SARH to go

[[email protected]]

L2 - you are quite correct but I haven't said the RAF are the only ones who can do SAR; however, there are very few outfits who can match our level of capability across such a wide range of environments from mountains to sea and everything in between, day or night.

It all comes down to training and very few commercial concerns will cough up for the amount of training we do - this has been a major concern of mine (and many others) because cutting training hours (and therefore costs) is an easy thing to do and doesn't seem to have an immediate impact; experienced crews will suffer slower skill-fade but it will happen eventually. Getting back those training hours from the bean-counters is next to impossible because they say you have been managing so far, why do you need more and where is your justification for the cost? Unless you have some pretty robust arguments or there is an accident which shows lack of adequate training - you are then on the road to reduced capability and people will start scaring themselves doing stuff they were previously very competent at.

The fact you can do a drum or a deck on a nice easy training sortie to tick the training stats box does not replace quality, challenging training as a means to prepare you for SAROPs - it's a bit like only ever doing IF with the stab and holds in in VMC - ticks the box but doesn't really prove any capability.

You don't say if you were SAR when you were in or not but things have changed a great deal in 30 years in mil SAR - I'm not surprised the Whirlwind/Wessex didn't prepare you for offshore work.

Calli - very true about the winchop and they are they guys who seldom get the medals. SAR just wouldn't happen without quality Radops/winchops.

Jacko - the MoD wouldn't have to stump up costs to replace the aircraft - they could rent them, certainly for the short term until the Govts finances are in better order.

[seniortrooper]

Crab,

There are, as you say, very few outfits who can do this job properly. Those who are successful.....survive. They survive because their training / ethos / equipment permits this to happen. One such organisation is the RAF, another is Interim SAR. If it wasn't successful on any level, MCS would have pulled the plug a long time ago.
Don't let's denigrate these people, please. They are atleast your equal.
ALL SAR crews (front and back seat) are capable of ALL aspects of SAR in ALL scenarios. There is no operational restriction on civilian captains limiting them to the degree of danger each SAR mission may offer - they cope with the same demands that military crews cope with.
I flew RN SAR many years ago, we treated it as a secondary duty, because we had other major responsibilities thrown at us at the same time. It didn't prevent us from turning dangerous jobs down because it was a secondary role. We were experienced crews flying a capable aircraft. No-one commented that skill fade (due to it being sporadic and not main stream) increased our chances of making a mistake. Skill fade is associated with flying the machine (like IF), not carrying out the task. As long as one can competently handle the aircraft, the rest is down to competency and experience.
The RAF have chosen to make SAR an empire, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that perse, but one has to remember, there are a number of ways to skin a cat.
Until you see SAR from a civilian perspective, surely you have to accept your views can only be one sided? Trust me UK civilian SAR is atleast your equal.;)

[[email protected]]

Seniortrooper - I'm not sure how you infer from my posts that I am denigrating civsar in UK - that is completely untrue and if you read my earlier posts you will see I highlight the need to be operationally current within UKSAR as a whole, not just the mil bit.

However, I must take issue on the skill-fade issue - it is one thing doing SAR in a rural/coastal enviroment away from busy airspace - it is another matter entirely inland, at night, with poor weather and several radios on the go in a multi agency SAROP - that operational competency fades very quickly and, if you have never been exposed to it before, takes time to cope with if you are to be a truly effective SAR asset.

Frankly I wouldn't hold the interim contract up as a paragon of virtue - not because of the crews (many of whom were doing the job before in Bristows guise anyway and all of whom are still doing an excellent job) but because of the management issues (S-92 without sufficient range when introduced, AW139 STILL without a night overwater winching capability, trying to steamroller Ts and Cs without consultation etc etc).

Whilst you, like many others, claim I should see SAR from a civilian perspective before spouting off - you, like many others, have no knowledge of RAF SAR to back your assertions and so are arguing from a similar standpoint. There are a number of ways to skin a cat but if you want it done properly, take it to a professional cat-skinner:)

[Clever Richard]

Senior Trooper,

If you read Crab's posts you will find that he does not criticise the skill or bravery of his civilian counterparts who are doing the job. What he does criticise is the organisation above them.

As for interim SAR, and I am referring to the aircraft NOT the crews, is it now able to provide the full service promised in the press releases and statements from senior coastguards and CHC managers?

CD

[seniortrooper]

Crab - your last paragraph - if only you knew;)

Inland SAR scenarios are a typical example of what I was trying to get across to you. The task (that of SAR) remains a 'relatively' straight forward task. It is exacerbated by additional pressures from radios/ATC/external agencies. But is something ALL experienced Captains continuously train for and remain competent in.

Clever Richard - have you ever read/heard/experienced any Interim SAR situation where the equipment did not perform in public as advertised on the tin? No-one could question the robustness of the service now, after this many years of active service.

I wish you both well.

[Vie sans frontieres]

seniortrooper

have you ever read/heard/experienced any Interim SAR situation where the equipment did not perform in public as advertised on the tin? No-one could question the robustness of the service now, after this many years of active service

:confused::confused::confused:

And I wish you well in this argument because I think you may have just blown it! Read posts 1 through to 1007.

[Clever Richard]

Senior Trooper,

Everything set for rescuing someone from the water at night in the Solent or deploying the MIRG teams from Lee or Portland?

I notice you chose not to answer the actual question I posed.

Regards,

CD

[[email protected]]

Crab - your last paragraph - if only you knew

Well do tell old chap I am always ready to listen.

Inland SAR scenarios are a typical example of what I was trying to get across to you. The task (that of SAR) remains a 'relatively' straight forward task. It is exacerbated by additional pressures from radios/ATC/external agencies. But is something ALL experienced Captains continuously train for and remain competent in.

How exactly do you train for it then? It is exposure to the environment that gives the skills and if you don't do low level, poor weather night inland SAR, how can you train for it.

The Interim contract only started operating last year and has constantly failed to match real capability with claimed capability and aspiration.

[tonyosborne]

Just to change the subject a little, but a purely theoretical question from a discussion today.

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of:

a) Putting the SAR-H aircraft on the civil register ie G-XXXX
b) Putting the SAR-H aircraft on the military system ie ZZ000

Would having these aircraft on the military circumvent some restrictions put in place by the CAA. Not a fishing exercise, answers on here or by PM.

[Spanish Waltzer]

...and at the same time as answering that, could someone in the know give us an update as to when to expect an announcement as to the winning consortia?

I need to know where to send my CV :ok:

[Bucaneer Bill]

Think it is November

[Spanish Waltzer]

Thanks Buc.

While we wait here is a link to a recent happy ending story including footage of a RAF helo rescue. I assume it was the one from Valley but will happily stand corrected by those in the know...

BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Rescue after 30 minutes in water (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8106148.stm)

regards

SW

[[email protected]]

The angler was lucky not to have been intubated and cannulated whilst he was on his way up to the aircraft since Dr Ed was his winchman!!:)

tonyosborne - as I understand it, the main advantage of having the aircraft on the military register is that the crews (civ or mil) can operate to military rules and regs, especially concerning things like low flying and NVG use. Although no-one has actually stood up and said it, I believe both contractors would prefer the aircraft to be mil registered (I think they end up being dual registered so they can be returned to full civil registration quite easily if required).

With only a few months to go to the announcement of the preferred bidder and both consortia trying to find ways of keeping within the budget - it is highly likely that the bids will undergo extensive financial scrutiny because the public purse is empty; all the hard work and attention to detail by the SARH team will be wasted and we will just get what we always feared - the cheapest bidder:{

[pusser]

Interesting that the article states that the crew treated the casualty for Hypothermia in the aircraft. But viewing the footage you see that the winchman went down with 2 strops (hypothermic lift in mind) but elected not to recover utilising this standard method of recovery for a potentialy hypothermic casualty.

But wait, this is the RAF, and they set the standard for SAR so I shouldnt even be asking the question. HMMM:ugh: Petty, yes, but so are some of Crabs arguments against civvy SAR.

Incoming!!

[Geoffersincornwall]

I keep saying it but the shortage of funds is almost certain to result in an emasculated SARPLAN that will probably involve a major retrenchment. If there is no money for Trident, no money for CVAs and no money to run the fleets of Typhoons I can just imagine what sort of turmoil MoD is in. Crikey! I mean the Army are looking at losing a few regiments and they are fighting the odd war or two. What chance have we got when you are up against those odds. Let's get real and work out how we can manage. Doing more with less is not really going to be an option. It will be more a case of doing as much as we can with what is left.

G :}

[TwoStep]

Thanks crab, appreciate the answer. Is there no sign of the CAA budging on NVGs by 2012?

[Vie sans frontieres]

Pusser -

Recommended Google searches for you :

"Hydrostatic Squeeze"
"Fastnet"
"Lyme Bay Tragedy"

and

"How not to embarrass my service by trying to be clever and getting it completely wrong on my first PPruNe post"

[pusser]

Dear oh dear.

VSF, whilst your reaction to my gentle post is exactly what we have come to expect from the 'experts', to humour you (and maybe assist) a quick google search produces this:

Retrieval of a victim from cold water immersion must be performed with caution. Sudden reduction of the "hydrostatic squeeze" applied to tissues below the water's surface may potentiate hypotension, especially orthostatic hypotension. Since a hypothermic patient's normal cardiovascular defenses are impaired, the cold myocardium may be incapable of increasing cardiac output in response to a hypotensive stimulus. A victim's vertical posture may also potentiate hypotension. Hypovolemia, secondary to combined cold- and immersion-induced diuresis, and increased blood viscosity potentiate these effects. Peripheral vascular resistance may also be incapable of increasing, since vasoconstriction is already maximal because of cold stress. The net result of sudden removal of a hypothermic patient from the water is similar to sudden deflation of antishock trousers on a patient in hypovolemic shock: abrupt hypotension. This has been demonstrated experimentally in mildly hypothermic human volunteers, and it has been suspected as a cause of post-rescue death in many immersion hypothermia victims. Accordingly, rescuers should attempt to maintain hypothermic patients in a horizontal position during retrieval from the water and aboard the rescue vehicle. If rescuers cannot recover the patient horizontally, they should place the victim in a supine posture as quickly as possible after removal from cold water.


My post was a gentle prod, nothing more, the SME on the end of the wire made an initial choice (to take 2 strops), then made the choice to use 1, fine, thats his call. Everyone does things differently, thats the point, which a few of our esteemed posters will never, ever accept:rolleyes:

[Miles Gustaph]

Pusser,
There are some very good, intelligent arguments on this thread, and some equally good observations, but by far and the best is your last comment!

Well done on a storming 2nd post...

P.S wasn't the Institute of Naval Medicine who developed the double strop lifting technique after using some "German" research?

[[email protected]]

Pusser - your cut and paste post would have been more impressive had it accurately related to the rescue in question. The angler was rescued from rocks, not full immersion in the sea and although he had been in the water earlier, by the time he was winched up he had no hydrostatic squeeze and therefore a vertical lift was the right option. The speed of the rescue was improved by the choice of the single strop lift so the casualty was evacuated from the hostile environment expeditiously rather than getting him to lie down on rocks with breaking surf to put a second strop on.

Sorry to burst your crab-hating bubble - as ever people feel obliged to criticise what the RAF do in SAR, is it a feeling of inadequacy perhaps? Perhaps if you were the man on scene you would have done it differently but I rather bet you are not a SAR winchman or paramedic.

[Miles Gustaph]

CRABB,

like may others you have made some very good, and personally I think valuable opinions on here, is there any reason to jump ever-so-quickly to accuse anyone of being "crab-hating [bubble]".

Isn't this exactly the point that Pusser is trying to make in his last paragraph?

Your obviously, from your posts very passionate about the RAF, but I agree with Pusser, "Everyone does things differently, thats the point, which a few of our esteemed posters will never, ever accept" and regrettably of all the people who could have stepped up to the mark to prove his point it was you...

Everyone has their opinion, yours is very well informed, abet loyalty biased, which is fine, and admirable, but not everyone who says someone can do something better than the RAF is a crab hater.

This thread relies upon you, it wouldn't be what it is without your input, but everything is checks and balances, it's good to hear your opinion, and I agree there are opinions that are blatantly confrontational, but this isn't one of them.

[ninefromten]

Miles Gustaph
Pusser is not pointing out differences he is just trying to score points. There is no difference in procedures between any of the UK SAR services. All professional SAR crews, whether RAF, RN or civvy will use a double strop (hypothermic lift) for a casualty in the water. This casualty was not free floating in open water but clinging to rocks being washed over by waves. Ed obviously made a conscious decision not to use 2 strops but to remove the casualty from the danger expeditiously. Trying to put 2 strops on could have aggravated the situation. It is only the rescuer on scene that can make that decision.
Pusser a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[[email protected]]

Miles "Everyone does things differently, thats the point, which a few of our esteemed posters will never, ever accept"

The sentiment is correct but is only ever offered up by those who claim they do it better/cheaper than the RAF - not one of the (especially ex-RN) others ever volunteers the position that we might just be the gold standard to which they might aspire.

I have said before that anyone can do SAR - it is just how high you set your standards that differs:)

[John Eacott]

not one of the (especially ex-RN) others ever volunteers the position that we might just be the gold standard to which they might aspire.

I've always read this thread with interest, but that sort of bait hooked me ;)

I take it that you are thereby denigrating 771 NAS, and also the recipients of last year's Prince Philip Helicopter Rescue Award :confused: :=

The Prince Philip Helicopter Rescue Award
For outstanding devotion to duty in search and rescue operation.

For the year 2007 the Prince Philip Rescue award was made to:

HMS GANNET SAR FLIGHT 'Rescue 177'
and

RAF CHINOOK 'BLACKOUT 26'


HMS GANNET SAR FLIGHT 'Rescue 177'

On 28 May 2007, ‘Rescue 177’ crewed by Lt Cdr Lanni (A/C Commander), Lt Cdr Ford (Observer), Lt Campbell (P2) and FS Gibson (Aircrewman), was scrambled at 2152 hrs to assist with a search for three climbers who were crag fast in the vicinity of Tower Ridge on the north side of Ben Nevis. Although during the summer season, the weather was particularly challenging with a cloud base overcast at 2,500ft and visibility of 5km, which was frequently and dramatically reduced to 500m in heavy, blowing snow. The wind was 25kts from the north east, but on scene was being funnelled and distorted to produce severe turbulence and down draughts.

Once established in the valley at the north side of Ben Nevis, ‘R177’ took three close passes of Tower Ridge before the climbers’ position was observed. Blowing snow created extremely poor visibility and hindered initial location, but acute observation by the observer spotted a climber’s torchlight glowing at the base of the cloud. ‘R177’ attempted to achieve a winching position adjacent to the climbers, but the lowering cloudbase, together with the aircraft downwash dragging the cloud down, meant that a flyaway had to be carried out before the flying pilot lost visual references. A further attempt was made to achieve a safe transfer in an incredibly challenging location. Once again cloud was pulled down through the rotor, but now to such an extent that in order to maintain safety FS Gibson had to ‘talk’ the aircraft down the ridge until it emerged below the cloud line.

Now operating in darkening, blizzard conditions, but still undeterred and acutely aware of the predicament of the stricken climbers, the crew of ‘R177’ elected to re-assess the situation. They landed at Fort William to embark members of the Locharber Mountain Rescue Team (MRT) with the intention to deploy as close to the scene as possible in order to affect a land based rescue. The majority of the MRT were deployed on the south side of the mountain near the summit. This was in itself a difficult procedure as the severe slope necessitated Lt Cdr Lanni to place just two wheels in contact with the slope to allow the team to depart the aircraft. The remainder of the MRT was then moved to the base of Tower Ridge and deployed to a steep scree slope. Again, difficulties with severe turbulence were encountered. Now in darkness, and operating on Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Lt Cdr Lanni skillfully positioned the aircraft under the expert guidance of his rear seat crew, however, at the critical moment of converting to visual references and very close to the cliff face, Lt Cdr Lanni’s NVG suffered mechanical failure as one of the tubes became detached. Displaying outstanding airmanship, clarity of thought and calmness under extreme pressure, he maintained contact with the surface and continued with the winch deployment, knowing that his P2 could fly away on NVG if required.

‘R177’ then returned to Fort William to pick up five more MRT and replace the damaged NVG. This section of the team was deployed half way up the south side of the mountain, and in horrendous conditions, the aircraft commander decided to return to Fort William to wait for a break in the weather. At 0220 hrs the MRT on scene at the climbers’ position advised the crew that conditions had abated sufficiently for the aircraft to return and attempt a further extraction. Unfortunately, as the crew prepared for take-off, the aircraft’s moveable landing lamp failed. Nevertheless, realising the probable deteriorating condition of the casualties, the crew elected to attempt recovery utilizing secondary external light sources. However, once on scene it became rapidly apparent that the combination of poor weather and reduced lighting necessitated an abort and re-group back at Fort William.

At 0355 hrs, ‘R177’ was requested to move two further MRT from near the summit of Ben Nevis to a position closer to Tower Ridge, now in improving light as dawn approached. As the aircraft flew by the scene to investigate, the crew noticed that the climbers had moved with the MRT to an area known as Echo Wall, a complicated, technical and dangerous section of the wall. Undeterred, and seizing the opportunity of a weather break, Lt Cdr Lanni decided to attempt extraction of the casualties. The tight and difficult location necessitated a high winching position to ensure clearance. Still encountering significant turbulence, and now faced with critical fuel considerations, the crew positioned for winching. Lt Cdr Ford was deployed five times, on each occasion using in excess of 200ft of cable. The target area was 3ft by 5ft and the highest standard of crew co-operation and expert verbal directions was employed to recover three casualties and two MRT safely. ‘R177’ landed at Fort William with only 500lbs of fuel remaining. Unwilling to leave any of the rescue services on the mountain, the crew of ‘R177’ then refuelled and recovered the remainder of the MRT from the south side of Ben Nevis before returning to base where they eventually landed at 0625 hrs.

This was an extremely complicated rescue lasting more than six hours in darkness. The crew overcame a plethora of difficulties ranging from severe weather to handling equipment failure, mechanical failure as well as being fuel critical. Their mettle and moral fortitude were pushed to the absolute limit to affect improbable success through exemplary teamwork and bold decision-making. By dint of determination and sheer tenacity, the crew never gave up on their casualties or MRT colleagues, ensuring all were returned to safety.

Their performance throughout this protracted incident was exemplary and demonstrated outstanding devotion to duty. The crew of ‘R177’ is therefore awarded The Prince Philip Helicopter Rescue Award.

GAPAN Awards page (http://www.gapan.org/about-the-guild/trophies-and-awards/award-winners/the-prince-philip-helicopter-rescue-award/)

I'd appreciate this thread more if only one or two of the main players could take off their rose tinted spectacles :ok:

[John Eacott]

I also found an interesting site, Military search and Rescue Statistics: 2007 (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/sar/annual/intro.html), with also a report on the first quarter 2008 on another link.

It indicates that there are 2 RN SAR bases (Culdrose and Gannet) and 6 RAF SAR bases (RAF Boulmer, RAF Valley, RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Leconfield, RAF Chivenor and RAF Wattisham). I know that this is old data (2007), but the representation in Table 2 makes for humbling reading. That's an awful lot of responses by all concerned: an average of 5 callouts per day :eek:

:ok: :D

[[email protected]]

John, you shouldn't be so quick to take offence - I was not denigrating 771 in any way shape or form - we even have a resident crab in there with them to spy and report back!

I was referring to the posters who like to take a quick pop at the RAF SARF with uneducated, ill-informed comments because they really don't understand how SAR can be done. Unfortunately it always seems to come from ex-RN guys - jealousy maybe - funny how only one of the RN exchange rearcrew that came to Chivenor ever went back to the Navy and none of the pilots have:)

Your data shows clearly that the RAF do more SAROPs (because we have more flights) so collectively we have more experience - it is not a coincidence that the OpCon for all SAR helos in UK is the RAFSARF Commander and that the ARCCK is an RAF organisation as well. Yet every man and his dog thinks they can do it better and/or cheaper which very greatly denigrates the dedication and professionalism of all parts of the RAFSARF.

[airborne_artist]

funny how only one of the RN exchange rearcrew that came to Chivenor ever went back to the Navy and none of the pilots have

And I thought only politicians did spin...., or are you a part-time politician Crab?

[pusser]

My post was gentle but the reaction of members of the RAF SARF shows what I was trying to highlight. If you read my words I said the choice of 1 strop was fine, I wasn't there, it wasn't my call. I was pointing out that this was a declared 'Hypothermia' case, we all now that when the body cools,whether in the water or not, the body pools its blood supply around the vital organs to preserve them, hence double stop/stretcher lifts are considered for hypo cases to prevent gravity doing its worst, whether or not they can be achieved is another thing.
The fact of the matter is that if it was CG footage then Crab et al would WANT to find something. That was the POINT!:ugh: Guys, get over yourselves, please.

To answer the dismissive suggestion that I am an amateur then I had better clarify my experience of SAR = 19 years in the RN of which 9 was SAR followed by CG work here and abroad (16 SAR yrs total), SAR on 5 different aircraft types utilising equipment which should have been in a museum up to state of the art kit, all as a winch op/winch man. Not trying to sing about myself, just answer the typical response of 'u dont know what your doing' comment frequently seen

When I was in the RN I worked very closely to the RAF, and these were my observations at the time which probably still stand today:

1. Extremely Professional
2. The best Flying Training Regime
3. The most number of Training Hours
4. The best SAR kit
5. The best Medical Training
6. The best infrastucture and organisation to support SAR ops

The above is hard to write as an ex matelot even now, how did you think it felt at the time!! However, stark fact remains, we still got the job done! , and had more fun doing it (crab exchange winchmen comments, not mine).
This is where so many posters on this forum are trying to come from but are immediately jumped on. My post was borne from frustration not malice against the RAF.

