per flight to work so 6 shifts a month is very likely - there might even need to be more crews than that at some flights to cope with the Falklands manning. This is apparently saving money post 2012 - we are presently downsizing to 4 crews per flight and wondering why we can't plug all the gaps or comply with the WTD!

Cheaper? No.

Better? New aircraft will make a difference but it will hinge on who gets employed and how much training they do.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Gentlemen

You lot continue to amaze me. What sort of world do you imagine we are now living in. This morning they announced that funds for the NHS will be cut CUT CUT.

Wake up - please. CRAB is concerned that we will have a cheap and cheerful service. We should count our lucky stars if there is a service of any kind left after the reality of the dire state of public funding becomes clear.

We as a nation recently had our credit-worthiness reduced by international credit rating agencies and they are not daft. We are sitting on a time bomb whilst Gordie and his team pretend that actually there is a bottomless pit of cash and we can continue as if nothing has happened. The current government does not want to sack all the people it's employed in public services because they are the people they think will vote for them. Actually those are the ones that are intelligent enough to see through the smoke screen and are too ashamed to vote for anybody.

Watch this space, the pain has yet to begin.

G.

[L2driver]

When reading this thread, I get the feeling that some people think that the RAF is the only institution that can provide professional SAR service. Have a look at this:

Many congratulations to our Stornoway-based Coastguard helicopter winchman Phil Warrington, who was yesterday (Thursday June 4 2009) presented with The Billy Deacon SAR Memorial Trophy in recognition of a courageous rescue operation last year.

Phil was presented with the trophy at the Air League’s Annual Awards Ceremony at Buckingham Palace by HRH Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh.

The full 2009 citation reads:

At 0530am on February 1 2008 Coastguard Rescue Helicopter 100, based at Stornoway, was called out to assist a Spanish fishing vessel, the Spinningdale, which had run aground at St Kilda with 14 persons onboard.

The stricken vessel was lying on rocks immediately below cliffs, with waves crashing over its entire length, and there was concern that it may be in immediate danger of capsizing.

When the aircraft reached the scene, weather conditions were extremely hostile, with winds gusting to 70 knots causing severe turbulence. Snow showers were also moving through, greatly compromising visibility, and the sea state was described as severe.

The winching operation was undertaken from a height of approximately 130 feet – significantly higher than normal, but necessary to preserve aircraft safety because of the potential risks posed by the turbulence.

Winch operator Larry Slater skilfully worked with pilot Liz Forsyth and co pilot Michael Melaye to position the aircraft above the Spinningdale and deliver winchman Phil Warrington to the deck of the vessel.

Once on deck Phil immediately took charge of the situation and started the recovery of the crew, placing two at a time in strops and ensuring the safe dispatch of the crewman to the helicopter via the winch. The conditions were so severe that each time a wave broke over the vessel, Phil had to hang on to the guard rails to avoid being washed over the side by the mountainous waves.

He endured these conditions for 30 minutes until all 14 crew had been recovered to the aircraft before finally being winched back to the helicopter.

Phil and Larry then immediately set about checking crew members for injuries or hypothermia during the return flight.

Phil displayed outstanding bravery and professionalism, descending to the deck without hesitation in appalling conditions to ensure the safe rescue of the entire crew of the fishing vessel.

This was done by a civilian crew (CHC) using the S-92. Whether some of them worked in the military in the past is not really interesting. They are now working in the civilian world and know their job.
:)

[Epiphany]

The Flag Officer who thinks that all SAR crews do is sit on their asses clearly has his head up his own.



The amount of time you spend on Pprune makes me wonder. Still - if you only work 6 days per month then I suppose it is no surprise.

Geoffers - you are trying to reason with someone who has spent his working life in the RAF. You and I and anyone else who has left the miltary to work as a civilian know how insulated we were from lifes realities. I have learned more about survival as a civilian than I ever did on my CSRO course - and much more about flying come to that.

[212man]

The Billy Deacon SAR Memorial Trophy

Bill, of course, being a Bristow Crewman at the time of his tragic death.

[[email protected]]

This was done by a civilian crew (CHC) using the S-92. Whether some of them worked in the military in the past is not really interesting. They are now working in the civilian world and know their job

Not interesting that the Captain (Liz) was trained by the RAF SARF? It further reinforces my statements that quality will out and my belief that military SAR will have to provide a lot of the manpower to make SARH effective.

Just how many non-ex-mil SAR captains/winch ops/winchmen are there working UK SAR?

Geoffers - your arguments about cost only go to support the idea that civilianisation is an expensive option - retaining the present format but with a PFI for new aircraft would be substantially cheaper than the £3-5Bn price tag for SARH.

Epiphany - I worked as a civilian before I joined the RAF and learned that whilst talking a good fight is one thing, proving your worth by the strength of your arm and back and willingness to work is what people notice. That old adage about actions speaking louder than words means the RAF can hold a candle to ANY SAR organisation in the world and not disappoint.

You missed the point that 6 shifts will be what the civilians will work, not what the military are currently working!

[Clever Richard]

Can anyone provide a rough break down of figures showing how SAR-H is going to save money? As a taxpayer, I would be interested to know.
CD

[Jackonicko]

It will prevent the need for HMG to stump up a really major amount to recapitalise the helicopter fleet by buying new aircraft.

It won't save money over the long term, like all these PFIs and PPPs. You save big blobs of capital investment and pay more in lease costs, including profits for the provider.

And you end up dumping a gold standard, 'money no object' based military service for a lowest cost, lowest bidder commercial one.

[calli]

Whilst it is true to say that the aircraft Captain on the Spinningdale rescue was trained by the RAF, it is fair to say that any of the current (highly experienced) Captains at Stornoway could have carried out their part in the rescue equally well. The Stornoway 'patch' gives vast experience in mountain/coastal/cliff rescues in extremely hostile weather and dark nights(not much cultural lighting).


Remember that the winch-op plays a massive role in the successful or otherwise outcome of this kind of job. And it is not just bravery that is required from the winchman, but it is also a job that requires the ability to control a deteriorating situation in order that everyone can be safely evacuated.

This crew was a mix of ex Navy, ex RAF and ex foreign Navy - and it worked. It would equally have worked with any of the civilian trained crew from Stornoway - it is just chance who is on shift when the 'high profile' job comes in.

:)

[L2driver]

As I said, it doesnt matter where people come from as long as they are competent in their job.
RAF is not the only institution that knows something about SAR. There is f.ex very good AWSAR coverage at several Norwegian oilfields, and the service has been there for many years. Paid for by the oil companies, but frequently used by the Rescue Coordination Centres. This is not the same as Jigsaw.
The service is now being upgraded with EC225's with all the goodies installed. Many people doing this job are not from the military. I am though, and after 30 years offshore I am humble enough to realize that coming from the Air Force did not give me all the answers. There is no difference in quality if selection and training are optimized.
:)