Crab i actually feel sorry for you, so so much of what you say (sometimes preach!) is true and solid yet you then blow it. You are so tightly wound up the release of tension must be something to behold, just hope it's not in the cockpit, could get messy:}

[Clever Richard]

Pusser,

Your original post was inflammatory and you were hoping for a reaction. Well done, you got it.

I think this thread should be archived for consultation post the introduction of SAR-H. Then we will be able to compare the promises with what was actually delivered. I wonder which camp will be saying, "I told you so"?

Still no news from Senior Trooper with an update on the question I raised about the level of SAR provision provided by Lee and Portland. Is he AWOL or MIA? It is this sort of thing that makes Crab and others so wary of the constant promises of jam tomorrow whilst cutting costs.

Regards to all.

CD

[TwoStep]

Just to change the subject, I see the Lakenheath Pave Hawks have been called out again for another mission off Ireland today...

[[email protected]]

Pusser - a couple of small points - re the rescue, it wasn't a declared hypothermia case, it was a rescue of an angler in danger who was subsequently treated for hypothermia as a precaution en route to the hospital - therefore all your recently googled knowledge regarding the treatment of the casualty is irrelevant.

In your highly experienced position of authority, did you not consider that Ed might have taken 2 strops, not because he needed to do a double lift from the water, but because it was highly possible the angler had suffered injuries in the washing cycle that might require such a lift?

Second, your attitude that you 'got the job done anyway' is exactly what will scupper SAR provision in the future - unless the highest standards are demanded of the contractor in the first place, the result will be mediocrity brought about by cutting costs and reducing training. I think the British public deserves better than that.

I don't need your sympathy, nor am I tightly wound but don't let me stop you patronising me if it makes you feel better about starting this spat in the first place.

Two-step - yes I gather the vessel was some 700nm out so much support and refuelling will be required - good luck fellas:ok:

Airborne artist - perhaps I should have qualified that as being in my time at Chiv (since 2001)

[L2driver]

This reminds me of another discussion:
My father is stronger than your father.

Of course, you get what you pay for, and I don't think that the interim UK SAR with the S-92 has anything to be ashamed of, on the contrary.
CHCE Management? They are doing the best they can to sustain business, SAR included. If anyone is telling me that that RAF is doing a better job at managing, I'll be laughing the rest of the day.

Inland SAR with NVG?? Not magic. The Norwegian Air Ambulance Service (civilian) has been using this for years in cooperation with the Norwegian integrated rescue services that includes the RNOAF 330 Sqdn which Crab probably is very familiar with. (The squadron I mean).

Everything can be learned. I don't worry about that this capability will be lost when the RAF gets something else to to with their wonderful 50 year old helicopters and magnificent crews.

If the UK government wants to get NVG and mountain rescue capability- they will get it. However they will have to pay for it, excactly as they are doing now, but this time maybe cheaper.:)

[pusser]

Crab - ref Patronising i think the phrase that comes to mind is 'Pot, Kettle'

My google ref was to humour VSF, but he seems to have gone missing, but always does once you join the fray, must be a rank thing??

Hope all (THREE) SAR service providers have a good weekend

TTFN

[[email protected]]

At the behest of Senior Pilot, I will refrain from making further unconstructive comments in reply.

[airborne_artist]

Crab - it's also just possible that the RN appointer knew they wouldn't be coming back, and that's why he sent them there.....:ok:

[Bluenose 50]

Greetings to the forum from a long term lurker who has the utmost respect for all SAR crews. Could I, as a humble first post PPRuNe probationer, ask Crab why you think that Opcon for all SAR helos in the UK is in the SARF Commander. Surely the SARF Commander does not have OpCon of the 4 MCA flights and the 2 Jigsaw ones ?
A genuine query – not intended to light a fire :ok:

[L2driver]

Excuse me: I am not into all these fancy abbreviations - what is Opcon??? We do actually have the writing space on these pages to spell out what we really mean. And this is not the first time I brought this up. Not all of us are from the UK environment:), Very small place BTW

After long considerations and scrabble: could it mean Operational Control??

Man - sometimes I feel smart!!!

[L2driver]

At the behest of Senior Pilot, I will refrain from making further unconstructive comments in reply.


Your postings have always been constructive, albeit loyal to your employer which I admire in any person. There will always be difference in opinions among professional people, and that is good. If we all agreed all the the time, where would we go?? Nowhere. Standing still. So keep on running...

Spencer Davis Group ....Nudge... nudge...

[Clever Richard]

Well said L2:D

CD

[branahuie]

Bluenose 50-

From the (good old?) days of the S61:
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/uksar.pdf


Under an agreement between the MCA and the MoD, tasking of these assets is normally undertaken through ARCC, RAF Kinloss. Exceptionally, when helicopter assistance is necessary for immediate lifesaving, the MCA can task the helicopters direct and then notify the ARCC as soon as possible afterwards.

Kinloss cannot speak direct to the S92 on HF anymore, as the S92 disnae have one, now they rely on a satphone when out of VHF range.

edit- or top cover from a Nimrod! (RAF!)

[[email protected]]

And I believe the S-92 has a sat-tracking system fitted which is not compatible with any of the ARCCKs systems:ugh:

We are supposed to be getting a sat-tracking/messaging system some time in the future but by the time it turns up it will be time to scrap the aircraft:( No one would be sad to see the back of the HF!

L2 - yes, Operational control:)

[L2driver]

I am not familiar with any tracking system in the UK SAR S-92. However, all offshore (civilian) helicopters in the Norwegian North Sea sector are required by the CAAN regulations to have the M-ADS working. (M-ADS = Modified Automatic Dependent Surveillance System)

It is a very nice system from a pilot's point of view. You turn it on after startup and then more or less forget it. It automatically transmits Flight Management System data like position, altitude, speed, rate of descent or climb, weather data etc. etc using SATCOM.
It is also connected to the transponder, and should you select 7700 or the other emergency codes, ATC wil notice immediately. The rate of transmissions are selected by ATC, normally every 30 seconds, but will be increased during certain conditions like high rate of descent etc.

These data are received by ATC and super-imposed on their radar screen. If you are in or out of radar contact - no difference. They will see you like any other aircraft - anywhere as long as you have SATCOM contact. I will not get into the finer points of ATC regulations on separation etc, but the main point is they see you all the time, even when parked on a helideck offshore. Theoretically, the ATC in Stavanger can see a M-ADS equipped helicopter anywhere in the world. I believe that the Rescue Coordination Centers in Stavanger and Bodoe now have access to the same data in realtime.

As for pilots, it is great. You get direct routings most of the time, saving time and gas, and you don't need to send position reports every 15 minutes or so. In the Norwegian sector, it meant that the radio chatter was decreased, time to read the newspaper, eat the onboard lunch etc.;) ATC takes care of separation from other traffic (as long as they can see it, mind you)

Sadly, the boxes are not produced anymore due to low demand, the UK of course did want to touch it as it was not invented there. My guess is that it will be replaced with ADS-B (B=broadcast) in the future. BTW M-ADS is a ADS-C system where the C stands for contract. You establish a connection (contract) between your aircraft and the receiver, in Norway the ATC.:)

Why wasn' a similar system put on the Air France 330?? They have ACARS, but no nav data.

[Bluenose 50]

Tasking control - and a very light one at that - does not equate to OpCon. If the SARF Commander has OpCon, why does the final word regarding whether a MCA helicopter is released for an inter-hospital transfer reside with the Coastguard MRCC ? Equally, if the MCA wish to use one of their contract helicopters on a non-SAR task, they do not have to seek permission of the ARCC or the SARF - they are paying the bills after all. If the SARF has OpCon, how could this be ? :)

Crab - there were some licensing and RCS interface issues with the MCA helicopters Sat Tracking, which I understand are being overcome. However, from the start of the MCA Interim Contract in 2007, the system was available to the ARCC on a standalone Internet display and yes, there were a few glitches but there tends to be that with most new systems.

[Bucaneer Bill]

not defending HF - but am I right in thinking that sat comms have one limitation in that the controller and multiple assets cannot comunicate all together at the same time?

[Clever Richard]

Prior to the intro of the S92, did the MCA tell the ARCC, the tasking authority, that they were not fitting HF?

CD

[[email protected]]

Bluenose - Branahuie's quote - Under an agreement between the MCA and the MoD, tasking of these assets is normally undertaken through ARCC, RAF Kinloss. Exceptionally, when helicopter assistance is necessary for immediate lifesaving, the MCA can task the helicopters direct and then notify the ARCC as soon as possible afterwards.

- means that since the SARF Cdr controls the ARCCK, he also has opcon of all the SAR assets, including the MCA ones. MRCCs are allowed to independently task their assets for tasks within 50nm.

[Bluenose 50]

BB - Yes. Satcom & HF would have been better imho. Contract called for a long range system. Successful bidder chose satcom

CR - Yes. Some folks were not listening though.

[Bluenose 50]

Crab - My memory is fading as the years go by, but I don't seem to recall you being present at any of the meetings in which the current arrangement was discussed and the protocols were being put in place. Neither it has to be said was the previous SARF Commander who also appeared to have a hearing issue over this.
Operational Control was never ceded - the whole process was intended to put in place a system whereby a single authority would have a National overview of the availability and disposition of all UK SAR helicopters and would therefore be better placed to nominate the most appropriate aircraft for any given incident. The ARCC already had knowledge of the 6 RAF and 2 RN helicopters and it made good sound sense to put the 4 MCA ones into the same pot. It is disappointing that the principles behind this generous offer (concession) have largely been lost amid all the politics and posturing in the lead up to SARH.
Tasking or scrambling the helicopter could be done either through ARCC or MRCC depending on circumstances. The tasking direct within 30/50 miles was to keep the MCA helicopters inline with the pre-existing arrangement for MRCCs tasking MOD SAR helicopters. :)

[[email protected]]

Bluenose - no I wasn't at those meetings, I was busy rescuing people which I find far more interesting and challenging than committees:)

Your standpoint is one of semantics since if the ARRCK says go and the MCA says no, where are we with a joined up UK SAR response?

I would suggest that the situation will never arise so although I take your word for it that opcon might not have been formally ceded, to all intents and purposes it has been.

I am guessing you are MCA or ex-MCA from your comments and standpoint but don't blame the RAF because your contractor provided something that wasn't compatible with existing ARCCK equipment. I would suggest that an interim contract should strive to integrate with the existing elements rather than break new ground without support.

If there is posturing and politics in the runup to SARH, just remember it was driven, to a great extent, by the MCA's desire to emulate the USCG and have control over all the aviation assets.

[Bluenose 50]

Crab - I'm not an aviator but, as I pointed out in my initial post, I do have a high regard for all SAR helicopter crews. For the record, my background is SAR coordination - a role which may not be as physically dangerous as your own but one that is equally interesting & challenging so let's not be patronising. Just ask any of your colleagues at the ARCC who have worked in both. I've coordinated incidents using RAF helicopters, MCA helicopters & civilian helicopters from a variety of sources in addition to fixed wing aircraft & stuff on the surface too many to mention &, just occasionally, all at the same time. If you think it's straightforward, you haven't studied the subject. Give it a try sometime :ok:

As regards a joined up UKSAR response, well frankly, I don't feel the need to apologise and I would humbly suggest that my contribution considerably outweighs your own.

Let me turn your argument around regarding saying go and saying no. There is as much chance of the ARCC saying no to a MCA request for helicopter assistance as there is the other way round. In many cases they are justified in doing so. That's life, it happens - we can differ & there is not a problem.

You choose not to discuss the previous scenarios possibly because they didn't fit in with your view of the world so let me take you through another one. Man overboard in the Bristol Channel. R169 (RAF SAR helicopter) is tasked following a request from the MRCC. After a period of time with nothing found, ARCC wish to stand down R169. MRCC disagree - they wish to contuinue the search. ARCC stand down R169 because they have OpCon. Their decision, their helicopter, they have OpCon & that is not a problem. MRCC have the responsibility to prosecute the search & will have to continue without the helicopter.

However, man overboard in the East Shetland basin 100 miles offshore. MRCC asks ARCC for helicopter which will be a no-brainer and inevitably R102 (Coastguard SAR helicopter) will be tasked - by MRCC Shetland. After a period of time with nothing found, MRCC will continue to search using R102 even if ARCC feel that there is no hope. ARCC will not tell the MRCC to stand down the helicopter because they do not have the power. It is Shetland's decision, their helicopter, they have OpCon. From your standpoint, ARCC would have the final say. Well actually, they don't. From 2012 they will, as far as I know, & that is fine by me.

Complicated - yes I agree but that's often how it is in SAR coordination. That is why the distinction needs to be made & it is important that everyone (ARCC & MRCC) knows how the system works. Your limited insight, and repeated misinformation on this particular issue, is unhelpful.

You can guess what you wish about my background but does being MCA or ex-MCA automatically make anyone the enemy. As regards my standpoint you have obviously misjudged it - your comments demonstrate preconception and bias.

Where exactly have I blamed the RAF ? I like the RAF. Along with others such as the RN, MCA, RNLI & mountain rescue teams etc they are the bedrock of UKSAR and everyone does a splendid job.

The Interim Contract is a bridge between the old & the new. Are you seriously asking that we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore what new technology might provide, with the chance to test it over a 5 year period? Are you saying we stick with the old and bold stuff and then be faced with addressing (possibly) bad decisions that we will then have to deal with over the next 25 to 30 years of SARH?

Regarding your final comment - having moved in these circles for quite a few years, I have never heard the view that the MCA wished to take over all airborne assets expressed by anyone other than those who wished to defend the status quo in the face of change. Ultimately, the Government of the day makes the decision & those of employed by them i.e. you & me Crab - we have to crack on with it or vote with our feet.

Safe flying

[Bucaneer Bill]

The SARF is commanded by a Group Captain RAF. Under SKIOS, all of the fwd engineering has been taken on by civilians, which resulted in the RAF engineers being freed up for other duties. Under SAR H there will only be 66 military aircrew, a proportion of which will be Royal Navy - perhaps a third?
Will the legacy SARF senior staffing level and Opcon continue as is under SAR H, and has it been considered that command of the remaining military aircrew could rotate between light and dark blue?

[Bluenose 50]

Bill

I'm not sure if that question was directed at me. I have no insight into what will happen post 2012 other than what is in the public domain and there is not a lot of that. Sorry I can't help. There may be others on the forum who can.

regards

[cyclic gal]

And I believe the S-92 has a sat-tracking system fitted which is not compatible with any of the ARCCKs systems:ugh:



The Sat tracking system can be viewed through a web client, so as long as you have access to the internet, and of course the relevant security clearances, anyone can view the data, as ARCCK do.

Rgds

[Tractor_Driver]

Following the report into the 225 ditching, where smart Vs dumb beacons was highlighted, we were having a discussion about smart homers.

My mate tried to tell me that Civvy cabs are fitted with homers that can discriminate between multiple beacons and enable them to locate scattered survivors but that RAF cabs have old technology that gets confused if there are more than two beacons transmitting in the area. I know that this cannot be true because everyone on here knows that the RAF are superior in all respects. Crab, could you just confirm that for me?

TD

[[email protected]]

Bluenose - you make some interesting points - it is a shame you can't do it without the snidey tone of thinly disguised personal insults - I am not sure what scenarios you think I chose to ignore, perhaps you could clarify.

I have no doubt that you made a significantly greater contribution the UKSAR than me - I just wonder why you felt you had to say that - I'm just a driver/arframes who goes where he is told but if you think it is straightforward and less challenging than being in a warm, comfy ops room then come out on a dark and stormy night and have a go.:ok:

Despite your two scenarios, the only reason I believe that ARCCK would withdraw an asset from a search managed by MRCC is if they had higher priority tasking for it - they don't look over the shoulder of MRCC to see if they are doing their job properly.

Unfortunately, MCA are often slaves to SARIS when sorting out searches and, whilst I understand they are the ones who would go to the coroners court to explain why a search was called off too early, the guys on scene who are actually doing the searching are usually the best arbitrators of how effective the search is and whether calling off the search is a good idea or not.

If the system is complicated for the controllers (and I'm sure it isn't from those I talk to), whose fault is it? The RAFs for having the majority stake in UKSAR aviation?

The interim contract has at least proved that the MCA shouldn't listen to their contractors regarding perceived and actual capability of aircraft - still no overwater night winching in the Channel and it took over 6 months to give the S-92 the range to match the press releases.

Putting an aircraft into service without it being fully compatible with existing comms capability is crass and arrogant - hiding behind the idea that you are introducing new technology is worse and highlights some of the politics that go on far above our (or certainly my) payscales.

You implied the fault of comms problems was with the ARCCK - is it not the fact that you let you contractor specify sat tracking without HF without challenging the decision?

[Clever Richard]

Tractor Driver,

I'm just guessing but I suspect you already know the answer to your question! Might you just be dangling some Crab bait?

Good fishing.

CD

[cyclic gal]

Control, Co-ordination, Tasking, Allocation..... All good words which I fear are sometimes used in the wrong context.

In my now civvy world I believe that my organisation operationally controls the use of the aircraft, our operations rooms co-ordinate SAR operations (Civil maritime in the main) and task the SAR units involved and, under an agreement with the RAF we contact ARCCK who allocate the aircraft to be used just in case there is another aircraft in the area of which we are unaware.

If the job is within 30 miles of the base we can go ahead and task, launch, allocate that helicopter without recourse to ARCCK. Of course the ARCCK would be contacted ASAP and informed of the situation to enable them to update their big picture and ensure that the future allocation process is not affected should another job arise.

As a SAR Co-ordinator it would be churlish, possibly grossly negligent of me not to prioritise should a request arise from any other organisation for a helo (or any other unit for that matter) already involved in an operation we are co-ordinating.

Regarding Search Planning, we have a number of tools in the box (and some out of the box) which can be used to determine a search area. I can assure you that the subsequeent board of enquiry does not even figure when determining a search area and/or allocating SAR resources.

Regarding termination of search, something which I have been involved in on a number of occasions and it's a task not undertaken or a decision made lightly, certainly not by one unit on-scene. The decision should be, and is, made in consultation with many of the parties involved be they on-scene, in Ops Rooms or Duty Officers at a number of levels.

We may also be approached by other organisations for the use of our aircraft and given that it's not involved in its' primary role then every effort will generally be made to provide it.

I see multi-organisation operations increasing monthly and in the main they work very well. Lets hope that what progress there is continues and that we can all live happily ever after.

Be safe and best regards to all.

[[email protected]]

Tractor driver - did you mean you want to confirm that the RAF is superior or that our homers are less than perfect?:)

The Griffins in Cyprus have a more modern system that copes well with multiple beacons and shows you which quadrant they are in. Our Chelton homers have a simple left/right needle indication that moves with the signal from the beacon. Multiple beacon homings are possible but dealing with more than two gets tricky; usually when doing a double beacon homing we try to seperate the signal indications and go for the closest/strongest first. We have been moaning about the homers for many years but the wheels turn slowly in the Sea King IPT:{

Cyclic Gal, I have been involved in too many searches not to recognise when the MRCC has run out of ideas and there is a heavy reliance on SARIS which is only a computer program and can't think for itself. I only found out the other day that SARIS doesn't cater for land mass - we were tasked to complete a sector search for a PIW with a radius of 1 nm and a datum that was almost on the shoreline so half the search area was over land! I have also seen, on many occasions, the reluctance to terminate a clearly pointless search because SARIS doesn't do logic, only number crunching.
I am not having a go at MRCC staff and I agree that generally one unit on scene doesn't have the overview to cancel a search - but often MRCCs underestimate the ability of a helicopter crew to assess the effectiveness of a search and the suitability of the search area.

I heartily agree that multi-agency ops are the way forward and knowledge of each others capabilities is vital to make this work.

[Bluenose 50]

Crab

I initially put pen to paper because you were asserting things that were incorrect. If the situation isn't complicated, why has it taken everyone, including some of your former senior colleagues, so long to understand it ? It's complicated because there are two main helicopter providers MOD (RAF & RN) and MCA. One military & one civilian. The civilian one is contractor provided. When coming up with some sort of standard working procedures you need to recognise the non-standard background.

I, personally speaking, am quite comfortable with RAF having the majority stake in UKSAR aviation.

I apologise if you think I was being snidey - I thought I was trying to answer your comments in a calm & reasoned manner. However, as peace appears to breaking out, can I very gently try to correct one or two issues in your last reply to me.

I did say that both roles were equally interesting & challenging. They are undoubtedly different. I didn't say that one or the other was superior.

I did make a claim about "joined up UKSAR response" i.e. not "UKSAR" and there lies the difference. While I admire your personal contribution to SAR aviation, your obvious pride in your own organisation has to be balanced against what occasionally appears to be a negative view of your partners in UKSAR. I've gone out of my to promote other authorities, including your own, even when in my humble opinion, they were behaving rather badly.

I've twice led posts stating my admiration for you chaps at the front end & although I would enjoy the opportunity of seeing your work at first hand on a dark & stormy night my age, increasing waistline and your own 2 Group (??) procedures would probably exclude me. I am, however, familiar with the concept of a dark & stormy night having bobbed around the seven seas on a variety of tubs in the past and, believe me, the waves look even bigger when you're down in among them.

As regards units being withdrawn from a search, I wasn't having a go at the ARCC who have a very difficult job to do and for whom I have the utmost respect. I also consider many of the staff there, past & present, as personal friends. They will be looking at all sorts of factors including crew fatigue, previous jobs, potential jobs, aircraft hours, serviceability - all areas you are familiar with. The MRCC will be looking at it from their perspective. Occasionally & it happens more frequently than you would assume, the ARCC & the MRCC may agree to differ. I did say that wasn't a problem. I was merely using the scenario to demonstrate who had OpCon.

I also didn't imply the comms problem was the fault of the ARCC. Clever Richard asked whether "prior to the intro of the S92, did the MCA tell the ARCC, the tasking authority, that they were not fitting HF ?" I replied "Yes. Some folks were not listening though". The relevant meeting took place in 2005. SARF were represented. I queried the decision because I felt that a combination of HF & Satcom gave a more flexible solution i.e. security of Satcom alongside the broadcast facility of HF. That was, and is, my personal view - looking at it from a SAR coordinators viewpoint. However, I am but a humble foot soldier, & Satcom it was. IPT decision, I believe. Slipping into rumour mode - there is an interesting story behind this & one you may not be entirely comfortable with. Back to reality - SARF later claimed that they were first made aware at the 2006 Conference which is incorrect but that particular myth has grown legs. In any case, both events preceded the introduction of the first S92 at Stornoway in 2007.

On the issue of equipment being brought into service without being fully tried & tested, well I can only point you in the same direction that other contributors to this forum have suggested in the past. Who is immune ? I understand that the MOD have some previous (and current) here.

Job done & hopefully slipping back into obscurity before I get into hot water ...........

[Clever Richard]

Bluenose 50,

An interesting post. I find it strange that the RAF claim that they were not informed about the lack of HF on the interim S-92 if it was stated at a meeting with an RAF rep(presumably it was minuted).

It was mentioned previously that the sat-tracker on the S-92 can be accessed over the internet. As a mission critical system, do you know if the MCA has a dedicated comms set-up for handling this data as I would be worried if they left themselves at the mercy of the vagaries of the internet.

CD

[[email protected]]

Bluenose 50 - while we are gently clarifying points - bringing equipment into service without it being tried and tested (which everyone has to do at some point) is one thing and bringing equipment into service that isn't compatible with current capability, is quite another.

If you weren't referring to the RAF/ARCCK when you said 'some folks weren't listening though' who were you pointing the finger at regarding Satcom and HF on the 92?

I'm not sure why you would draw a line between 'joined up UKSAR response' and 'UKSAR' but I would be interested to know which authorities you thought were behaving rather badly.

Despite your scenarios - it still seems to me that, unless you want to split hairs to satisfy whose turf is whose, the RAF effectively does have OpCon over all the SAR helos.

As it happens, I do have a great deal of respect for all our partners in UKSAR but that won't prevent me from saying when I think something could be done better - and that goes for RAFSAR as well.

[sapper]

Crab

RAF effectively does have OpCon over all the SAR helos.

Long been an admirer of yours considering the flack that comes your way but you handle it so well, but on the above I suggest your wrong.

The 4 CG operation rooms who have S92 and AW139 have complete operational control over their repective a/c out to a radius distance of 30nm from their respective helo bases. We attempt to keep ARCCK informed but depending on how busy the control room is, will on occasions impart a delay in passing this information.

ARCCK has on occasions requested an AW139 from Lee-on-Solent or Portland to be turned down by the SMC (SAR Mission Co-ordinator) who has the bigger picture as to what is happening in his/her area at any given time.

Given these 2 accurate senarios the RAF cannot have OpCon over all SAR helo's.

Spr

[[email protected]]

Sapper, Bluenose - I must admit defeat on this one having just talked to the ARCCK - the RAF does not have full Opcon at the moment, perhaps it was voiced as an aspiration by some of my senior commanders but I took it as fact:{

However, I believe there is a Memorandum Of Understanding in the pipeline to correct this which has the full support of the Chief CG and will give full Opcon to the RAF/ARCCK in the near future.

[Clever Richard]

Gents,

Perhaps the term you are looking for is 'Tacon'. This is the common sense practice of handing over short term control of an asset for a specific task.

I stand by to be corrected by a more knowledgeable doctrine guru.

CD

[Tractor_Driver]

Crab,

Thanks for your reply.

For those who wonder what the relevance is, my understanding (and if anyone knows better, please chip in):

If, for reasons best known to myself, I decide to throw several tons of helicopter into the water in the East Shetland basin on a foggy day, and scatter my passengers with dumb beacons across several acres, a Civvy SAR machine will turn up and locate us one by one and take us home for tea.

If I choose to repeat the experiment a couple of hundred miles South, a military machine will appear and, despite the availability of rear-facing radar and NVGs, will be unable to find any of us due to the inability to discriminate between multiple transmissions.

The AAIB are hinting that they think this might not be a good idea:
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the carriage and use in commercial air transport helicopters of any radio location devices which do not form part of the aircraft’s certificated equipment.

(AAIB Special report into G-REDU)

UK Oil and Gas, however think that:
There is no need for the CAA to conduct a further review of this matter
(press release 26th June)



TD

[Bucaneer Bill]

PARIS 2009: AirKnight opens the SAR-H door | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/3071/)

snippet from Paris = MPC optional?

PARIS 2009: AirKnight opens the SAR-H door
June 16, 2009
The sealed door closing off the UK's SAR-H procurement programme from prying eyes was left slightly ajar after the AirKnight consortium made its first 'official' public statements about the bid.
The consortium, led by Lockheed Martin with partners VT and British International Helicopters (BIH) used the Paris Air Show to reveal it had submitted its final technical solution to the joint Ministry of Defence and Department for Transport project team and to talk about their choice of helicopter, the EC225, but the company did not let on about the form their solution would take.
Bid director, Tom Gordon was however keen to point out that the consortia had the formidable financing might of Lockheed Martin behind it while partners VT and BIH had already had long experience in the provision of Public Finance Initiatives.
Under current SAR-H plans, the new helicopters would be introduced from 2012 with the entire SAR-H enterprise fully operational by 2017, with the contract due to end in 2037. Potentially the contract could last as long as 32 years including the phase out period after 2037. Among the SAR-H contract demands is that the bidders retain use of the 12 SAR bases around the UK while the Falklands base is 'optional'.
Although it is understood that both bidders have included the Falklands in their plans.
Mr Gordon told Rotorhub.com that the consortia had used computer models to find the best model for the bid, and had drawn in experience from SAR operators, while the consortia bid team had evaluated a number of different aircraft, but the 225, was 'an unrivalled offering' he said.
AirKnight says it is continuing to advance its proposals in preparation for the final financial and commercial proposals, which are due later in the year.
A final decision from the SAR-H team is expected towards the end of 2009.
By Tony Osborne - Rotorhub.com Editorial Team, Paris

[[email protected]]

Tractor Driver - I'm not sure the civvy SAR kit is quite as capable as that. 16 beacons going off at once is going to cause problems for anyone and, chances are, if it is a survivable crash, you will all be close by the aircraft or already in dinghies so location would probably be done visually not electronically.

If we were conducting an IMC homing to multiple contacts, we would still be able to let down to the area since we would get an electronic overhead of some sort. Thereafter, as every survivor is brought into the aircraft, his beacon is switched off/destroyed leaving us clear to find the others.

I think the oil and gas industry likes individual beacons simply because they give its customers a warm and fuzzy feeling that they won't be forgotten.

[detgnome]

Tractor Driver

Having used both types of homer (Sea King and the vastly superior Griffin system), I can assure you that even newer systems will not differentiate between (up to) 21 different beacons. You will home towards the majority and then have to use a variety of different techniques to separate the signals if they are in that 'difficult' scenario of being, up to, a few miles apart.

[Tractor_Driver]

Crab, Detgnome,

Thanks.

I totally agree with Crab's last point, that the Oil Companies are more concerned with box ticking and fuzzy feelings than real safety.

Never having used either generation of homer, I will hapily take the experts' advice, but if even the best cannot discriminate between a helicopter load worth of beacons, isn't all the more reason to opose the current plan to remove the existing smart beacons and re-issue dumb ones to all?

From the AAIB report:


Following the arrival of the first SAR helicopter in the vicinity of the ETAP platform, 27 minutes elapsed before the occupied liferafts were identified approximately 400 m from the platform. The search was hampered by the darkness, fog and the weakness/absence of homing signals on the emergency frequencies 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz, although survival equipment designed to transmit on both these frequencies had been activated by the crew. The liferafts were finally located by a combination of aircraft weather radar, visual guidance from personnel on the ETAP platform and a weak signal on 121.5 MHz.


Next time, there might not be an audience shouting "look behind you!"

TD

[DanglyBob]

CR

While the sat tracking system is internet fed, it's not the only means there is of tracking the aircraft.
They are also fitted with AIS, which does not give as much info, but has a faster update speed on position.
Even then the decision has been made to keep regular VHF "ops normals" with the aircraft as well.

ARCC does use the sat tracking system as far as I know. Certainly I've heard of them chasing the MRCC for an update because they've noticed the aircraft's up before the MRCC have had a chance to call them.

[[email protected]]

Tractor Driver - after reading the AAIB report, it seems clear that the real problem is the approved beacons (Tech Test 500-12Y) because they are having their signals suppressed by the WWPLBs (wristwatch beacons).

The WWPLBs perform a double function in that they give a Man Overboard (MOB) alert to the rigs in case anyone falls off as well as providing homing to an individual who may have got separated from the other pax during an aircraft ditching/crash. To that end I would not get rid of them.

I would rather replace the crew and liferaft ELT/PLBs with ones that aren't suppressed so you can always find them. Whilst I understand the theory that having fewer beacons transmitting should help the rescuers, in the case of G-REDU it hindered them instead.

It should have been a straightforward job to home to the beacons on the liferafts, especially as these should have been the strongest signal - but the suppression technology made it far more difficult.

In short, I see no reason to review the WWPLBs and every reason to review the aircraft equipment.

[Tractor_Driver]

Crab,

I have to disagree with you there.

MOB alert. Middle of Oggin. Low power beacon. Most suitable distress frequency? 121.5 to alert Crabs 100 miles away or 156.8 to alert SBV 1/2 mile away?

Ditching scenario:

Foggy day. Full helicopter, 21 souls. Ditches, all survive. Some make it to rafts; some end up in water.

Our heros arrive to find 3 strong signals (2 rafts, 1 ADELT) 2 medium strength (2 crew) and 10 weak ones (WWPLBs).

As I said above, I am no expert, but I believe that this would be more of a problem than arriving to find 1 strong signal (first of Raft or ADELT to activate), finding that one, deactivating it then moving on to the next one to squawk.

The second version relies on retaining existing equiped smart beacons, and replacing dumb PLBs with smart ones. The technology exists, it would just take a little money. Oil is back over $70 / barrel (in real terms that is higher than all but a few months over the last 25 years) so probably about 10 minutes worth of proffit need to be invested.

TD

[[email protected]]

Tractor Driver - 121.5 won't alert anyone any more, the COSPAS/SARSAT monitoring of that and 243.0 has finished so the answer is either your 156.8 alert to the SBV or a personal 406Mhz beacon.

As to the second scenario - if I pitched up on scene and only had the one strong signal (whether from the raft or ADELT) I would have to go there first but the chances that anyone is still with the aircraft are slim and if there are people in the rafts, they are at least safe from the environment. If the crew are in the rafts they probably wouldn't activate their beacons, if they are in the water they would but these would be supressed by the raft/ADELT. Any pax with WWPLBs in the rafts might suppress the ELTs and give a poor homing signal and any who are in the water drifting away would be very low down the pecking order if they had smart beacons.

In terms of rescuing priority it has to be the guys in the water with the WWPLBs since they are pax and have the least training compared to the crew and probably inferior safety equipment. If you give them smart PLBS they could be suppressed by all the others and you wouldn't know they were there until you had got the guys from the rafts (who are in less danger) out first.

The potential confusion with multiple beacons at least gives you an idea of what you are faced with ie possibly 21 pax in the water whereas one strong signal might give you an easier homing but far less information about how you need to proceed.

The aircraft beacon should be 406 and it should have encoded GPS so homing is almost unneccessary (they transmit every 50 secs or so) - the crew should be similarly equipped.

Even if it is foggy, we have more than just homers to find pax in the water - the FLIR will help and at night, so will NVG since most lifejackets have a light on which will stand out like a dog's whatsits on goggles.

Overall, since the priority must be to rescue pax from the water before pax from a raft, you must select a system that doesn't mask their individual signals if you want to give them the best chance.

It would probably take nearly an hour to winch 21 people out of the water, especially at night in fog, even if some of them are in rafts and the winchman would be knackered by the time you got halfway through. Any further searching for those who might have continued to drift away whilst you rescued the raftees first would mean longer exposure times and decreased chances of survival.

[gasax]

Perhaps I can give a perspective from the oil operators side of things.

They have to commit to an ability to rescue a helicopter load from at least the 500m zone around the installations.

So circa 20 people. They have to be retrieved within 2 hours (beyond that survival is questionable). Now given the Jigsaw project - no local standby vessels and a scenario where people are dispersed in the water, the only way to retrieve them within that time period is to have WWPLBs on every person.

This incident shows the whole process was not well thought though. Inspite of conditions being reasonably good (apart from visibility) the first recovery occured over 1 hour after the ditching. As everyone was in the rafts, no real problem apart from hypothermia affecting a few survivors. The ARRC (surface rescue craft) arrived just within the 2 hour period and the BP management could announce a success for Jigsaw.

Now we know that given intelligent beacons it cannot work. Given 'dumb' beacons the original Jigsaw trials are probably OK. So long as everyone practises regularly - because reputedly it took a lot of practice for the trials crew to meet that performance standard - 20 people within 2 hours, dispersed at sea, to be winched to safety.

But in real terms the people who need a priority rescue have the PLBs with the weakest signals. Until the strong signals are eliminated then their recovery is unlikely to be possible.



And all this ignores the issues about the aircrew not knowing how to operate the ELT!!!!

[tonyosborne]

Hearing there are some words between the various players in SAR-H about what colour to paint the chosen aircraft - Black and Orange, a la Project Jigsaw is the favourite, but the RAF want to retain Yellow etc...

[detgnome]

This will almost certainly be the most contentious issue - what colour? Given that it is an IPT what will we end up - a combination of all of the current schemes? Anyone interested in starting a new thread with their photoshopped versions of possible ac and colour schemes?

[[email protected]]

I gues it depends on what mesage they are trying to send - as many have pointed out here before, no-one cares what colour the helicopter that comes to rescue you is.

If they want a new corporate image then a new colour is appropriate - if they want a link with the past then since the majority of UK SAR helicopters are yellow then that should be retained.

I'm not convinced that linking the SARForce to Jigsaw by dint of the same colour scheme sends any sort of good message at all.

[Tigwas]

My understanding is that this matter was resolved by the IPT some time ago and the aircraft will be as the same colour scheme as the MCA aircraft are at present.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the aircraft will be as the same colour scheme as the MCA aircraft are at present


Interesting that the mil has agreed to this, as the amount of PR generated by the micro-mil contingent in future will be diminished if the aircraft looks just like the civ-operated ones.

I realize that the future casualties have very little interest in what colour the aircraft is (or who's actually flying it), but in terms of news reports etc, it won't be as evident to Joey P that the aircraft on his TV screen has any connection to the military. At least the Sea Kings are evidently military, even if frequently attributed to the wrong service ("Navy helicopter from RAF Kinloss", "Army helicopter from Lossiemouth" etc etc).

[sonas]

Latest rumour on colour!

They're reportedly going to be black with day glo orange on the the nose and tail. Thats what i heard on the grapevine :eek:

[Support Monkey]

Black, orange and white according to the picture in the Airknight promo material from Paris.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/paris/AIRKNIGHT-PAS2009.pdf

and

PARIS 2009: AirKnight opens the SAR-H door | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/3071/paris-2009-airknight-opens-the-sar-h-door/)

Though still red and white on the Soteria release

Soteria team hails S-92 performance for UK's SAR-H deal (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/09/329437/soteria-team-hails-s-92-performance-for-uks-sar-h-deal.html)

[northseaguy]

and there's more.......

News from Lockheed Martin UK (http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/349.html)

and

http://www.vtplc.com/Media/Pressreleases/AirKnightadvancesS/

[Tallsar]

Hi SM (& others so interested).

A closer review of the AK colour scheme shows dark blue and orange with some red detailing. - Why? - not a chance choice for sure- they are the basics of the UK lifeboat scheme - SAR-H aircraft (in part) being the "lifeboats of the air" (I know -I can hear many saying that there are more overland jobs than sea these days... but that's not the point...).

The rationale was straight forward - choose a scheme that is different from all 3 present UK SAR operators (and avoid all the inevitable internecine warfare at senior levels that choice of any of the present ones will create (maybe?) - also help establish a new UK SAR-H corporate identity and ethos, and of course, in a very simplistic way, associate the similar rescue activites of the new UK SAR-H service with that of the RNLI given the long and continuing association of UK SAR helos and the RNLI over the last 6 decades. It might help create a unified identity to the UK public too.

Why do I know? - those of you who know me know why.....;)

Cheers

[sonas]

Local news have it that CHC operated Rescue Helicopters will not carry the current pumps to vessels because the pumps cannot be secured in the aircraft. New light weight pumps on order! MOD aircraft ops as normal.

[[email protected]]

The way the country's finances are going, the choice of RNLI livery may well be appropriate since we might find ourselves needing charitable donations to maintain a service:(

Sonas - is that 139 and S-92? Seems rather strange it has taken this long for the issue to raise its head.

[leopold bloom]

because the pumps cannot be secured in the aircraft What! No P strops or lashing tape then?:confused:

[sonas]

Hi Think its the S92's cause its Sumburgh and Stornoway been mentioned

[[email protected]]

What! No P strops or lashing tape then?

Maybe a much better product was promised that would be cheaper and better than the old-fashioned military solution yet strangely failed to do the job asked of it so the whole pump-aircraft interface had to be completely redesigned:)

[500e]

Just another day in the life of procurement, looking at bottom line but not joining the dots, how often do you find the cheapest is not the best? plus read the small print

[Cyclic Hotline]

Chivenor going down to day operations only?

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Devon | 'Day only' rescue helicopter plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/8191314.stm)

Should allow much more time for Ppruning, politicking and generally farting around on the internet! :uhoh:

[[email protected]]

Mr Davies clearly doesn't understand the concept that 'no lesser service' implies when considering the new contract post 2012.

There is no way, even with the fastest helicopters in the world that you can meet, let alone exceed present or historical concurrency and surge incident levels at night with fewer bases. Once the aircraft from either Culdrose or Valley is tasked to an incident there is now no overlap cover or ability to manage concurrent SAROps for a huge area of the W of England and Wales.

For some reason Chivenor has been the target of several attempts to prove SAR bases can be reduced which, when you consider the size of our patch and the number of jobs we do (over 200 so far this year) is rather ridiculous and a good proportion of them are at night.

When you also consider how busy the flights at Valley and Culdrose are (also at night), how are they going to mop up the extra tasking from Devon, North Cornwall and S Wales without someone losing out and not getting a helicopter when they need it.

All the analysis of response times, range and job frequency conveniently ignores the fact that the W coast of UK is a busy place in terms of maritime, coastal and mountain activity and 2 aircraft at night for the whole area is not enough, especially as there is no second standby aircraft in the new contract.

The ability to use a SAR helicopter for a nighttime medtransfer (relatively common) to specialist hospitals in London and the Midlands would denude huge areas of UK if we are down to 9 bases an mean that those requests would simply have to be turned down or risk leaving massive holes in SAR cover.

This letter is, I suspect, a precursor to the SARH announcement and discussions with probably the cheapest bidder because both consortia have expressed concerns that the contract can't be achieved within the prescribed budget. All the worries that this whole process would produce a less capable and profit-driven service are coming to pass:{

All UK SAR needs is some new aircraft, not a huge new empire and a £5BN contract but the politicians and the MoD leadership can't or won't see this. In the face of present public spending defecits how on earth can you justify £5Bn for less aircraft and poorer cover?

It is like suggesting that having fewer but faster ambulances or fewer but fitter policemen will improve NHS service or reduce crime rates and giving the taxpayer an even bigger bill to deal with - frankly it's criminal.

And finally, having just had an early call-in because the overnight crew have done nearly 7 hours of night SAROPs, I think the minister really ought to look carefully at what he is suggesting.

And having gone through the job book this mornin, 45 of our jobs since Jan 1 09 have been at night after 2100 - who will be doing those then?

[Epiphany]

Welcome to the world of civil aviation. SAR is not the sacred cow that you seem to think it is and SARH will probably go to the lowest bidder who will possibly not provide the current level of service and cover. But change is coming and you will have to learn to live with it. You may even have to take your own laptop to work.:eek:

[500e]

What I don't understand is, We as Tax payers are going for a Private SAR service with less aircraft,crews,& cover, Cost £5 bn ? over 5 years, if I have read things correctly.
We are still going to have to pay the Mil crews to train on top of this cost where is the saving ???, still the powers that make the decisions will be OK, when it goes wrong they will have lessons to learn, it was the correct decision at the time, we will have a s tragic review etc. etc. so many questions no real answer

[[email protected]]

Epiphany - I accept the point that change is coming but what is driving that change is the real issue. The taxpayer has to pay for the Govt to discharge its responsibility for SAR in the UK region whichever way you cut it; the Military element of SAR would not cost £5Bn to provide for the next 25 years (25 years for the SARH contract 500e) so why is the taxpayer being asked to cough up that amount to replace it (and the 4 existing civsar flts) which I don't think costs £200 million per year.

That works out (with 12 SAR flts) at £16.5 million per flight per year - what is the price of a new aircraft? For less than 2 years expenditure you could provide all 12 flights with new aircraft and retain the present Mil/civ crewing and have aircraft that would last a least 10 years.

The whole point of SARH was that it would provide a better service (or at least as good) with value for money for the UK taxpayer - it looks as if it will fail on both counts. It is utter madness.

Just like privatising the utilities companies we will be writing a blank cheque to the service providers and allow them to take big profits when things go well and come crawling to the chancellor for cash when unforseen (well by them anyway) circumstances affect their bottom line.

Before long we will have 'EASY-SAR' provided by the very cheapest bidder where every rescue is charged to the rescuee (and they will charge extra if they have to rescue your bags as well).

[Sailor Vee]

'EASY-SAR'is that why Air Knight have orange as part of the paint scheme. :E :\

[Epiphany]

It is utter madness.


That seems to be a prerequisite for decisions made by the present government unfortunately.

[arandcee]

EasySAR? Does that mean they tell you they're taking you to the N Devon District Hospital but drop you at the Rock Park Park and Ride instead because the landing fees are cheaper and there's a convenient bus service?

[heli1]

So let's think Culdrose to Bristol is what...180 miles?,Lee to Gloucester is say 80 miles??
Picture this ....Drunks go paddling at night at Weston super Mare and get lost in the mud as the tide turns (second highest rise and fall in the world ).No helicopter at Chivenor so Lee ,Culdrose or Valley the only option.How much longer will it take to get there,how long can it stay on scene and will it be too late ?
OR ..more floods in Gloucestershire as river burst its banks at 8pm at night and all helicopters needed to rescue residents.How many can actually get there within the hour and do the job ?
Above based on real scenarios recently ......two people going for an early morning swim and even the Chivenor Sea King failed to find them in time ....floods in Cornwall and Gloucestershire/Worcester.

[tomotomp]

So let's think Culdrose to Bristol is what...180 miles?,

think you are a bit over try 120nm

[Artifical Horizon]

Crab

EasySAR might not be to bad. However if the idea gets out it could be RYANSAR and that would be something to worry about. Meters on the oxygen and Entonox and 30 quid extra for each broken limb.

[Support Monkey]

PIN machine on the end of the line, SATCOM to check funds, hefty admin charge or alternately buy your SAR-H insurance policy - that'll sort out the funding deficit!

[mark137]

Over the past 20 years i have had a good insight to SAR from RAF RN COASTGUARD and BOND whats wrong is while civi and mod are all spouting at each other whos the best whats the best, it would be much better if everyone got round the table and seen eye to eye.

1 proper helicopter
2 TRAINING

I would like to thanks all the sar crews for there work and indeed r131 for rescueing me in april

RAF founded SAR and has took it to a new level which we should be proud of and learn and help each other

Coastguard in shetland with the idea of the pumps in a container is the best idea i have seen

And the latest seaside rescue has shown the use of the hi-line with r193 which could be used better

Bond i was involved as a guy off the street with there training and they are starting to improve they need good training project

I would like to thank and praise all sar crews round the UK we have the bestin the world dont blow it

[branahuie]

Full marks to CHC Stornoway, when a pump was needed the politics were put aside:

Newsroom - Press Releases (http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/newsandpublications/press-releases.htm?id=50DF978DFAF1B29B&m=8&y=2009)

and here-

Lifeboat launched 21 Aug 09 (http://www.rnli.org.uk/rnli_near_you/news/news_detail?articleid=474580)

:ok:

[Fareastdriver]

As I am supposed to be the expert, the blokes down the pub will be asking me what all the racket around the Bridge of Don area in Aberdeen was at around 2 o'clock this morning.
I initially thought it was a Sea King holding until the ARI was ready but it kept coming back again as if it was involved in a search.
An explanation would be nice to zip up the moaners.

[Woolf]

This maybe:

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Search launched for missing man (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8221828.stm)

Search launched for missing man


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45270000/jpg/_45270698_angler_rescue_226.jpg An RAF helicopter was called in to help the search

A major search has been launched for a man missing in Aberdeen.
A search helicopter from RAF Lossiemouth was called in overnight, along with coastguard and lifeboat crews, after Gary Cheyne vanished.
The 43-year-old is said to be "vulnerable" and police said they were genuinely concerned for his safety.
He is described as 5ft 3in tall, stocky, with greying receding hair. He walks with a shuffle. Grampian Police appealed for him to make contact.
The alarm was raised when Mr Cheyne was reported missing from a friend's address in the Seaton area of the city.
He was last spotted at about 2220 BST on Tuesday night in the King Street and Ellon Road area.
When last seen he was wearing a blue/red jacket, a white jumper, and either dark blue jeans or tracksuit bottoms.


?

[Fareastdriver]

Thanks for that. Everything explained.

[[email protected]]

Oh yes we just love spending hours looking for 'vulnerable' missing persons:ugh: especially in the dark!

[bigglesbutler]

Question:

How does a helicopter search for a man, in a city, at night?

I have done cliff searches at night for said people, but in a city??????????????? How does THAT work?

Si

P.S. How does this relate to SARH going? Or am I being a spoilsport :E

[leopold bloom]

Start with a "Square search" followed by "Creeping Lane Ahead"?:ok:

[[email protected]]

BigglesButler - I don't know the area but the 'Bridge of Don' sounds like the sort of coastal or waterway area more suited to the MCA and helicopter searching rather than the middle of a city:)

Unfortunately, as soon as there is any likelihood that the 'vulnerable' person may have entered or is likely to enter the water, the MCA get involved and then so do we.

[MightyGem]

Oh yes we just love spending hours looking for 'vulnerable' missing persons:ugh: especially in the dark!

You're not the only ones. It's even more fun when the mobile phone location is nowhere near where they are eventually found!

[[email protected]]

Yes, I was shocked to find out the other day that the phone companies charge the police for pinging mobiles and in some cases we are talking hundreds of pounds - hence a hard-up police force is less likely to ask for the ping!

[MightyGem]

Yes, and the results are not exactly brilliant. Usually something like "within a 1.5 mile radius of such and such mast". I found a company a few years ago who could pinpoint a phone down to 100m, but they needed the permission of the phone owner to do it.:ugh:

[gasax]

The Bridge of Don is coastal, with a bridge of the river Don - as it reaches the sea. It is also unfortunately (?) the largest surburb in Europe! Population of something over 22,000 and more houses than you should have to think about.

Having said that there are a number of large open areas - particularly along the coast - where a helicopter would be practical to use and most of the 22,000 would hear it!

[Spacer]

I used to live on the said King Street, and know both areas of Aberdeen well. That would be a very difficult area to search by helicopter..... infact the crew would have been better going by the works Astra. Assuming the press have the search area correctly stated :)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the crew would have been better going by the works Astra


...which they could have driven there in first gear all the way, with someone steering with their feet from the back seat, while the front seat passenger operated the pedals with their hands...:E

Will there be the chance for such close crew co-operation under SAR-H? I think we should be told...

[detgnome]

Reminds me of the 'fifth and reverse only' challenge in driving the 78 Sherpa down south!

[Spacer]

Torque..... that's called CRM training/flex :)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

that's called CRM training/flex


Isn't it also called "Night Wets"?

I Thirkell, You Thirkell, He Thirkells...:ok:

[SARREMF]

Agggh the 78 Sqn Sherpa. Now that is worthy of an entire thread all on its own! Title something like " Aircrew I have tried to kill - by a Sherpa"

[detgnome]

Hmmm. Appears that I (and others!) have induced a small amount of thread drift...

Well it fills the void before the ensuing furore that will come in the next few months!

(and that's 200 posts for me:))

[TwoStep]

Getting the thread back on track...:}

Hearing that the goalposts were shifted for the bidders again recently, Falklands is no longer part of the bid, essentially changing the structure of the entire contract, months before bid announcement, still due at the end of the year...

[detgnome]

Understood that final bid submissions were due this month, although not sure when. If this is the case then the 2 bid teams will just have gone into overdrive.....

After a moments thought...

Doesn't this question the entire military commitment/requirement to/for SARH?

[[email protected]]

Unfortunately, as long as the IPT keeps capitulating when industry complains about costs we will see a gradual and irrecoverable erosion of the principles set out at the beginning of the process which were supposed to ensure the quality of the service provided post 2012.

This shifting of the goalposts is symptomatic of weak leadership and a desire to keep the process going to the bitter end, no matter what.

Since 2/3 of the funding for SARH is coming from the defence budget, how can this possibly make economic sense when swaging cuts are being proposed on other big projects?

[Spanish Waltzer]

cynical perhaps, but as a moot point in times of mass turmoil in govt circles, extreme financial pressure and an apparent loss of faith/trust in lords and masters by the populous at large - which is now perceived as the bigger vote winner; investing in the future of homeland security/SAR or investing in the support of UK troops fighting overseas in Afghanistan?

Put another way is joe public more likely to vote the govt back in if they are seen to be looking after the tax payer (& non tax payer!) at home or the boys & girls on the front line?

[Tallsar]

The FI part of SAR-H bids was always (since Day 1) a seperate costed evolution requested of the Bidders to permit the Customer to ultimately decide the way forward - ie. within SAR-H or by some other means (note too that Cyprus SAR was seperated right from the outset despite the logic for its inclusion) - cost was never just the issue but no doubt will assist the final decision. If it has been decided to withdraw the FI option from the SAR-H final bids - my opinion is that this will improve the UK solution's chances of success rather than weaken it.

As for the IPT capitulating on every Bidder driven cost saving argument - one reply - tosh! The job of the bidders is to try and meet the requirement and accurately cost against it. If some of the important details are worthy of amendment to meet the Customer's likely budget - well its incumbent on any bidder to point out ways of improving things. Certainly the IPT has to remain open to supported arguments by bidders to show that if a way forward is too expensive then cheaper options should be discussed. Thats the whole nature of the EU competitive dialogue process - value for money! Ultimately the IPT and wider Customer community will decide (not the bidders) if something or some aspect of their requirement remains affordable or not against the best and final bids from the competitors and the project budget available.

Finally - its a good point - there is inevitably some voting mileage in a UK centric project such as SAR-H versus overseas military expenditure - that has in part driven the basing policy decison ie keep the present lot whatever the economics/operational usefulness - has the government the backbone to make the right decisions - you decide!!

Cheers

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - then why is the IPT always ready to 'take things at risk' when having to make decisions - especially since they will not take any 'risk' directly themselves, that will be the pink bodies on the front-line.

I know there has to be some give and take in the process but industry seems to be very adept at bamboozling civil servants into submission.

I am sure the habit is learned from dealing with a lot of military senior officers who would rather 'manage the risk' and ignore the problem rather than have to make a decision for which they might be accountable at sometime in the future (see the military airworthiness thread).

[500e]

I still don't understand how it can be more cost effective for two organisations to train, maintain, people & equipment, to the highest standards.
Military personnel require training so the cost of the SAR service is offset as a training exercise, with more realism and decisions than any training exercise, I would have thought that either the time in air will go down for mil or cost per flight up, due to the private SAR now flying the extra hours with on costs of people and infrastructure etc.

[Tallsar]

Hi Crab

I'm not sure why you think the "taking things at risk" issue has much depth to it as far as the SAR-H bid is concerned....you might elaborate

In my experience, -yes the majority of the risk for the performance and delivery of SAR-H will fall to the chosen contractor - that's what its all about after all....but that said I can assure you that it will be in the nature of the solution that some risk will remain firmly managed in the hands of the Customer (read IPT if you wish here).

As for bamboozling - I can assure you that the SAR-H IPT, including its MoD servcie members (who represent those front line pink bodies of course!) and HMCG representaives are not easily bamboozled especially after their experience with the Interim process (and remember SAR-H is a much bigger and longer term project than the Interim which was not a PFI either. Even if any of the bidders were so minded to do some bamboozling - a foolish move in such a competion where if nothing else the costs of any bamboozlement will soon show up on their balance sheet - assuming it got through the extensive scrutinies in the first place. You know yourself I think how extensive the customer analysis team is for the bids, and how the Treasury and both Departments' PFI units will go into enormous depth before the contract is signed off...in fact there is a real risk that such scrutiny will cause extensive delays as in other similar sized recent PFIs such as FSTA (the only broadly equivalent PFI to SAR-H). In fact in this sort of PFI, the bidders' banks are also very much to the fore in ensuring no nonesense survives to reach the customer - its their money after all that is on the line here. No one wants to replicate Metronet - where the whole thing went bankrupt not long after contract and left HMG carrying the debt.

I think you already know my views on where we should have been with a future UK SAR Force - but PFI is where we are and lets hope it delivers - its unlikely we will see an alternative in these cash strapped days.

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - if everyone is whiter than white in this process, why was it left to the subject matter experts who were drafted in from the mil to highlight a raft of fabrications and half-truths regarding claimed aircraft performance and fit? The IPT would not have noticed and when some of the shortfalls were highlighted - they were content to take said shortfalls at risk without understanding them until a very robust case was made.

Both bidders are in the business of making money - the financial crisis we find ourselves in now shows quite clearly the risks that people will take to make profit and the financial institutions are the worst of the lot, I suspect that their 'scrutiny' is reserved for the bottom line only.

I am sure a lot was learned from the interim process - but clearly not enough to prevent CHC from continuing to be part of it despite their failure to provide aircraft at the right spec and a very poor history of industrial relations with their crews.

I very much doubt that what we end up with post 2012 will be anything to crow about - it will be another millstone around the Govts and MoDs necks when unforeseen circumstances require more taxpayers cash whilst the shareholders are receiving their healthy returns and the senior management enjoy bonuses and share options.

[Epiphany]

'Pink bodies'? 'Whiter than white'? Be very careful Crab or your local PC PC will be knocking at your door - probably having driven (I almost wrote walked) past a bank robby, 2 muggings, a WW11 veteran being beaten up and a white van full of illegal immigrants looking for the Benefits Office.


when unforeseen circumstances require more taxpayers cash whilst the shareholders are receiving their healthy returns and the senior management enjoy bonuses and share options.


Bet you'd be hard pushed to think of one taxpayer funded project that didn't end up costing many times more than the original budget - by which time the decision maker is enjoying a second career as company director and the contractor is laughing all the way to the bank.

[Shell Management]

Why is Boulmer downgraded to daytime cover only?

When will the RAF fit the upgraded homer units the oil industry are paying for?

[Tallsar]

Hi Guys - I suppose if the premise of any of this discussion is predetermined by a prejudical viewpoint of any sort, it is always diffcult to convince otherwise or make headway with fact(s).

Crab - Despite the very large resources and expertise put in to such bids (by both remaining bidders) the whole purpose of customer scrutiny is to clarify and identify ambiguities - remembering too that the Customer's own (extensive) requirements document can be ambiguous too - so the whole purpose of the process is to bottom out the facts even if most are very clear. Remember too that the interaction of technical, commercial and financial requirements can lead to compromise outputs to ensure the overall requirements are met - this is not just a contract about a highly specified aircraft. Yes it is only right that the Customer scrutiny team identifies any issues within any bidder's response - but I take real issue with your prejudicial viewpoint that the bidders go out of their may to potentially mislead or hide things. This is simply a typical frontline prejudiced viewpoint that would not stand up to any independent scrutiny - certainly not as far the SAR-H project is concerned. For this stage of the process (as in any major project) an IPT may take some issues "at risk" as you say, to ensure the free flow of the bidding process and progress within sensible timescales to get to the contract negotiation stage. What matters here is whether these issues are resolved before the signing of the contract and committment by all signatories thereafter. In the SAR-H bid process such a process will occur after award of preferred bidder early next year. This is when those "at risk" issues must be resolved to all parties satisfaction - if you assume that all will merely be taken on board by the customer and the requirement therefore effectively abandoned - you are doing a real diservice to a hard working (and under resourced) IPT and their many frontline reps. The long negotiation over FSTA contract is a clear example of this.

Unfortunately it is not (and never would have been) possible to fund and deliver what each of us as active or ex SAR practioners would have desired and defined as our ideal SAR-H or UK SAR replacement programme. Life just ain't like that - so compromises against the budget will always have to be made. You personally may not like the result in some important details (as no doubt will I) but its the only game in town at present and what will result will in overall terms be a real improvement over the present amalgam of the 3 UK service providers - whichever side wins will result in a common fleet of brand new modern and capable aircraft which will effectively replace the increasingly decaying Sea King et al and be a real step forward. While the solution for me will not be a step forward enough and a missed opportunity to deliver a different style of solution - it will be a real improvement nonetheless.

As a guy who has now worked in the mil and industry - I have a great deal of admiration for the expertise on all sides imperfect and institutionally crazy as it might be occasionally (on all sides of the project family!!) - and I have to say, that certainly in this particular programme, the suggestion that a long term PFI can produce large bonuses and huge profits for the chosen contractor is just simply a prejudiced and cynical joke - henc emy previous comment re Metronet. Any long term PFI is about major risk being placed on a contractor for the sake of long term service provision, financial stability and budgeting for a customer who has now gained access to resources that the they would otherwise not be able to afford (for whatever reason - and there are several in UK SAR's case as previous threads have discussed). Essentially a simplistic view of this PFI concept is that a contractor rejects short term larger profit as might be the case in a major aircraft production contract with no servcie delivery, for their own acceptance of a much lower annual profit margin but the confidence that as long as they manage the contract well (and thats a big if!!) and have budgeted correctly in the first place (with no hidden gotchas - which could soon undermine any profit!) they will maintain that profit for the immense length of the contract - the risk in signing up for 30 years to major programme like SAR-H with all its potential gotchas over that time should not be underestimated!! So to suggest that contractors are only seeking large profits and bonuses is simplistic trash - it would not survive the scrutineers! To ensure this cannot happen means signifcant Customer rules and financial scrutiny that is more extensive in many ways than that applied to the technical requirements - so be in no doubt people - imperfect as it might be from individual perspectives - SAR-H will not be a financial walk over for anyone.

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - I have never made a secret of the fact I am fundamentally opposed to PFIs in general and the SARH process in particular - Any long term PFI is about major risk being placed on a contractor for the sake of long term service provision, financial stability and budgeting for a customer who has now gained access to resources that the they would otherwise not be able to afford and it is this type of risk taking that has got us into the financial mess we are in now.

We all now know that when major institutions fail, the Govt will (and has to) pick up the tab - against a background like that, where is the incentive for the contractor to perform well?

Cornwall established a much lauded PFI for their schools where the contractor promised to maintain the present schools and build new ones - jam today and jam tomorrow - except that what they produced was substandard and has just failed - who suffers? oh yes the taxpayer again.

Can we really afford to do this to SAR? Whilst the management of both the remaining bidders may be promising the earth and offering every guarantee under the sun in order to get the money, we heard the same thing from the utilities companies and the train companies.

The people calling the tune are the financial backers and they always want more profit from their investments - see what First Reserve are doing to CHC.

As to the misleading - the bidders ticked all the boxes of the SARH requirement to meet the bids capability requirements, all claiming to meet the spec. But when all the said claims were scrutinised, many areas were found to be wanting and some were missing altogether (the devil is always in the detail). If the SMEs hadn't been so diligent and professional, how much of a capability gap would have made it to the front line? Either there was some smoke and mirrors and subterfuge to dodge round the capability requirements or the bidders were incompetent in researching their own bids - which was it? Either way it is unsatisfactory!

I don't suppose for an instant anyone has the balls for it but this process should be halted now before it is too late. When politicians are actually talking openly about saving 5Bn by reducing the number of SSNs in Trident replacement, how can we justify 5Bn on SARH when all we really need are new helicopters which would cost a whole lot less than that?

[Tallsar]

Hi again Crab - fancy some more SAR-H ping pong? Of course you do! ;-). I muse as to whether anyone else is bothering to read this - so be it....

You raise some valid points as usual....I am not going to try and dispute with you on the merits of PFIs - fundamentally as an individual I full agree with you that it should not have been the way forward for SAR-H - but there it is and here we are. Can it be stopped - of course it could be ...but where's the early cash coming from and gven all the other priorites the new Government will have - I doubt any change will be worth the furore -- but stranger things can happen....eg both bidders withdraw?

As for your more detailed points - I think we talk in slightly parallel universes as far as the scrutiny by the SMEs is concerned. Be in no doubt that at least one of the bidders (and no doubt both) has spent a great deal of time attempting to meet the requreiments honestly and as best it can be done given that major changes to what is available "off the shelf", at best add very signifcant cost deltas to a bid ( maybe what the customer may not be prepared to pay for), or are simply just not available even if affordable, within the delivery constraints required (which are very tight!!). Priorites have to be decidied - and I would suggest both the customer and the bidders have been vexxing themselves on the priority issues in this regard such as on the precise radar spec. I would ask you try and accept that there is no hoodwinking going on but only the natural process that requires all sides in the dialogues to really understand where we are all going with this programme. Like it or not also, there are many differences in intepretation between professionals from different backgrounds - even dare I say it, if they have served in RAF SAR....I return to the radar performance issue as a case in point. And thats before you consider what is in the practical art of the possible as far as airworthiness and clearance to operate matters are concerned for any change in capabaility.

Your point about other PFIs failing is indeed a major issue of concern as I alluded to also over Metronet and I will only say that the IPT made it clear from the outset to all bidders that financial stability was the most signifcant priority to underpin any successful bid. Everyone I believe has learned from experience as far as other failed PFIs are concerned - and lets face it for many a large PFI of this sort (as opposed to the sort that merely invovles bricks and mortar or more simple service provison) is still in newish territory. Extraordinary scrutiny is being done to minimise the risk of similar failures in SAR-H and emulate the successes (such as MSHATF & HMS Clyde) - though no process can be offer a 100% guarantee - but then even if it was a fully government run programme the financial risks direct to the treasury can still be immense if things go wrong - and then it would be the MoD budget that would carry the can! It takes an attitude of faith and trust in the process -- something I can understand many in HM Forces in general have little of these days as far as new procurements of any sort or style are concerned - so fighting that scepticism and cynicism is almost impossible (particualry as I share some of it too!!)

I repeat - we are where we are ....if the PFI continues then its not long before the new UK SAR helo force will be emerging from its crysalis -- and I wish all those directly involved and affected good luck and a fair wind -- they are going to need it!

Cheers

[JackRyan]

Prepare the Carson blades!

Defence groups in £20bn dash to beat the cuts - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article6848237.ece)

[Tallsar]

A nice thought for some...but some others might believe that a SK SAR force with Carson baldes - and no doubt a few other "minor" improvements - might prove a greater annual budgetary problem than the budget profile for SAR-H. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the MoD over the next few months.......:ugh:

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - yes it will be interesting to see those who have tried to get rid of SAR from the military realise that MoD will be footing 2/3 of the bill by 2017 once all the mil flights have been taken over and that the PFI might knock some of the more 'core' projects into touch.

And, as you say, the budgetry profile of SARH might also work in its favour since the full cost isn't felt for several years which is a very long time in both politics and long-term costings juggling.

Jack, Carson blades aren't the answer to the poor Mk 3 fleet, everything about the aircraft is knackered and putting on new blades to increase the flight envelope just puts more stress on the rest of the very old airframe and avionics. If a more serious review was considered, like removing the folding head and tail, completely replacing the avionics and cockpit with modern, digital equipment (EFIS, moving map etc) and then doing the full Carson mod with the bifilar absorbers and lifting frames - then we might see an aircraft capable of continuing SAR for 10 to 15 years and deferring the time when new procurement is absolutely necessary.

It ain't going to happen because the concept of spend to save is alien to the bean counters.

We are now in a position where Govt spending is the only thing keeping the economy going and defence spending means jobs. Just a shame that the 2 bidders are sourcing their aircraft from Eurocopter and Sikorsky and neither will be built in UK. That's not to say I want the Merlin but I'm sure the Sea King modifications could be done under license at AW.

[finalchecksplease]

I agree, as you said yourself Crab, because Brown loves to borrow off-balance sheet via these PFI's there is no chance they will go back on their decisions.

Future generations will have to pick up the tap (again) and as proven in plenty of other PFI initiatives probably get a lesser quality service.

Politicians you got to love them.... NOT! :yuk::yuk::yuk:

[Tallsar]

Now there's a gem of a thought Crab!...a ministerial directive to substitute a SAR AW101 instead of either competitors' highly researched value for money platform solutions......"providing high tech employment in the UK in a recession" and avoiding all that "lack of UK helicopters" press coverage (and half the work and all the profits to an Italian owned firm we must not forget).........has it happened before? ---well not quite but something similar ---those of us who were there remember the 1995 SH procurement decision only too well!! - Who wanted 101 then?....So who knows????? Of course if it did it most liklely will lead to a delay in ISD for the SAR-H as the winning bidder grappled with the detailed issues of using the 101 rather than their chosen platform, and given the costs of 101, a bigger bill for the taxpayer at the end of the day - just as with the 1995 decison.....anyone taking bets?

[Hilife]

If the AW101 made sense as a cost effective platform for this bid, then it would be in the solution (just look at it’s runaway success in the offshore oil market), so let’s not bring UK manufacturing jobs into the equation when talking about saving lives.

Both the Danes and the Canadians have found out the hard way that they require a larger fleet of new build AW101’s in order to provide the same SAR coverage, and still both countries are struggling to achieve 50% operational availability. If testament were needed as to why the AW101 should be excluded from UK-SAR-H, then surely this is it.

The AW101 is a very high maintenance platform and as a result, a very expensive solution. Using both civil and military in-service operational availability data, just how many platforms would be needed to cover 12 bases and add to this the cost to the UK taxpayer over 25 to 30-years doesn’t bare thinking about.

Politically, building someone else’s platform in the UK looks good, but it adds substantially to the cost of the platform (think WAH-64) and as this is a competition, this notion fell by the wayside on day one.

This bid isn’t about protectionism, platform choice or UK jobs, it’s about providing the best SAR-H solution for saving lives for a cash strapped Government who is legally bound to provide (long-term) reliable SAR-H cover around our nations coastline.

PFI’s may not be the best solution for the UK taxpayer in the long-run, but a PFI is the Governments preferred choice and all the bidders since day one have merely responded to this chosen method. As the requirement is for UK coverage, there can be no doubt that a large part of the tax payer’s money will be recycled back into the UK economy through crewing, maintenance, support and even finance over the next 25 to 30-years.

Both Mil and Civil Rotary aviation has been my bag since leaving school many moons ago and as a result I’ve got to know a great many people within both sectors and I’ve also been following this PFI closely.

With the teams now whittled down to the last two and being so close to selection of a preferred bidder (assuming SAR-H is not canned by the very people who instigated it), I suspect the crews, engineers and heaven forbid - even most of the management involved in both the bidding teams are a nervous bunch of late and for them winning is not about profit or greed, but about coming out on top (and no not at any price) and the pride that is associated with being selected as the preferred choice to provide such a challenging and worthwhile service.

For the loser there is only disbelief and hurt (and a legal challenge I suspect), so good luck to both teams.

[JackRyan]

...let's hope the legal challenge drags through to May when the incoming government can include SAR in the SDR

[Tallsar]

Well said HiLife - couldn't disagree with anything you have said - I trust therefore you noted my degrees of saracsm and cynicism in my previous post re AW101.

My point therefore holds - UK politicians (of both main parties) - particularly in their dying moments - have been known to support what is perceived to be the best political way forward from their perspective - and AW produced helos have been previously in favour in this respect - often! - sadly these decisions do not neccessairly take any in depth account of the very facts you have rightly detailed. So anyone taking bets between now and the next election of the outcome of the SAR-H platform selection should be at the very least a tad wary!

Personally I believe the AW101 would make an excellent SAR-H platform (in certain numbers within a mixed fleet) from purely an operational perspective. I totally agree that the cost of ownership would be expensive on the face of it depending on who you talk to and despite earlier customer experiences....but such a price has been paid by UK governments before ---and now I am repeating myself...

Cheers

[TwoStep]

I struggle to see a situation where a legal challenge could happen, the process of 'competitive dialogue' or secrecy has meant that there has been no real interference in the bid process, and as far as I am aware, no UK PFI competition decision has been challenged in the courts, not like in the US.

[[email protected]]

I don't know how much capital bidders invest in other PFIs but I think we are talking big bucks that the loser will have forfeited - not only all the legwork going into preparing the bid but also a large deposit to secure the airframes on the production run at the factories of both Sikorsky and Eurocopter.

I understand that a major requirement of a PFI is to show value for money but since no-one was able or willing to establish what SAR is currently costing or would cost for 25 years retaining the present service providers, this would be difficult to achieve. A military solution was not allowed to be entered either so any legal challenge might hinge on whether the PFI process can be shown to be as squeaky clean as possible. If there are any errors in procedure then I am sure the lawyers will find them.

[TwoStep]

AirKnight has bought the EC225 slots, but Soteria has actually ordered their aircraft, but they can be converted to offshore use if not used for SAR.

I see your point, but bringing a claim to court would be a real struggle, companies enter these bids on the risk it might fail, there will be winners and losers and in a two-horse race, there's no room for re-bidding, any sensible judge would throw it out, you just have to find a sensible judge. :}

[scottishbeefer]

I was at a SAR-H IPT brief quite recently. Ten million quid is the bidding estimate - they think it unlikely a failed bidder will make a challenge.

Aircraft are to be black and orange (sorry if that's old news).

[Vie sans frontieres]

But yellow's such a nice colour. The public will be disappointed.

WITH THE COLOUR!! Just the colour.:hmm:

[Tallsar]

SB - Now there's an unintentional bit of misinfo --- If its an MoD estimate of the bid costs - fine (after all - they are not paying for the bids up front)....as usual they are likely to be way off the mark - only industry can capture its real costs. Each bidder will have had a different bid budget.....£10M for nearly four years work seems a little low to me!!

Cheers

[Tigwas]

Tallsar is right - £10M is low. Bid cost can be up top 10% of the contract price. IIRC the bidder that pulled out a year ago had bid costs of around £10M and it was a very lean team.:sad:

[TwoStep]

Hearing that bidding is now closed, hopefully the decision isn't far away...

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

In the ideal world, the decision will be made soon, and the successful bidder will be wanting some money from HMG so they can prepare for 2012.

But what happens if the Govt simply doesn't have the funds available to pay up? At a time when a great many projects in all fields are being put on ice due to the general lack of money, how long could the Govt drag its heels? Is there scope to extend the MCA interim contract beyond 2012 in extremis?

I'm sure plenty of people will say "That couldn't happen", and I daresay that's true, but I'm just interested in what the alternatives are if the Govt chooses to delay making a firm commitment. The Mil SAR flts could soldier on indefinitely if required, but I wonder if CHC could do the same. Sorry if this has been posed before, but I don't recall seeing it.

[leopold bloom]

I hear that the dialogue period has been extended by another week but the final decision should be made before Christmas.

[Crabette]

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

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

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

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

Fly Safe you SAR boys & girls. x

[SirSokky]

Look outside your box!
Crabette,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vie sans frontieres]

If the appropriate screening and testing techniques are applied to applicants

Details please!

the appropriate training in aviation which can be easily carried out at an operational base over an appropriate period of time.


How long?

[[email protected]]

Sirsoky - a UK NHS paramedic gets about £25K - we pay our winchmen a lot more than that!

The fundamental problem with your argument is that of working environment - our winchmen don't have to be medical gurus (they are well trained though) they have to be fit, strong and bloody brave - they also have to be very competent helicopter operators. The training and selection process to get a paramedic would need to be the equivalent of what we do now because the product cannot afford to be any less capable.

Anyone who thinks being a SAR winchman is the same as being an ambulance paramedic but in a different uniform is kidding themselves and clearly has never been winched over 1000' of fresh air in the mountains, clung to an icy cliff in a gale, been dumped unceremoniously onto a violently pitching deck in the dark or any of the hundreds of DANGEROUS positions a SAR winchman has to be prepared to go in order to save lives.

It's not the the light blue need to open their minds, it is that those who think they can do SAR on the cheap don't really understand what the job is about. The civilian winchmen on SAR are made of the same stern stuff as the military and the pilots are equally skilled - do you want to take a CPL with R22 time and put him in as a SAR captain? Think of the money it would save and after all, SAR can't be that difficult can it?:ugh:

[SirSokky]

'The training and selection process to get a paramedic would need to be the equivalent of what we do now because the product cannot afford to be any less capable.'......

Who says it isn't better??! Are you aware that there are Paramedics out there who actually have more time served on fishing boats, fire services, lifeboats, mountain rescue teams etc etc than even you can imagine!! Get a grip fella.....

'do you want to take a CPL with R22 time and put him in as a SAR captain?'........

Who does this? Of course that is not how it works! Anyway what company in their right mind would ever let an ex R22 CPL become a SAR Captain at any point!!??:ok:

Where would we be in the world if one organisation thought their way was the only way! Bloody hell 'the earth is flat'!!

My point was / is .......'Look outside your box' and see what is actually happening in the world of Coast Guard SAR.

[lost horizon]

Well said Crab! :D

"Winchman First, Paramedic second" would seem to be a good premise. I suggest that there are NHS Paramedics who would, given the chance, make excellent winchmen but they have to have the proper aircrew training. Winchman are aircrew, as much part of the team as front enders and to suggest that all you need to do is get someone who already knows all the "important stuff" (medical) and give him a bit of training to get him up to speed on the "other stuff" (being SAR aircrew) and hey presto you have an effective winchman is not only irresponsible but potentially dangerous (to self, survivor and possibly aircraft and crew).
Interesting to watch Highland Rescue and Coastal Rescue programmes this week. On each the RAF winchman was thinking about the difficulty of the winching, fuel state, weather etc whilst treating the casualty and thus modifying his treatment accordingly. That sort of judgement is essential, a product of aircrew training and anyone who thinks you can do without it is either kidding himself or short of cash. :=

[Vie sans frontieres]

Is it true that a ballot for strike over pay/erosion of terms and conditions is being undertaken as I go to print?


It's all just mind-boggling. Is this the sort of thing we can expect in the post-military SAR world? :confused:

Spot on, Lost Horizon and Crab.

[[email protected]]

Sirsoky - it is quite clear you don't know much about helicopter rescues, winchmen or paramedics.

Looking at CG SAR in the UK shows a regime being run for profit not capability, hence the 'innovative' idea to cut costs by creating winchmen on the cheap.

Both the remaining bidders know that there will be a shortage of rearcrew post 2012 and that they will have to pay decent wages to get the military guys to jump ship. One of the bidders seems to accept this is a price worth paying, the other is trying to create winchmen through a different route, ie taking paramedics and giving them a quick course on helicopters.

Talk to any SAR crew and see if they think this is a good idea - they won't for all the reasons lost horizon states.

My mention of R22 pilots with CPLs is to try and highlight the futility of trying to short-cut experience and training.

Vie - sadly it is exactly what we can expect because it is already being done by the present contractors.

[pasptoo]

I suppose those lucky boys and girls have to stamp their feet to be heard by the purse holders and get their just rewards.

Surely the military guys vote with their feet too? That would seem to be part of the problem that we see with too many units undermanned and a lost of 24/7 cover.

It only takes back to back desert trips with no future of change for the boys/girls to look else where for work. Maybe the exodus has slowed a little in the current climate but that will change all to soon.

Pas

[SFHawk]

How's the relationship between SAR and local Ambulance Services these days?

As I recall there used to be "cross training" between the two services where winchmen could get their "numbers up" on a few paramedic procedures by working some shifts out the back of ambulances and in return civvie paramedics gained some "air-time".

My point is:

On top of initial aircrew/winch training (how long is that?), how much "on the job" experience would be required to make an already experienced paramedic a competent winchman? Weeks? Months? Years?

Also, is the paramedic training included in the aircrew training or is it seperate and what time is allocated to each? As this may reflect the importance placed on each skill in SAR.

As a civilian trained paramedic and pilot myself I am curious to find out more about the military side of these professions and then I may be able to provide a contribution to this thread from the non SAR paramedic point of view.

[SirSokky]

'Sirsoky - it is quite clear you don't know much about helicopter rescues, winchmen or paramedics'.

Whilst no doubt my colleagues who are on shift with me today will no doubt agree with you, I am merely stating that what you and Crabette are 'poo-pooing' is in fact working extremely well in Coast Guard SAR, like it or not. A new pool of potential winchmen is not just available but also required due to the falling numbers of available winchmen from the traditional source!

The RAF don't have a monoploy on good ideas and although you may find it hard to accept there are others capable of designing an extremely robust and effective screening and training protocol to deliver top class professionals to the role of winchmen.

I am annoyed at myself for, after many years of watching with interest, getting into a debate with you when I knew that you had nothing but a 'bigoted' opinion!

Civil SAR is a 'melting pot' of alot of different experiences from which i.m.h.o the best S.O.P.'s are in place to deliver what the end user requires with no less dedication than even your conviction to the cause allows!

Off I go now to watch more 'Deadliest Catch' to further my knowledge of 'helicopter rescues'!:ok:

P.S. before anyone jumps down my throat......
bigot noun

/ˈbɪg.ət/ n [C] disapproving

a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong



(Definition of bigot noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

[[email protected]]

Sirsoky - no, the RAF don't have a monopoly on good ideas but cheap ones seem the preserve of the civilian market where grand promises are frequently made to provide equal quality but cheaper and where failures to achieve same are plentiful.

Are your paramedic converts going to Valley for their helicopter training by any chance? Using the SARTU syllabus or similar and run by ex-mil rearcrew?
The only thing your method is achieving is to depress rearcrew salaries because a paramedic who was used to £25K is much more likely to work for £30K than a qualified winchman who is used to earning £40K.

Most SAR rearcrew are dual qualified so they can be either winchmen or winch ops, primarily for difficult wet jobs where a winchman could get exhausted or to cope if the winchman is injured. You can get your paramedics to keep the wire straight with a relatively small amount of training but, compared to a dual qualified rearcrew they bring little to the party and reduce the overall effectiveness of your expensive SAR helicopter.

Cheaper isn't better and at some point it will come back and bite you on the ar*e. Why wait until an accident to realise short-cutting training is folly and a false economy - it is obvious to all those who have a real understanding of SAR. Don't look at the easier and straightforward jobs to set your operating standards, use the really nasty ones that have only had successful outcomes because of the high quaility of the rearcrew - that comes down to experience and really good training and they cost money!

[Big Tudor]

Crab

I don't always agree with your views on this thread but I don't have the necessary knowledge to counter your statements. However, I take exception to
but cheap ones seem the preserve of the civilian market where grand promises are frequently made to provide equal quality but cheaper and where failures to achieve same are plentiful.

Sorry chap, but I do think you should reconsider that statement!

[Bertie Thruster]

Our UK (NHS) paramedics now average 36-37K with shift allowance, plus, of course the NHS final salary pension.

(Only about 10-12k less than their pilots!)

[Max Contingency]

The Paramedic about to join CHC as a trainee winchman is an experienced Air Ambulance Paramedic. He has flown on at least 15 occasions with SAR helicopters and been winched many times. He has a genuine desire to be an SAR winchman and CHC will benefit from his enthusiasm. He will be paid on exactly the same pay scale as his colleagues. His training will be bespoke; it will largely consist of sorties where the content will be exclusively tailored to his needs. He will be tutored by a team of 3 highly experienced ex military rearcrew instructors. It is estimated that he will have about 80 hours in role by the end of course completion (this is similar to SARTU today and is the SAR-H requirement for winchmen). Finally, he will not go solo on shift until everyone including himself believes that he is ready.

I have said it before: Brit mil SAR is one of the most professional in the world but it would be a world class level of arrogance to presume that others cannot attain that same standard with the correct level of training.

[[email protected]]

Big Tudor - the constant theme of the anti-mil SAR brigade has been that we are too expensive and a gold-plated option and there has been a persistent belief that it could be done much cheaper.

That belief took us down the road of SARH which, apart from not ever putting a cost on mil SAR, has gradually watered down its grand principle of 'no less capable a service' so that what will come post 2012, unless someone does something brave about it, will be a less capable service (with 2 less flights on 24 hour cover, how can it be anything else).

Why has this happened? Money and profit, not capability or efficiency. The chances are that the 12 hour plans might be reversed once the public outcry is heard but only after the winning bidder is confirmed - then, when the politicians moan on behalf of their constituents, the Govt will have no choice but to hand over more cash to increase the contract provision. A neat trick to get round not being able to bring the project in on cost.

The AW139 was introduced as a new era in SAR - cheaper, faster, more efficient but, in their eagerness to start making money from the newly won interim contract, the contractors skimped on the aircraft lighting and were incapable of ensuring the autopilot modes were cleared for use. The result - no overwater night winching capability for the whole of the Channel.

This latest idea to fill the back end of SAR helos with cheap labour is a cynical, money driven move which shows no respect for the sacrifices and bravery of SAR winchmen/winchops and is only being done because the parent company is trying to reduce costs where it can because that is their driving force, not the provision of the best SAR cover it can get.

For non aviation themes look no further than oh so many computer systems that were promised to create efficiencies and save money - coming in late, over budget and needing more cash thrown at them to get the job done. It seems to be the way of modern business - promise the customer the earth and then blame unforseen circumstances when you can't deliver but have the contract sufficiently well worded that you have wriggle room to avoid ever being penalised financially.

[Rescue1]

Well said Max:ok:

[Vie sans frontieres]

'Genuine desire and enthusiasm' to do the job will only get you so far. Will the next guy have genuine desire and enthusiasm too? Will he have a bespoke course specifically for his needs? What about the guy after that? A formalised course is a must.

Surely there has to be some kind of formal selection process before flying training starts. Tests do exist to establish whether someone has the right qualities. It may be that CHC's man has them all in abundance. Without some kind of pre-selection tests though, it seems like there'll be an awful lot of wastage as those who fail to make the grade in the future get chopped. They will get chopped, won't they?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

it would be a world class level of arrogance to presume that others cannot attain that same standard with the correct level of training.


Max,

This statement is absolutely right. But the concern that Crab et al raise is the conflict of interest between


he will not go solo on shift until everyone including himself believes that he is ready


and the requirement for a commercial organisation to make a profit. Even now, in the military, achieving a standard is more important than the amount of money which might have been spent on trying to train someone - if they don't make the grade, they won't pass SARTU/OCU, irrespective of how much money may have been spent getting them to that stage of training. Can you guarantee that a commercial operator will bin someone who doesn't quite get there after receiving a lot of investment in their training?

If so, I'll gladly wind my neck in, but I would wager that the mil chop rate is rather higher than the civ one. And on most SAROPs, an 80%-proficient crewmember may be adequate, but the toughest jobs will eventually take their toll if an individual is not quite up to the mark.

[lost horizon]

This thread has progressed in an interesting direction and there are several facets to it. I should state at the start that I am pro Mil (especially RAF) SAR. Its a system that works brilliantly and gives the best opportunity to train to the highest standard. Arguably, 4 hours per shift is too much CT but just think how quickly you can improve and maintain standards with that level of resources. I’m not niaive enough to think that either bidder will produce that level of resources (actually I know that for a fact) but if there is skimping during the selection and training process then mark my words there will be trouble down the line.
MAX It sounds like that this guy is a top candidate and you have tailored an ad hoc course which will deliver a capable winchman, but have you really dedicated 80 hours just to him and only him? I would be surprised but that is the minimum amount he would need. And what did that consist of? I once had an old and bold civvy “winchman” tell me once “Navigation, why would you teach a winchman navigation when you have 2 pilots and a nav computer?” It’s that sort of thing that leads people to conclude differing levels of operating ability.
It’s a bit like saying “why would you want a radar that points anywhere other than dead ahead” If you have to ask that question you don’t understand.
As far as recruitment is concerned, all you pilots and managers out there get this, Paramedic skills (as opposed to basic medical skills) are only used in approx 5% that is FIVE PER CENT of jobs. So if you are recruiting winchmen on the basis of a paramedic qual you are barking up the wrong tree. You need to select and recruit on an individual’s ability to be AIRCREW and train him accordingly. Sure the odd paramedic will fit the bill so sign him up but don’t think that because of his qual he is a shoo in or you can take short cuts with his training. With that logic, if you get short of winchops you can hire ex crane drivers, after all it’s the same type of thing raising/lowering stuff!!
Paramedic for winchmen was introduced in 1994, before that all those wonderful jobs were carried out using winchman skills. The priority on training and recruitment of winchmen should be to get individuals who are good (or potentially good) AIRCREW and then put them through an established, proven comprehensive training system. With the greatest respect to those in the MCA, I believe the military do that better.

[[email protected]]

Max, the guys who will be doing the training are all ex-mil who I have had the pleasure and privilege of flying with - I know the paramedic will be getting the best instruction and mentoring.

This guy will be a trial case and it might go well or not so well depending on his capabilities and guess what - this concept of training on the front line has been done before - by the military - and although it can be done in isolated cases, it is not sustainable.

You need a properly funded, manned and structured training system which costs money - trying to cuff it by using spare hours on the operational SAR flight is tricky and in the end takes longer - we know we have done it at Chivenor.

[angelonawire]

:D:D:D
I would have to say that I agree entirely with the previous two posts,

When an Employer finds itself in a position where they have hired the individual on his previous merits as a Paramedic / diver / mountain rescue, Without a strict grading process prior to employment to ensure he/she has good spatial awareness, ability to problem solve and think on his feet, mental arithmetic and fitness levels.

and post the initial training period If there is not enough stringent continuation training given to cover all aviation related topics and strict standard maintained, what will you end up with?, probably a Paramedic wire straightener that needs constant wet nursing......."Nav,met,fuel checks etc, etc, nah that's pilot sh@t",.....and hoping that after scraping the standard on his initial training, putting him on his own will be just fine, he will improve with time.

.....what do you do then as the employer if you have concerns that the individual does not either come up to scratch or maintain his/her level of enthusiasm.....not so easy in civvy street, in the Mil you have CofC, standards visits etc to ensure he is up to standard and if not you have a means to terminate his flying carrer if he continues to fail the standard, In civvy street this guy has a contract, and if it is not very carefully written then you cannot simply sack him.

I am not saying that any will fail the "standard", but it needs to be considered and those concerned with setting it need to ensure it is maintained as it is all to easy to become complacent as a civvy with no standards breathing down your neck.

The emphasis most certainly does need to be on professional aviator training rather being confused with medical ability, you need to get to the cas SAFELY before you can do anything to treat him/ her

[Max Contingency]

Sorry to muddy the water with the odd fact:

Commercial pressure? - Trust me that if this was a commercial decision, CHC would not be doing it. It will always be cheaper and quicker to employ a fully trained ex military SAR winchman. This new winchman will be on the standard payscale.

Aircrew first, paramedic second? - No argument here. Do we have to train them that way round? Of course you don't.

Should winchmen go through a recognised training course at a recognised training establishment? - Yes they should!

Civilian SAR has a low and unpredictable turnover of rearcrew, at the moment with four bases it cannot justify an established training school. This will be addressed under SAR-H. A winchman vacancy has arisen at a time when there are no suitable external applicants and there is access to a qualified paramedic, bursting with enthusiasm who has undergone extensive winching and water confidence selection under the supervision of the Chief Crewman. This is a costly investment in an individual, who would otherwise be unable to realise his dream to become an SAR winchman and CHC hope that the investment will be repaid through the acquisition of a dedicated employee for years to come.

I say to him. "Good luck in your course and welcome to the SAR fraternity"

(where people watch a lot of SKY TV and repeatedly post on the internet how their dick is bigger than that of their civ/mil counterpart)

[lost horizon]

Max

Certainly sounds like you have a determined and committed individual there which counts for a lot.

Just a point, some years ago the RAF trained a winchman who had come from a "Sneaky Beaky" background and did so without the benefit of the Rotary Famil training prior to the SAR course. He did very well during SAR training and has since become an outstanding winchman but in the early years he struggled with basic crewman skills e.g. sloping ground, understanding aircraft emergencies, USLs ( I know you don't do that) nav, nvg, etc etc. It illustrates my general point that aircrew training in general and rotary training in particular is an important prerequisite of SAR training.

However, notwithstanding all that i wish you and him the best of luck for the future. :ok:

[[email protected]]

Max - Civilian SAR has a low and unpredictable turnover of rearcrew, because it has always had a supply of very well trained ex-mil guys.

Trust me that if this was a commercial decision, CHC would not be doing it. It will always be cheaper and quicker to employ a fully trained ex military SAR winchman
that depends on what pay scale you are offering - nowadays offering ex-mil guys less because they have a pension to rely on doesn't wash - the guys know their worth and many are hanging on for SARH jobs. So it still is a commercial decision. Did the post get advertised at all?

Aircrew first, paramedic second? - No argument here. Do we have to train them that way round? Of course you don't.
I and others believe otherwise - if he wasn't a paramedic you wouldn't give him all that medical training before aircrew training would you?
SARTU sees lots of fine chaps bursting with enthusiasm to be SAR winchmen but not all of them can do it despite any special skill sets they might have from previous lives.

I am sure he is a fine chap and I wish him the best of luck but at some point somone in your training setup might have to make a hard decision.

[Limpopo]

Before you go much further with this discussion, perhaps you ought to read this link - RAF plans huge cuts in aircraft and stations - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917297.ece)

If the RAF is planning on cutting all of its Tornado fleet and nearly all of its Harrier Force, then how can it ever justify keeping SAR in its present form?

Also worth having a look here:

Petition to: stop any further cuts to our armed forces, to do so would be wholly irresponsible and place the security of our nation in danger. | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/STOPDEFENCECUTS/)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

If the RAF is planning on cutting all of its Tornado fleet and nearly all of its Harrier Force, then how can it ever justify keeping SAR in its present form?



I fully accept that the RAF won't keep SAR in its present form, but one could make an argument to justify it - someone has to provide SAR, out of the Govt purse, so if the RAF can provide a decent and cost effective service (and that would seem to be the case when compared with SAR-H), why not let the RAF keep it?

There is also an argument for having the UK's fleet of SAR helicopters under military management, so that they can be used for other military tasks should the situation arise. Unlikely, you may say, but never say never!

[[email protected]]

Yes - instead of keeping military SAR, which no-one ever put a cost on but should have to keep within the terms of a PFI - how else can you show value for money, the taxpayer is going to pay £5 Bn (it doesn't sound much when you say it fast) for less cover (12 hour cover at 3 flights instead of 1) and then have to pay even more to regain the lost ground and re-establish 24 cover.

In many other areas of business this would be called dishonest and fraudulent but somehow this PFI seems exempt.

Strange how none of the subject matter experts are involved with the final decision (which keeps being delayed) yet the IPT heirarchy, who are noticeably biased towards one bidder, are able to decide the winner and loser in this contest - it hardly seems fair and transparent. There is supposed to be a financial robustness about the winning bid but apparently one bidder has not much more than half the financing required.,....

Is the result of this expensive and time consuming process simply going to be a shoe-in for the IPT's favourite or will there actually be some scrutiny applied at some stage?

[Hilife]

Rightly or wrongly we live in a world driven more and more by efficiencies and that is something the MoD is not good at.

Apologies if some of my figures are a little outdated, but currently the RN and RAF has around 40 SAR-H platforms (15 Mk5 and 25 Mk3/Mk3a Sea Kings respectively) to cover SAR-H training and 8 of the 12 UK bases.

A post 2012 PFI solution would likely need only around 60% to 65% of this number to cover not just the 8 military, but an additional 4 civil bases and that is the reality that a civil managed modern platform PFI solution brings. (Try saying that quickly without your teeth in.)

Could the military cover the same 8 bases with fewer platforms if the MoD were to procure new platforms? I’ve no doubt they could, but the military would be no match for a civil managed solution when it comes to efficiency.

If the taxpayer is to lose out on value for money, it’s because the Government is unable to finance new build platforms now and has therefore chosen a PFI solution and as I have noted before, this is not of the bidders choosing.

With national debt set to peak at more than £1tn in 2012-2013 and the UK being close to losing its AAA rating, the banks and bidders might well have just cause for concern over the financial robustness of the authority.

[[email protected]]

Hilife - your figures are skewed - the RN might have 15 Mk5s but only use 2 per flight (Culdrose and Prestwick) to provide SAR - the others are for MCT and other training.

Similarly the RAF uses 2 aircraft per flight = 12 with 4 providing an OCU, 2 in the Falklands and the remainder in depth servicing (due to the age of the aircraft).

So to provide UK SAR for 8 flights the military only needs 12 RAF and 4 RN aircraft - ie 2 per flight which is pretty much what will be provided post SARH.

SARH will cost £5bn+ 2 new aircraft for each of the exisiting 12 SAR flights even at £50million a throw is only £1.2 bn - add maybe half again to include spares and extras and you have £1.8Bn - is it really going to cost £3.2Bn in fuel and wages to run 12 SAR flts over the next 25 years?

I accept that civilianisation is going to happen since the MoD can't see anything except Afghanistan and don't care about SAR but this process has gone off the rails and is not good value for money for the taxpayer.

[onevan]

Don't forget to add in the land rental deals - £300k to £400k per mil base each year and £1.2 m for pwk.
Through life Training school costs, new sims etc all required due to rapid turnover of mil crews
. . .

It must be nice working with a small picture.

[[email protected]]

Onevan - since the MoD are paying 70% of the cost of SARH do you really think that £80mil in rent (8 flts x 25 years) is actually going to change hands?

There is a sim building ready for a new occupant at Valley and all the infrastructure, minus the aircraft, required for through life training - including most of the personnel who just need to change uniforms.

The rapid turnover of mil crews simply won't happen, those that are in milSAR post 2012 are likely to be the old and bold who have no desire to thrust for a career or go to Afghanistan. There is no point in sending new lads and lasses into a predominantly civilian environment and role just for a tour and then have to pay to retrain them on Chinook/Merlin.

Since it looks like the aircraft will be civilian registered, all the mil pilots will need licences which adds to the cost and would tempt first tourists to get theirs and leave.

The RN might do things differently since it is likely that Culdrose will be one of the military-heavy flights along with Valley and Lossiemouth.

The IPT have already offered up cost savings (12 hour ops at Boulmer and Chiv) to try and preserve the bidders profit margins - what will be next?

[onevan]

Crab

I am not close enough to know what the IPT think or what they are willing to give up. I was stunned to see that they went down the road of reducing cover at night around the Uk. They dictate, the companies bid - if its too expensive don't buy it or get the button pushers to trump up more cash, after all its the banks behind the bidders that need the interest.

As for your points
1. defence estates have set the prices so I expect they want their cash.
2. The offer of Valley buildings and sim space was resinded due to the fact the RAF were not in a position to vacate the buildings
3. The IPT have stated that mil pers will do a max of 3 yr tour and they are not allowed to be licenced. They have also stated that there will be no abinitio crews so the mil pers will do SAR as a respite from the joys of foreign travel.

Once preferred bidder is announced I expect that the dialogue will be more fruitful in acheiving a more capable system for the british public rather than trying to keep individual camps sacred cows happy.

[lost horizon]

QUOTE:
The rapid turnover of mil crews simply won't happen, those that are in milSAR post 2012 are likely to be the old and bold who have no desire to thrust for a career or go to Afghanistan. There is no point in sending new lads and lasses into a predominantly civilian environment and role just for a tour and then have to pay to retrain them on Chinook/Merlin.

I truly believe that no-one (except those civil servants up in La La land) can think that the mil aircrew option can work, I mean think about it;
Chap leaves SH and in a 36 month period he has to do a SAR course and then convert onto the chosen bidders type. Before the end of that period he has to get his leave in because JHC will want him back and, though I’m not quite sure how this will work, he may also have to do his SH type refresher as well. That leaves him precious little time to do any SAR. You can’t even call it a rest tour because he will be spending a significant proportion of it in the Falklands.
Oh, and another thing, if we are talking winchmen they won’t ever be Paramedics because they won’t have had the time to do the course. Which means that if the bidders concentrate their mil winchmen on a few specific bases, those bases will never have a significant number of Paramedics...ever!!
I could go on but it’s all too depressing. :ugh:

[Artifical Horizon]

I think that everyone on this forum can accept that all of the organisations involved have something to offer. It would be rather unrealistic to assume that either the civil or military side have a monopoly of the best ideas. Whichever path had been chosen, civil or military, the costs involved would be enormous. The military would need to replace the Sea King, would it be able to do this more economically than a civil organisation?

SARH looks like it will happen. If it does not many millions will have been wasted. If it does it should offer the chance to blend the best qualities of the military and civil operations. To exploit that chance will require those involved to engage with an open mind and a willingness to accept change. The key to success will be the people.

There will be many difficulties and challenges. SARH will be a national solution, this will be a first and should be a great opportunity. Lets have some optomism.

[[email protected]]

onevan - you probably know more about the estate issue than me but since the hot rumour is that the aircraft will be civil registered, how will mil pilots be able to fly it without licences?

Artificial Horizon - I agree that this is a good opportunity and we will have a national solution but, and it is a big but, it should not be run for profit. There is in fact a completely different ethos between the two bidders with one looking at it purely from a business and profit standpoint and the other who seems truly committed to the improvement of UKSAR. I am not the blind optimist who thinks it will all be OK and the good guys will win - I am the worried realist concerned that a sitting tenant is less likely to be moved out because the existing relationship is too cosy and the goalposts keep being moved to facilitate that.

You have to ask though, if the SARH initial concept was no lesser service and we are already compromising on that in terms of cover, where else will corners be cut? The temptation with the SARH IPT must be to push on and close the deal but have they lost sight of the big picture that this process was supposed to be value for money and, in theory, a better SAR solution that what existed before. Shiny new aircraft alone won't be anything like enough.

[Hilife]

I would have thought the biggest cost drivers are likely to be manpower costs (wages, benefits and training) and 25 years of financing, not platform acquisition and through life support.

Think about the cost of crewing 12 bases with a minimum of 5 crews - not to mention the engineering, support staff and management, then add annual wage, benefits, insurance, sickness and recurring training cost escalations and program financing over 25 years and you begin to wonder whether platform acquisition and maintenance is likely to be in the top three front-runners when it comes to through life costs.

Neither am I naive enough to think that that any of the senior management in Vancouver, Owego, Southampton or Havant is thinking improvement is number one on their list of priorities. Yes it’s a key driver, but this is a business venture and first and foremost it’s about profit without which a company goes under and then where would SAR-H be? After all, isn’t that why UK Air Rescue pulled out?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

first and foremost it’s about profit


This is the point that Crab and his army have been making all along - the mil system, while far from perfect, provides the best service it can without the awkward compromise of having to make a profit. And another bonus is that the mil crews haven't ever been on strike and never will - whether you view SAR-H as a good thing or a bad thing, presumably most would agree that a life-saving organisation is no use to man nor beast if it's crippled by strike action?

[Tallsar]

Just thought I'd plunge in again.....mostly about the cost issue.

£6Bn seems a lot as a big headline figure - (if indeed that is the final contract price)...but bear in mind that is a locked in through life figure accounting for inflation and industy's best guess of future costings ...and it has to be right otherwise the winning contractor is locked in to a big loss sometime in the future - some would argue that the risks here are immense to any contractor however well refined the bid process...30 years is one hell of a long time - think how costs have changed both in the military and the civ aviation world over the last 30 years, and that's before forthcoming oil shocks and other commercial pressures as yet unseen - what for example if the usage expands beyond all predictions?

If it is £6Bn - (including the shiney new helos of course!) then that is an average £200M a year - think (although truely accurate figures are unavailable) of how much the present annual costs of the RAF, RN and Coastguard services are in 2009, never mind how they would escalate with inflation and pay rises alone over the next 30 years - (and thats just the running costs and doesn't include the large capital sums for new infrastructure and new helos) - especially as the military have a clear record of being more expensive over the civilian aviation world type for type (this is not neccessarily a criticism - just a fact). So to me £200M a year for a fully integrated national SAR helo service is not that expensive, particularly as any alternative may well prove unaffordable or politically unattainable.

By the way you may not appreciate that the SAR-H winner does not get anything like full annual payments until the complete service is in situ (ie after 7 years from contract award to last base commissioned) and anyone who knows anything about PFI financing knows that (depending on the size of the programme) - the winner usually does not make a profit until at least productive year 5 and maybe as far out as year 10 (SAR-H?) ie, Industry is paying up front to create the new service with the prospect of some (smallish but regular) profit in later years. The risks are considerable - be in no doubt.

As for paying this sum for a lesser service - well IMO this is very debatable and arguable (if you can ignore all the ill informed political hoo ha that always surrounds SAR bases) - the key indicator most talked about at present (the reduction of some bases to daylight only) is not neccessarily a reduction except from a very tactical perspective of local rescue to the base concerned (Chivenor?) - and why may I ask as an example does the locality of Chivenor deserve a rapid response over say 50 miles away across the Briz Channel on the Gower?. There are many complexities here - not least the possible "excess" rescue capability nearby - eg. see how many lifeboats await at readiness in close and effective proximity to where the very small number of SAR helo bases are, and maybe CG cliff rescue teams too. Note too, that essential and professional as the UK's SAR helo capability is for many tasks, a large number (and I would argue the majority) of missons carried out each year could have been done with no or little predjudice to the casualties concerned given those other means of rescue if the helo was not there at all. Throw this into the capability argument and a different perspective arises as to what UK SAR helo capability we actually need - particularly if the right and well coordinated balance is to be struck with the other rescue servcies such as the air ambulances, the RNLI, the MRTs and the Police and Fire Services - and not forgetting the rest of the military too who can always be called on to help at any suitable stage.

Nobody likes SAR flights to close or reduce their availability but it is not always the fundamental problem that is made out - think of how many flights there were 40 years ago. All I will say is that a truely open minded possibility to create a SAR-H solution that might have been affordable yet provide a more balanced and responsive capability was cut off by the very focus on keeping the 12 present bases at the same capability - don't you just love ill-informed politicians!:ugh:

Cheers

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

how much the present annual costs of the RAF, RN and Coastguard services are in 2009


Tallsar

Much of what you say makes sense, but sooner or later the issue of reducing units to 12 hour cover will bite. If one night 6 years from now, Culdrose are on a job and Lee's aircraft is broken, there will be nothing available to cover the south of England including the Channel south of Wattisham and Valley. Gloucester floods, anyone?

On the issue of current SAR costs, you ignore the issue of the mil often having two aircraft available per base - this capability has been degraded recently, but if push came to shove crews would be found for the spare aircraft (as has happened frequently when big jobs have come in after 2nd Standby had finished for the night).

The SAR-H combination of reducing the total number of aircraft and reducing the hours which some units are available will sooner or later turn a drama into a crisis - I firmly believe that what we have now, while far from perfect, is a better solution than what is proposed. Which units are you going to send to Cumbria if last night's flooding happens again in 10 years? Lossiemouth? Wattisham?

And although in some incidents, other means of rescue would make do, you may regret saying that if it's ever you stuck in agony on a cliff waiting for ropes to be set up to get you, then being carried a long way over uneven ground in a stretcher to a distant air ambulance...

[[email protected]]

As it happens, Boulmer, Leconfied, Valley and...you guessed it... Chivenor went to Cumbria last night (5hrs day 5hrs night) - exactly the sort of surge capability that will be lost under SARH.

We were planning a mountains detachment to Cumbria starting tomorrow but that has understandably been cancelled - our engineers (who would have deployed with us) however, have offered to place themselves on standby this weekend in case engineering support is required up there, whether for our aircraft or Valley and Lec's. Is that the sort of thing we will see under SARH? Unlikely since I keep being told a modern SAR flight will be run with only 2 engineers per shift so being able to generate 5 keen and well motivated guys, who won't get paid any more for it, to go and work in crappy conditions just ain't going to happen. I might add that our engineers are civilians but their ethos is true military!

Tallsar - where did £6Bn come from?? talk about inflation, it was £3-5Bn only a short while ago!!! The IPT offered up the cuts based on percentage of night jobs which meant that Leconfield and others with a lower overall job count scored higher in percentage terms than Chivenor with the highest RAF flt job count year after year - that is the sort of thinking that makes me beleive the IPT has lost the plot.

Your super-efficient view of how little Chivenor contributes to UK SAR that it can be reduced in operating hours with impunity is very disappointing especially since you live in the area - have a look in your local press to see how many people disagree with your viewpoint - including the other rescue services.

The talk of libeboats and CG cliff teams sounds plausible but cliff teams are slow to get going and even the best lifeboat in the world can't get to someone stuck on rocks in high seas.

Cutting SAR flights further, as you and others have advocated, ignores the very real need for surge and concurrent ops which won't be possible with fewer aircraft and bases - it's not just the winching rescues, its the rural isolation of many areas of UK which rely on medtransfers. All the bollocks about faster aircraft meaning fewer bases is flawed logic which ignores both historical precedent and common sense.

[Triple Matched TQ]

Surely SARH will allow the much needed relief to allow the RAF aircrew to get to Afghanistan (where they are needed?).

The contract will allow the rescue of civilians to be conducted by professional civilians.

Go SARH.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The contract will allow the rescue of civilians to be conducted by professional civilians.


Yes - but less frequently than at present. Better to be rescued relatively promptly by a mil crew in a wheezing leaking Sea King than waiting twice as long for a gleaming modern aircraft to arrive from afar - or not, if it turns out to be busy on different tasking, or goes u/s on start.

[Tallsar]

Hi Guys - nice to see your comments.

TOD - I empathise with your comment - of course if I was caught out and had to stay longer in a difficult situation than neccessary I would not be too happy if a helicopter could otherwise be made available(has happened to me by the way... but less of that at the mo). The strategic point though is that there are so many life boats and CG cliff and MR teams that these rescues happen all the time without helos including when the weather is unflyable particualry at the point of rescue, eg, I believe in recent years about 12000 maritme rescues annually to the UK SAR helos >1000 (most of the nearly 2000 annual helo rescues now being "overland".) - and similar is increasingly applying to overland medevacs and rescues as the air ambulance service becomes more effective (albeit daylight only at present.) It is simply not true therefore to suggest as many do that many lives are put in peril by a helo not being availble - some may be made more uncomfortable - but such non SAR helo rescues and transits are by far the higher proportion of rescues in our UK SAR region to date. If I could wave a magic wand and find the very large amount of money to provide resources to rescue all by helo I would most certainly do it - but that is never going to happen and many in difficulties will always have to rely on the non SAR helo rescue means - it has always been so and always will be - where does this argument stop - a SAR baset every 30 miles along the coast? - I don't think so.

Now Crab my friend - while I appreciate your well rehearsed views on the neccesity of Chivenor, I have cringed at some of the semi nonsense gushing out of the local press - it is not helpful to a rational debate on this matter from a professional perspective. I offer the following points: Some if not most of those missons you (and I) have been involved in are done by the helo as a matter of choice as selected by the CG, police and ARRC - not because a helo is truely essential - and as for the local rescues (ie within say 30 miles of Chiv) - it is arguable who would get there first - which of the local lifeboats or the air ambulance would you prefer? Conversely you as well as I have probably watched the Appledore L/B set of on a misson that we felt would have been nice for us to be called out to - and I am sure every SAR flt can reflect on similar circumstances. The main point remains - there is a plethora of rescue services in the UK and many missons do not need the helo as an "essential" resource - helpful as it can be if it is available - and their is not a litany of medical cases as a result reflecting on how the casualties would have been much better if they had been helo rescued instead - or litigation case either! IMO we keep our capaple helos at readiness for the really signicant jobs where their capability is indispensable - for example any inaccesible location (maritime or land), urgent missons where clearly the helo is the speediest response in a genuine life saving or urgent medical situation, or in major incidents as last night so conclusively showed and where the helo can offer real value and essential capability to the situation.

I do not support the argument that the SAR-H requirement will not have sufficent assets acrosss the country on standby to meet the needs of incidents as we saw at Cockermouth. The historic statistics are very indicative as to how likely such surge ops are needed and how many concurrent helo ops are needed elsewhere, and the requirement reflects this - this drives the value for money argument. I will not probe too far on the likely airframe availability arguments - but feel confident that 12 1st standby modern ac are likely to be more available than the present miltiary availability we have seen over at least the last 10 years. Obviously we can never safeguard the future entirely and in every location. Sods law says that you could choose any area of the country for what happened last night and implicit in it means denuding some part of the country of 1st standby cover for a period of time. It is a simple value for money neccesity that a balance has to be struck on how many bases and where and how many platforms you need at readiness to cover the majority but never all of potential rescue circumstances. To second guess where the next "local" rescue is required when a helo is already away is an impossible game -but surely that has always been the case once the standby cab has departed on a misson form its base locale. In due course if op demand really does change signifcantly (NB the Norwegians are predicting a doubling of their rescure requirements over their new procurement timescale once the Artic ice receedes away permanently by 2030) then the SAR-H contract will need amendment to reflect changing circumstances and as required by the government, but at present there appears little of any substantive argument that more than 12 helos at readiness cannot achieve the tasks as often needed and as shown over the last 40 years. As for ad hoc second standby availability - the true cost of this in airframe numbers and peronnel (see EWTD too!) rapidly drive you to an unaffordable contract - and the same would be true of a totally government owend service IMO. My guess is we might see more of last night but less of the maritime oil and fishing stuff as these activites wane substantially. There will always be the time when overall coverage is at risk no matter how many helos you have - 2nd standby or otherwise - on those few occasions (as probably last night) when many (but not all) of the 1st standby ac have deployed clearly on the one hand local capability had dissapeared elsewhere (ie Chiv to Cockermouth), but also ask how often there has then been a need for a local rescue at the denuded flight where the helo was essential, and if so could not be completed by other rescue agencies such as the RNLI etc. If it really does need a helo then one can either diverted from the other main misson (temporarily) or sent form a flight further away - this has always been the case and this will not change under SAR-H. Indeed the situation may well be even more efficent as all 12 standby aircraft will always be available to the same standard as managed by one provider and in close liaison with one controlling agency - the ARCC - this is the 1st time this has been possible in the UK - and will bring some important improvements with it, including a more rapid response in redepolying ac to those bases that might be unserviceable or need reinforcing without any "ownership" issues slowing the process. There maybe only 12 ac on 1st standby required by SAR-H, but none of us yet know how many airframes either of the bidders is putting forward as the total fleet size and therefore what will be available to ensure effective coverage when required across the country and meet the contracted requirements without penalty.
As for your point about the busy nature of Chivenor (the 20minuters eh?;)) - well many SAR flights are busy these days for sure, and a few jobs here and there makes little difference to the need for the 1st standby to be available as possible - by the way - how many of those busy jobs needed the 2nd standby?? - I suspect very few. It is also a fact that many flights are busy because they are there and therfore can be called on many of these missons as matter of choice. We all know that similar nodes of intense activity dissappeared when their local flights closed - look at Leuchars, Manston and Brawdy. Some of these jobs were picked up by the remaining bases but many went straight to the other local rescue resources or dissapeared altogther as an urgent rescue requirement. I'm sorry guys but I have always viewed SAR flights as basing facilites for a national capability that can provide area coverage in the broader vicinity not immediate local rescue at short range ie point defence! That is often taken care of as we indicated previously.
By the way - £6Bn was just a sensible guess from previous experience - if the original project budget is £5Bn (and that was 4 years ago!) then inflation and the realities of properly costed bids suggest to me that the actual cost is bound to be higher - £6Bn was a rationale guess for the sake of my argument. I suspect if either bidder is coming in very much higher than that then there will be no SAR-H contract!

Cheers

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - despite the plethora of other rescue agencies, including 2 Devon air ambulances and several police helos, Chivenor has passed 310 callouts already this year and, whilst some of our '20-minute' jobs you feel could be done by others are hardly award-winning, most of the callouts save lives or minimise suffering for a great many people.

I did a 20 minute job the other day at Woody Bay where a man and his dog were cut off by the tide in failing light at the bottom of a 300' cliff in 30 kts of wind and sea state 4. Now a cliff team could have been called but would have taken at leat 30 mins to get there, lete alone set up in the dark and get 300' down only to have to try and get cas plus dog 300' up again - how long would that have taken and what suffering to a less than spring chicken of a casualty? Or an IRB could have launched (we did ask for one just in case we had a problem winching) which would have taken over 30 mins to get there and then been faced with a nasty dumping shorebreak onto boulders to try and get ashore - again putting the casualty in more peril in the water as they would have had to try to extract him somehow.

My point is that your grand view that there are so many other assets that could do the job is fundamentally flawed - all those assets get used regularly for the jobs they are best suited to and they do an excellent job - but there are so many ocassions that a SAR helo is the best weapon of choice for the casualty, and that seems to have been forgotten in your intellectualising of UK SAR.

BTW - Brawdy shut but we still do 50% of our jobs in S Wales so I am afraid your logic is only partly sound - you cannot ignore the fact that our part of the country has an enormous stretch of coastline and attracts millions of visitors every year who deserve protection.

The Air Ambulances do not and are unlikely to ever have (because they are charity funded) a big enough aircraft to perform medtransfers of critically ill patients and how many years will it be before they are allowed to fly at night.

Your 12 Helo solution isn't what is planned under SARH now - at night it will be 9 aircraft for the whole of the UK - do you still think that is enough?

I do know that Stornoway were able to produce a second aircraft and crew ready to go to Cumbria if required - if that sort of response could be guaranteed under SARH, I for one would feel happier about it but it's not in the contract. Well done Stornoway anyway:ok:

If all we did in UKSAR was urgent lifesaving then your logic could probably give a 6 base solution but would conveniently ignore the fact that many communities, especially those island ones, Scillies, Orkneys, Shetlands etc rely on the capabilities of a SAR helo all year round.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Crab (or should I call you Cassandra?),

Tallsar's arguments are plausible enough that most people will never accept your warnings until it's far too late (no offence Tallsar, we just disagree - I hope you turn out to be right but I have my fears!).

Well done to your and all your RAF SAR Force colleagues for last night - you'll be missed when you're gone (that's you plural, not just you Crab!).

TOTD

[[email protected]]

TOTD - cassandra????? Am I missing something here?

[leopold bloom]

In Greek mythology, Cassandra (Greek: Κασσάνδρα, "she who entangles men",[1] also known as Alexandra[2]) was the daughter of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy. Her beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. In an alternative version, she spent a night at Apollo's temple, at which time the temple snakes licked her ears clean so that she was able to hear the future. This is a recurring theme in Greek mythology, though sometimes it brings an ability to understand the language of animals rather than an ability to know the future.[3] However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so that no one would ever believe her predictions. She is a figure both of the epic tradition and of tragedy, where her combination of deep understanding and powerlessness exemplify the tragic condition of humankind.

[[email protected]]

Leopold - I know you are a well educated man but I will be even more impressed if you knew that without googling it!:ok:

[lost horizon]

Of course he knew that without googling it. Him and me was only chatting about that very subject over a pint at the Conference the other day.

Leo sez "that Crab , e's not a bad pilot but 'e's a right cassandra 'e is" and I says "oo yer right there Leo 'e always 'as been"

[sonas]

Digressing slightly, read earlier on this thread that Stornoway were jacking up a second aircraft due to recent flooding in Cumbria and the Scottish Borders. I've been checking AIS and have noticed that both Sumburgh and Stornoway haven't been out (working/training). Problems??
Just been a nosey blighter with nowt to do but watch the screen.
I know - very sad :bored:

[Rescue1]

Must be a problem with your AIS as Sumburgh's been out training/Jobs everyday if not twice a day.:)

[sonas]

Cheers. Been looking again and Sumburgh up. Like i said boredom well set in! :O

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

My knowledge of the above lady was limited to a prophet whose warnings went unheeded. Many thanks to Leopold for his erudite explanation;)!

[scottishbeefer]

Minor point but Gannet have 3 cabs (one's coming out of zonals soon) but only 1 is ever declared, (771 fulfil their other committments then stand-up for SAR, out of 9 cabs) same as the rest of the SAR force - the seconds crew is dead as far as ARCC are concerned (although they're kept available for internal use, eg downbird - not stood down until ECT, no earlier then 1800, no later than 2200). If it was another Cockermouth scenario then they'd just have to ring around to generate another crew.

Get turned to Crab - only 310 jobs?

[[email protected]]

SB - it'll be a few more after last weekend but there is still another month to go.:ok:

Now I seem to remember in the early days of SARH when basing was being discussed, that the requirement was to be able to reach all high risk areas and most medium risk areas within 1 hour. The only way that makes any sense is for it to be 1 hour from receiving the call but it now seems that the MoD/Govt line is that it is 1 hour from take off which is very different.

Other emergency service response times are, as far as I know, taken from the time of the initial call so why should SAR helos be any different?

Is this a subtle moving of the goalposts to validate night-time closures or have MoD/govt just got it wrong?

[Clever Richard]

Crab,

This link ( http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/sar-hindustrypresentation.pdf ) is a presentation given by the SAR-H IPT a few years ago. Slide 29 is the one of interest and states reaching risk areas 1 hr from take-off. Not sure if the requirement has been massaged but it is worth following up.

Regards,

CD

[louisnewmark]

As one of my elders and betters once said to me, the wheels must be getting smaller because they’re going round more quickly. If I’m lucky this might prevent another long-winded and poorly-informed circular argument, but as this thread has reached p61 I doubt it!

The SAR-H response requirement was predicated largely on the only authoritative data source available at the time, which was the 2001 coverage report (sorry, can’t remember its full title) which was produced by a working group which included experienced RAF SAR personnel amongst others. This report was the first time that any national operational analysis had been carried out regarding UK SAR helicopter ops and took data from the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. One of the aspects that this report examined was the identification of risk areas in an attempt to focus the response more efficiently than the traditional drawing of day and night range circles around each base; another was to examine the response times that the 2001 SAR service provided to each of these risk areas.

It’s also important to remember that this report, and its subsequent use for SAR-H, pre-dated the requirement for the MCA’s Interim SAR contract, far less its instigation, so the increased speeds of the S-92 and AW139 over the S-61N were not envisaged. The basing distribution, however, has remained unchanged since 2001.

In an attempt to reduce the impact of regionality (the old argument of whether the jobs are there because the SAR bases are, or whether the bases are situated in the right places for the jobs), the working group covered many disciplines including coastguard and mountain rescue and examined all the SAR ops that it considered could have used a helicopter. While this remains a flawed approach remember that it was the first time that any national SAR op analysis had been carried out, and it was therefore the best dataset available to the SAR-H project team at the time – a subjective ‘best guess’ simply wasn’t acceptable for a contract of this nature. The report divided the UK into boxes similar in concept to Georef system, then assigned a risk rating of Very High, High, Medium and Low to each box based on the analysis. It found that, in 2001, the UK SAR service was able to reach 100% of the Very High and High risk areas, and 75% of the Medium risk areas, within 1 hour of take-off (ie transit time). This 2001 capability directly informed the SAR-H requirement which matches the 100% / 75% data. I seem to remember that the SAR-H Project Team has continued to receive annual SAR stats from DASA for a similar purpose and, if the risk areas change significantly over the life of the contract (unlikely but possible) then the basic requirement will, at least in concept, drive appropriate amendments to the service. It’s just a shame that many of the major incidents since then (floods, train crashes etc) happen to have occurred in the ‘lower risk’ areas... Incidentally, the traditional still wind ‘range circles’ that used to be part of standard SAR PR presentations were always predicated on time from take-off, so this is nothing new.

I’m not aware of any goalposts having been moved in this respect since the publication of the report and its adoption as a requirement driver for SAR-H; that would need political approval from a very brave politician (seen many of those recently?), though it’s likely that the maximum possible ‘wriggle room’ may have been exploited within them! It’s also worth remembering that the SAR-H Project Team wouldn’t have “offered up cost savings” unless it was specifically directed to do so by the MOD and MCA as project owners; PTs don’t set policy, they just have to make their projects match it.

Be gentle, it's my first time.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/shiner.gif

Louis

[Bluenose 50]

Louis

A very well written, considered and rational post

The relevant part of the document you mention is available using the following link http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/2001_coverage_report-9.pdf

regards

Bluenose 50

[[email protected]]

Thanks Louis - that was what I was after. I remember the study being dissected at the SARF conference when it was first displayed since this was supposed to show how few SAR bases we needed, especially if you have a 150kt helicopter.

It would be interesting to see if the subsequent datasets from recent years show the same distribution of jobs - if so then closing Lossiemouth is the obvious answer!!!

Then get rid of Leconfield and Lee because Wattisham could cover those areas!! Or leave Lee and close Portland.

These ideas are clearly barking but based on the same data used to suggest Chiv and Boulmer go to 12 hours despite Chivenor being the 2nd busiest SAR flight and having more high and medium high risk areas in its patch than any other flight except Valley.

The use of the transit time as a marker ignores callout time which is 3 times longer at night and doesn't appear to be factored in.

The geographical argument that a SAR flight generates its own jobs is flawed - people get into trouble in the same areas because of the geography, not because there is a SAR flight there. Brawdy closed but their patch is still a medium high to high risk area!

[Tallsar]

Sometimes I think we revolve in circles agreeing about the same points but in different language.

Although it was a few days ago Crab, your reply to my (too) long previous post was not surpsing. I have never argued against the reality that there will be some local cases to a SAR flt where the helo is indispensable and the best form of rescue, despite the other agencies available. My point, if not discernable previously is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the local job you attended and a similar casualty that may be in the same predicament maybe say 80 miles away. Yes of course I am aware that Chiv picks up a deal of what Brawdy would have done previously - but as you well know - so do other rescue agencies to add to their extensive and busy call outs - and yes -all coastal areas of where there is much activity of any sort deserve the same level of response - 12 bases at 24 hr readiness doesn't achieve that and nor did 16 - so where do we go form here without busting the already depleted budget? Why should the local casualty to a SAR base deserve a speedier response than the one further away. The short answer is of course that they both in theory deserve the same level of response - but that will always be unattainable even with a much greater number of SAR bases. There will always be some genuine casualties that are at the extreme range for a particular base and suffer the consequences accordingly. Perhaps the requirement might have better served those future casualties by insisting on a more rapid response - ie a 5 minute standby rather than 15 mins - more than possible with a modern ac - but that trick was missed too. What is ceratin is that, in daylight (when there is most demand), with 12 bases and a modern 140kt ac (as opposed to the poor old SK struggling with the cruise guide bouncing off the stops) the majority of historic casualty locations will receive an on top helo not only in less that an hour but most in half the time of the present service. Because of the requirement for those 12 bases, the mutual cross cover could be argued as excessive in pure terms of meeting that 1 hour on top requirement, but in reality will ensure a much speedier and reliable service for the majority of future casualties. If that's not an improvement - I am at a loss. While it is irrefutable that if you are unfortunate to have an accident very close to one of the "downgraded" bases such as Chivenor at night, your rescue may be later than in previous times, it will still be well within the 1 hour prescribed on top time, and many others further away will reap the benefits of an overall faster service across the UK SRR.

As to whether any particular incident genuinely was a life saving occasion where the helo was indispenable - you set your own personal threshold, and only medical evidence can support the case one way or another. Emotion aside, I stand by my viewpoint on whether the majority of our present missions are truely life saving.

While as some of the more recent posts have shown, any analysis of the need is in itself flawed to a degree, the response in terms of the requirement can always be argued as flawed. The historic data and 2001 Review provide a good staring point and provide one means (that chosen by the SAR-H Customer) to measure the requirement for the SAR-H programme. The main requirement to cover all of the high risk areas within an hour, is by no means ideal particulary as it locks us in to hsitoric trends rather than giving scope for future changes of demand, and does not bare comparison with say the land ambulance golden hour approach. Nonetheless, any more stringent requirement would mean a larger number of bases than 12 and more standby ac - assessed as unaffordable given that the historic data shows an acceptable minimum risk of not having assets available if either the first standby has launched or there is a major surge or set of concurrent operations across the country. We can all project dire scenarios where there will be a need for more helos than we have now or under SAR-H - but the historic data shows that the requirement in all its detail will meet the need - assuming the chosen contractor delivers against it.

My "grand view" as you call it Crab is a better starting point for an effective and affordable national service than dwelling on how quickly you can rescue local casualties form any of the present 12 bases....and yes the statistics and detailed capability analysis using modern platforms show that from 9 bases at night the 1 hour requirement can be met. In reality there is a case for some of those 9 being elswewhere to be optimally effective but any chance of that was scuppered by this parochial argument that the actual locations of the presnt 12 are sacrosanct for political aquiesence. A clean sheet of paper may well have lead to some more radical approaches to basing with further improvements to on top times in the high risk areas and those of greatest concern to the UK "consumer". - sadly it is not to be..

Oh and as a brief finale - yes closing Lossiemouth has a lot of strength to it (assuming a suitable replacement location near the main area of demand was feasible) - a SAR base at Fort William or Oban - now there's a thought - and then maybe Prestwick could have been reduced too!:oh:


Cheers

[[email protected]]

Your points are well put Tallsar but I have heard them all before in the justification for SARH.

This process, which started as such a clean piece of paper that you couldn't even say the word 'helicopter' because the blue sky thinkers wanted to be able to consider things like balloons for chrissakes, has been compromised at every turn (inevitably, some might say). Whether for political aquiesence, as with the basing, or to allow more wriggle room for profit, as with the nightime closures, the whole process has lost integrity and focus with various interested parties all pulling in different directions.

I have no problem with the civilianisation of UKSAR - it is inevitable given the MoDs pathetic support of the milSAR and helicopter procurement overall - but the mechanism to select the future provider seems to be inexorably moving towards the cheapest solution rather than the best.

Air ambulances came into being because land ambulances struggled to meet the clinically desireable 'golden hour' and Devon is well served during daylight by 2 of them. At night, that golden hour ceases to exist if you close Chivenor and the use of '1 hour after take off' as a measure of proposed efficiencies with faster helicopters conveniently ignores the RS45 at night which would mean 1 hour 15 from call to overhead Chiv for Culdrose and 1 hour 40 for Valley. How is this an improvement???

I repeat my belief that SAR should not be provided on a 'for profit' basis because, as we have seen from the banking crisis, once money is involved, anything can be justified by the need to make profit and all integrity is lost.

From Bluenose's linked document The group therefore agreed that the prime objective for a SAR helicopter was to reach a survivor or survivors within any part of the UKSRR as quickly and safely as possible.

This is where I strongly disagree with the group The group decided that the variations in equipment and clothing of potential SAR survivors and the variations in temperature and conditions in and near the UK throughout the year was so great that average survival times for land and for the sea had little or no meaning. Furthermore, any injury sustained could significantly reduce a survivor’s survival time. The group agreed that the most practical and meaningful method of determining helicopter coverage and helicopter basing was to consider the time taken from take off to reaching the survivor, assuming that the survivor can be found immediately without the need for search. The group decided that the time taken to reach a survivor from take off should be 1 hour.

The first compromise between rescuing the casualty as quickly as possible and creating a management tool to determine basing - always an easy compromise to reach when you are warm, dry and uninjured in your committee room.

I know we can't have more SAR bases but having fewer (at night) is not providing the same level of cover and service.

Last paragraph in the document Therefore, there should be a SAR helicopter available ‘on-state’ at each SAR base for 98% of the base’s declared SAR operating time; usually 24 hours per day throughout the year. In addition, to cater for concurrent SAR tasks and to provide a surge capacity for large disasters, a second helicopter and crew should be available at certain military SAR bases. So where is that in the SAR H blueprint???

[brumbrumgirl]

I am new to this forum, but I know for a fact that there was an extremely professional aviator, winchman and qualified paramedic, who has over 500 SAR rescues under his belt and over 6000 Flying hours on SH, available for this post, It would appear that there is definitely a commercial aspect to the appointment of Paramedics in professional aviator posts. Was this post advertised properly and were interviews held or was the paramedic handpicked to suit the company hiring?

[jonnyloove]

Well I think the civil winchman was selected for Sumburgh base. I know off 2 Ex aircrewmen (1 RAF 1 Army) both paramedic register who applied to chc online and phone Aberdeen H.R. I did even get a polite Fook off.
The senior crewman is a weird one and arrogant anyway.
I would say that its being driven as a cheap way to get paramedics to fill slots the cheap way.
Best off luck to them anyway.:)

[500e]

So 140 Kts 70 kts headwind were would I prefer a launch from, Chivnor or around Southampton? I am ( have been) in the water between Lands End and the Scilly,
Time in water is critical in winter especially in winter!! you know the time prevailing Westerlies gusting 60 + knots sea state 1.5 mtrs + water temp low, how long will you survive? that extra 10 min could be the difference.
If there is a profit in this contract why should a shareholder or CEO profit the money should be ploughed back into the service to improve the cover.
I still presume Crab and like will be training for rescue the same as before as the military will still require a SAR service, so we the tax payers will be paying twice.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the majority of historic casualty locations will receive an on top helo not only in less that an hour but most in half the time of the present service
(my italics)

Tallsar,

Sorry if I'm being thick (maths never being my strong suit!), but how do you arrive at this conclusion? 140 kts isn't twice the speed of a Sea King - in fact it's barely 20% faster.

And of course you're right that

all coastal areas of where there is much activity of any sort deserve the same level of response - 12 bases at 24 hr readiness doesn't achieve that and nor did 16

...but 16 was better than 12, and 12 is better than 9! This is the kind of logic which leads to the suggestion of having one SAR base near Derby with half a dozen or so Ospreys...

TOTD

[Bluenose 50]

Errr - if you were in the water between Lands End and the Scillies your nearest friendly SAR Flight would of course be Culdrose who I am led to believe will continue to operate 24h post 2012 :ok:

[Max Contingency]

Hi jonnyloove

Interesting that you previously gave this advice to a poster looking for how he could get a start as civvie SAR winchman
Hi there
To be honest in the civil world to get one off the few civil aircrew slots you need to be a state registered paramedic.

All little bit at odds with your last post ?
I would say that its being driven as a cheap way to get paramedics to fill slots the cheap way

Surely employing ready trained ex military paramedic qualified winchmen will always be the cheap option compared to giving a course of flying training to a paramedic?

[500e]

Bluenose 50
Culdrose would be the nearest if it exists, who is to say it will, it may turn out not to be viable in private ownership and with these new speedy machines where will the next sight be at 140 Kts and & 1 hour from lift off, forgetting the head wind ??
This was an example not necessaraly a site I am sure you can fill in a situation to fit.
Nobody has given the cost of the mil still running their own SAR + the PFI cost.
All I know is if I take another dunking I want someone to pull me out as quick as possible & the last 10 minutes could be to late, + it could be any time in the 24 hours, do not want to wait till daylight.

[Sven Sixtoo]

The whole point of this, and the source of much argument, is that the military will not be running their own service.

Sven

[Vie sans frontieres]

500 SAR rescues under his belt and over 6000 Flying hours on SH

Well seeing as that's about 30 years flying perhaps it's time for a rest!

[[email protected]]

500e - you seem to be under the misconception that SARH and milSAR will be 2 different entities - that is not so and the taxpayer won't be paying twice. The 12 SAR flights that presently exist will all be there post 2012 (except that Prestwick has to move but not very far - politics!!). Those 12 flight will be manned primarily by civilian crews except that 66 military personnel will be embedded into some (probably 3) of those flights with the favourites being Culdrose, Valley and Lossiemouth because they are all on large military stations.

The MoD retains a foothold in UKSAR but the rest of the aircrew and provision of aircraft and engineering is all civilian and provided by the winning bidder.

What is bizarre is that the MoD will be paying 70% of the cost of SARH despite only having a 3rd of the manpower in uniform.

[louisnewmark]

Although the plan is that approx 2/3 of the public costs of SAR-H will come from the MoD 'pot', with the other approx 1/3 coming from (I believe) the Dept for Transport via the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), it's important to remember that 100% of that money comes from the taxpayer; it's all public money that will go to pay for UK SAR irrespective of the government dept that it flows through to get there.

Why would it be done this way, at least in the early years? Well, consider this: SAR-H has to be on contract next year in order to be up-and-running in 2 1/2 years' time. To attempt to change the SAR-H funding flow to a single government dept instead of the current situation would involve a fairly hefty amount of departmental bureaucracy (UK government depts are not known for their speed and efficiency of action), which would seriously jeopardise the chances of SAR-H being able to get underway on time. The simplest way to remove this risk to the programme would be to keep the current routeing for this public 'SAR funding' until the project is in place and providing the UK SAR service. Once this is achieved, and assuming that a single government dept is considered to be the most appropriate routeing for SAR-H funding, then the necessary bureaucracy can get under way with the 'fait accompli' of SAR-H already being extant rather than in a vulnerable pre-contract state.

As I heard someone describe it a little while ago, Private Bloggs in Helmand won't go short of body armour just because 2/3 of the public SAR-H money happens to flow through the MoD.

Louis

[SARREMF]

Louisnewmark. Yep, fair point that one. With 2 and a half years to go and over, now how long has it been .... 8 or 9 years.......behind it you are quite correct, they probably couldnt get the funding line changed!

Are you serious! As you say its the tax payers money and you think that level of inefficiency is acceptable - lets face it your saying they cant play shops properly when they have known all about it - let alone run a rescue service - in those timescales! Your having a laugh!

Very sad!

You are also quite correct about "no moving of the goal posts on the 1hr from take off". Doesnt mean the goals were in the right place in the first place though does it! And yes lots of people did point out that little issue. Its also still wind - that happens a lot! Not even an average wind from the ... oh forget it! I think the saying is " it is what it is and will be what it turns out to be".

Now, one base near Derby with Ospreys .... now there is an idea.

[[email protected]]

Louis - the other point about the funding is that the MoD only pick up the cost of a flight (MoD converted to civ) once the conversion has finished and so won't pick up the full 70% until 2016 or so - if that isn't making the funding stream more complicated I don't know what is. It is also one of the reasons MoD seems to like this process because it theoretically gives more money in the early years to spend on more Chinooks/body armour etc etc.

SARREMF - yes, its a shame that none of those people involved wanted to listen to any criticism of their Master Plan but they just massaged the data to give the results they wanted.

[Spanish Waltzer]

the MoD only pick up the cost of a flight (MoD converted to civ) once the conversion has finished and so won't pick up the full 70% until 2016 or so

So who is paying for the MOD SAR Flights at the moment? The MOD surely??

At the moment aren't they paying 100% and this will drop to 70% once the bases are civilianised??

[[email protected]]

Yes but that 70% is of the £5Bn costs for SARH which includes profits for the bidder whereas at the moment the costs of running the SAR flts are comparatively low

[500e]

Thanks crab as I thought the mil will still be there, so why split the thing up & why should we give profit to private company for what appears to be inferior cover? will the mil personnel still provide 24 hour cover & if so how will the the 1 hour requirement be fulfilled
I think your comment is close to the mark,
"SAR should not be provided on a 'for profit' basis because, as we have seen from the banking crisis, once money is involved, anything can be justified by the need to make profit and all integrity is lost."
There is a case for the MOD to get its act together along with re structuring the existing system to make more efficient, but profit should not be involved.

[Sven Sixtoo]

500e
For the second time.

Once SAR-H is in business, there will be NO military SAR in the UK. This is not an additional service, it's an alternative one.

Sven

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Once SAR-H is in business, there will be NO military SAR in the UK


...apart from the 66 mil aircrew - or has this changed?

[[email protected]]

ToTD - no that hasn't changed although the delay between going through 'Main Gate' - the authority to spend the money - and announcing the preferred bidder is worrying and it keeps slipping right.

500e - the final details of the exact spread of manning are still to be released once the preferred bidder is announced but spreading 66 milpers across 12 flights is not a likely strategy - more likely they will be blobbed up at flights which happen to be on big mil bases eg Culdrose, Valley and Lossiemouth - guess where all the RN guys will be! Theoretically there will be no mil SAR flights but it looks like a few will be top heavy with mil purely for administrative and management reasons. However, they will be flying civilian aircraft with civilian registrations with civilian licences - or so the hot rumours go anyway.

The 24 hour cover will still be there - except at Portland, Chivenor and Boulmer (thanks IPT!) and the MoD official line is that the faster aircraft will allow the 1 hour requirement to be met. Unfortunately most of what comes out of MoD at the moment, where everyone is scared of their own shadow, is disingenuous at best. Our local MP made a nice point that no matter how fast the helicopter, it can't be in 2 places at the same time!

[Rescue1]

CRAB Quote:-Our local MP made a nice point that no matter how fast the helicopter, it can't be in 2 places at the same time!


With Pearls of Wisdom like that how did he ever become an MP:ugh:

[Tigwas]

Crab

You state the cost of a RAF flight is 'comparatively low'. Compared to what? From my experience it has been almost impossible to compare apples with apples where MOD are concerned. For example, in by gone days, in the space of a week, the MOD office providing operating costs for aircraft quoted me Tucano costs on Monday at £250pph and on Friday £1500pph! If you try and get a figure for a SAR flight it will be a PDOOMA!
Sea King operating costs per hour are vastly more that a 225 for example. Running costs for Prestwick are simply prohibative compared to Portland. My guess if you could actually pin down the real MOD costs per Flight it would be at least 50% more that they currently believe - so much is hidden in the infrstructure/supply and support noise! Whilst the loss of RAF SAR is to be mourned, If the MOD kept their 8 Flights and bought new aircraft through the procurement process we would not see new aircraft until 2015 - 2020 and the cost would be much more than a PFI. Simply put MOD are incapable of doing anything efficiently - Chinook Mk 3 is a fine example.
Tigwas

[Spanish Waltzer]

If the MOD kept their 8 Flights and bought new aircraft through the procurement process we would not see new aircraft until 2015 - 2020

If rumours that SAR-H delivery is slipping right are anything to go by then we probably wont see new aircraft at the mil flights til 2015 anyway as I believe they will be transferring the interim contract flts first.

Having said that unless the mil procurement process has improved I dont imagine they could meet your timeframe either!!

And with a defence spending review planned for early next year who knows what will be left of any plans for mil procurement anyhow :\ :\

[Droopystop]

I was led to believe (from a reasonable MCA source) that the RAF charged twice the then hourly price the MCA was paying for civvy SAR.

SARH has decided what level of cover they want provided. If the RAF were to provide that level of service at a price cheaper than civvy, why aren't they? Reading between the lines, someone has looked at this and determined that private finance profit is cheaper than the bureaucratic bunglings within the MOD/RAF.

Whether it will work or not, time will tell. But if SARH expects contractors to take the risk on future fuel/labour/equipment/land rental costs then we the tax payer have to pay for that risk. Perhaps that is still cheaper than the RAF. If the RAF charges were pie in the sky and not realistic then we don't need SARH. Maybe they were realistic and the RAF is more expensive than civvy. But if that's the case we don't just need SARH, we need some radical restructuring of the MOD and gain the efficiencies that the private sector can achieve whilst meeting the specifications.

[pasptoo]

With Crabs’ foresight and analysis shouldn’t he be in MOD Policy department?

1. MOD saving money by investing in a civilian contract for SAR-H….. isn’t that like like not buying software codes for new airframes, thus rendering them useless??????

2. SAR Flights relatively low cost….apart from the £46,000 taxi costs for spares to get to Prestwick a few years back!!!! I agree with Tigwas, how can you state what it costs when they can’t decide themselves. Not mention “Extra invisible costs” like military pensions, through life training costs, BOQs and MQs add to that Boarding School Allowances etc the list could go on.

3. A civilian pension fund would cost a company £150,000 (approx) over 20 years. I’d like to see ANYONE fund £15K per year (index linked) plus a lump sum of 75K out of that pension fund. But of course MIL SAR must be cheaper !

4. Why will the service be any less in the future when we are reducing 24hr cover to 12 hr on a daily basis at all bases due to lack of personnel, (Lossie, Boulmer and Leconfield, plus reduced cover at Prestwick).

5. Lastly, how can the Air Force be unhappy about moving goal posts? Didn’t they move Australia by 200Nm in the mid 1960s to justify F-111 bombers from their bases around the world as an alternative to a new fixed wing aircraft carrier (CV-01 project)?

Pas

[500e]

Sven Sixto (http://www.pprune.org/members/21916-sven-sixtoo)
It would appear it is not only me that is confused
."..apart from the 66 mil aircrew - or has this changed?2
Why any mil crew then? ah yes (including Falklands and Cyprus, neither of which features in SAR-H - extra costs
Could it be if a mil ship goes down after dark one of the 66 be sent to collect their own?.
DS
I think we all agree with your comment.
" But if that's the case we don't just need SARH, we need some radical restructuring of the MOD and gain the efficiencies that the private sector can achieve whilst meeting the specifications."

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

If the RAF were to provide that level of service at a price cheaper than civvy, why aren't they?


Droopystop,

This is the one of the main bones of contention for Crab and his cohorts - the RAF/RN SAR effort was never costed, in case (many of us believe) SAR-H turned out to be more expensive. The previous RAF SAR Force commander drew up a theoretical plan for the RAF/RN to keep providing SAR (including Falklands and Cyprus, neither of which features in SAR-H - extra costs which the MOD will have to fund somehow) but his proposals were swept under the carpet with indecent haste - not because they were pie-in-the-sky, but because again it risked exposing SAR-H for the white elephant which many believe it is. Had the mil option been properly examined and been proved to be inferior (either in terms of cost, which is quite possible, or in terms of service, which is unlikely), Crab would no doubt give in graciously.

As it is, noone knows for sure how SAR-H compares to the present structure in terms of cost, so the two camps (ie pro-mil and anti-mil) remain implacably opposed.


Why will the service be any less in the future when we are reducing 24hr cover to 12 hr on a daily basis at all bases due to lack of personnel


...because the 12-hr cover is a temporary measure forced by the reduction in crew numbers. As soon as the SAR Force is back up to 28 crews, as has been ordained recently, 24-hour cover will resume at all mil locations, except on the very infrequent occasions when sickness etc cause problems (as has always been the case at any SAR flt, mil or civ).

[sapper]

Nothing new as many of you have been advocating just this. Not exactly helpful though.
In todays Daily Mail financial section.

RBS role in PFI bid raises conflict fears

Last updated at 10:36 PM on 30th November 2009
One of the Government's biggest private-finance contracts is tipped to be handed to a consortium backed by taxpayer-funded Royal Bank of Scotland, raising concerns of a conflict of interests.The massive £5bn deal to outsource Britain's coastal search and rescue operations in a 20-to-30-year contract is being overseen by the Ministry of Defence.
It is down to a shootout between two consortia - the Air Knight group, which comprises VT Group, Lockheed Martin and British International Helicopters, and the Soteria group, which includes Thales, CHC and RBS. RBS was drafted in to Soteria in March 2008, long before the Edinburgh lender was bailed out by the Government, which now owns 84pc.
But as the decision on the mega MoD contract draws closer, concerns are beginning to emerge about how impartial officials will be when awarding the contract.
One industry source said: 'It is not beyond the wit of man to see there is a vested interest there.'
The situation evokes memories of the furore that erupted when QinetiQ was handed the £12bn Defence Training Review contract.
At the time the government still held a 19pc stake in QinetiQ, makingit both the biggest shareholder in the firm and its biggest customer.
While the parallels are obvious, a source close to Soteria dismissed the issue, saying: 'They (the Government) will be looking at who has the best bid and who has the most cost-effective bid.' Those left in the competition were told a preferred bidder would be appointed by the end of the year. But this timetable looks as though it has slipped and participants are now expecting a decision early in the new year.
One source said MoD officials met on November 13, when they were meant to 'close dialogue' on the contract. This would then give the bidders two weeks to work up their final bids.
But the source added: 'They didn't close dialogue and confirmation of invitation to tender has not happened. So it would seem to be an indication that it will drag on into the new year.'
An MoD spokesman said the decision to appoint a preferred bidder had not been made and was not likely to be made 'for a while'.
He added: 'We are taking forward the PFI competition through a process of dialogue and review.
'A preferred bidder will be appointed when an appropriately mature solution has been established and selected through the competitive process.'
Spr

[Spanish Waltzer]

Seeing as how this is a rumour network.....

I have heard a rumour...from a mate down the pub who heard it from his wife who heard it from her neighbours cockatoo.... that a third bidder may be about to (re)surface.....:eek: :eek:

...ok the cockatoo bit was made up :ok:

[TwoStep]

Bidding's closed, don't think anyone could enter if they wanted to...:}

[SafetyCase]

<H1>From Mail Online:


For sale sign hovers over helicopter firm CHC's Australian arm



By Karl West (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Karl+West)
Last updated at 12:03 AM on 02nd December 2009

Comments (0) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1232488/For-sale-sign-hovers-CHC-arm.html#comments)
Add to My Stories (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1232488/For-sale-sign-hovers-CHC-arm.html)Helicopter firm CHC has quietly put its Australian search and rescue business up for sale while bidding for an identical £5billion contract to run Britain's coastal rescue business.
CHC has appointed ANZ, the Australian and New Zealand bank, to tout the Aussie search and rescue (SAR) business around prospective buyers.
ANZ has drafted an information memorandum, seen by the Daily Mail, which has been sent out to a number of international companies.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/01/article-1232488-07062C82000005DC-142_468x286.jpg The helicopter firm is aiming to land a £5bn deal in the UK


It comes as the Ministry of Defence is about to appoint a preferred bidder to run Britain's search and rescue operations for the next 20 to 30 years. The PFI deal is currently down to two consortia - AirKnight and Soteria, which includes CHC, Thales and Royal Bank of Scotland.
A defence industry source claimed the MoD would be sure to question why CHC is selling off its SAR business in Australia and what this says about its commitment to the UK contract.


More...

RBS role in PFI bid raises conflict fears (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1232186/RBS-role-PFI-bid-raises-conflict-fears.html)The source said the timing of the sale was remarkable, coming just before a preferred operator is to be named. He added: 'It has clearly raised puzzled expressions.'
CHC admitted it is currently 'reviewing its non-oil and gas operations in Australia', which includes air ambulance, police and search and rescue.
It added: 'CHC is totally committed to the UK SAR contract ... search and rescue is one of CHC's core markets.'
CHC was bought by private equity outfit First Reserve in February 2008. First is a big investor in the energy sector and was attracted to CHC principally for its involvement in ferrying oil and gas workers to offshore platforms.
The information memorandum says CHC's Australian SAR operation has '22 specialised aircraft, employs 191 staff (including 60 pilots and 33 engineers) and operates from 13 bases across mainland Australia'.
It also points out the potential for 'growth opportunities', including further SAR outsourcing contracts, adding: 'These may be available in the medium term and relate to the outsourcing of government and communications operations including both civilian and defence contracts.
'Outsourcing of these contracts is part of a longer-term trend within the industry to move towards specialised operators, replacing government or communityoperated aircraft.'
An MoD spokesman said: 'We are conducting a competition for the provision of the future UK search and rescue helicopter capability. Any decision by CHC regarding their business in Australia is a matter for them.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1232488/For-sale-sign-hovers-CHC-arm.html#ixzz0YVCiNEH5 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1232488/For-sale-sign-hovers-CHC-arm.html#ixzz0YVCiNEH5)


</H1>

[[email protected]]

There is a rumour that Soteria were tipped the wink that if they could drop their bid by a few million they would be e shoe0in for the contract - would this explain the delay???

A govt contract where the govt is underwriting the company and its banks - what could possibly go wrong???

[TwoStep]

But RBS aren't backing the bid financially, they claim. My understanding was that they are providing the experience of PFI that CHC and Thales need to make it work, although given Thales experience, you'd think they wouldn't need RBS, hmmm :ouch:

[Bluenose 50]

Good to see the Daily Mail maintaining its standards of reporting.

Unless my eyes deceive me, the helicopter pictured is in Bristow colours and looks very much like one of their IAC S92s operating out of Scatsta.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Good to see the Daily Mail maintaining its standards of reporting


...and referring to SAR as a 'coastal rescue business' when only 23% of UK SAR callouts (2008 stats) are coastal...

[Bluenose 50]

Lies, damned lies and statistics as someone once put it. I think you will find on close scrutiny (if your source is DASA) that when they say "23% of UK SAR callouts are coastal" they actually mean "23% of UK (Military) SAR (Helicopter) callouts are coastal". Their figures are based on the 8 military SAR helicopter bases and do not include the 4 MCA/CHC bases which are usually tagged on at the end of the report in a different format.

However, given the time of year, perhaps we should be charitable to Mr West when he refers to Britain's coastal rescue business. Most of the UK SAR helicopters bases are located on the coast or within a mile or two of it - and the remainder are not very far inland. Mr West is, therefore, geographically correct when he talks of Britain's coastal rescue business. I am led to believe that nearly all the existing bases will remain exactly where they are post 2012 so it looks like we will continue to have a coastal rescue business for some years to come :ok: