SARH to go

[[email protected]]

Bluenose - what are the coastal/inland stats for the MCA flights then? Post 2012 with NVG and new JAR rules (allegedly) all flights will have the low level night overland capability and will probably be tasked accordingly.

[Bertie Thruster]

Pratt and Whitney insist on daily compressor washes on their engines when operated in a coastal environment. The Canadian manufacturers class the whole of the UK as "coastal" !

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Bluenose,

You're absolutely right to say that


they actually mean "23% of UK (Military) SAR (Helicopter) callouts are coastal"


but, as Crab points out, adding in the MCA stats wouldn't make much difference - pushing the coastal total up to 30-35% or so (at a guess) doesn't change my point.

I disagree that we should describe SAR as a coastal rescue business just because


Most of the UK SAR helicopters bases are located on the coast


Surely one could argue that the bases are on/near the coast to be a compromise between all the maritime jobs and all the land jobs! Your logic would conclude that nuclear power stations chiefly supply electricity to remote communities just because they happen to be in the middle of nowhere!

[Bluenose 50]

Hi Crab
Good job in the Lakes. Despite recent difficulties reported elsewhere and in which you have my sympathy, once again when the chips were down SARF and ARCC came up with the goods.
Apologies for the late response – I’ve been busy ! I don’t have the coastal/inland breakdown for MCA flights as I am not a statistician and am only a humble foot soldier. However, the good news is that MCA flights are doing inland jobs and that brings me on to your second point.
You’re absolutely correct, post 2012 all UK SAR flights will operate to the same standards and will be available to deal with incidents on land, at sea (including the coast) or in the air. Long overdue if I may say so and if all goes according to plan, tasking & prioritisation will be based on the greatest need and not on the old chestnuts of
· Ejected fast jet jocks are always at the top of the queue (Military)
· Maritime task mainly takes precedence over any other task (MCA)
· NHS patients with life threatening illnesses needing to be moved to a specialist hospital are secondary or tertiary tasks
The above comments are, of course, only a personal opinion but it is one long held and is one of the main reasons why I think that SARH is not a bad thing. The taxpayer ultimately will fund UKSARH and prioritisation of tasking should only be based on who needs it most – civilian or military, mountaineer, sailor or NHS patient who needs to get to better NHS facilities when the NHS can’t achieve that using their own resources.
Hi Torque
Witty response about nuclear power stations, I think ..... However, at my time of life, logic doesn’t exist in the wee small hours and I was trying to inject a light-hearted touch into what sometimes appears to be very polarised arguments. Obviously I skied my shot over the cross bar.
Statistics
Number crunching has never been my specialist subject but I’m working on it. The point I was trying to make was that all stats need to be handled with caution and a Gucci pie-chart, however colourful, may only represent what the author/originator wanted to it to prove in the first place. More on this later once I’ve dusted down the abacus. Don't wait up - could be a day or two.

[Bluenose 50]

"The Canadian manufacturers class the whole of the UK as "coastal" !"

Something along the lines I was trying to explain - we are an island race after all. Your support is appreciated whether that was what you intended or not :ok:

[[email protected]]

Bluenose - the old chestnut of a FJ ejectee coming first may still be technically true but is almost statistically irrelevant against the rest of the gamut of SAR jobs. In the old days of Lightnings, Phantoms et al we had a significant number to deal with every year - now it is more like one a year (fortunately).

Post 2012 the ARCC will still be coordinating SAR assets and they will still be the ones tasking you to inland jobs so their assessment of priority will still be extant.

I'm not sure that the 'same standard' will be achieved immediately post 2012 because the 4 MCA flights will have to jump through all the hoops of NVG training and practise - if the CAA actually get round to legislating for it.

The taxpayer will ultimately fund UKSAR but they do that already - the main difference is that some of that tax will go straight to profit and shareholders dividends, how can that be good value for money?

[Bluenose 50]

Crab
Good morning.
I’m aware of the figures – but the old chestnut still gets dragged out on occasions. Post 2012 it will finally be buried - I hope. I wasn’t being flippant about ejectees who as you are very aware require specialist handling – it’s just that I heard on numerous occasions that his or her needs (hypothetically speaking) would always take priority regardless of who else was in difficulty without any thought being given to who was in greater danger.
Post 2012 the ARCC will not be tasking me to inland jobs because I am keeping my feet firmly on the ground. They will not be tasking MCA helicopters to inland jobs because there will not be any “MCA” helicopters as I understand it. They will be however be tasking UKSAR Helicopters – for lack of a better name at the mo – wherever they are required. That’s fine by me.
Post 2012 ARCC will be still be tasking SAR aircraft – who “co-ordinates” them depends on who is co-ordinating the overall incident. If it is a maritime or coastal job, the chances are that a Coastguard Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre will be co-ordinating the SAR helicopter (along with any other assets – air or surface - that have responded to the incident).
When I talked of the same standard I meant they will all, ultimately, be the same aircraft, same capability, same kit, same training etc as opposed to the set up at the moment where there are 5 different types of helicopter operating around the UK – with different speeds and capabilities. Some have thermal imaging some don’t, some have twin hoist some don’t, some are flown with NVG and some do not, some can multi home on 121.5 MHz and some can’t, etc. Apart from all the other benefits that standardisation brings, it will greatly assist ARCC in SAR helicopter selection in the future.

[seniortrooper]

Crab@SAA: Have you read up on Vision 2020? It says it all, I'm afraid. The decision to take us all in this direction was made nearly a decade ago. [SAR-H is the least of your worries!].
As the Chief of the MCA said at the opening of the latest SAR Conference in Valley (why weren't you there?):
You are either with us or against us, there is NO GOING BACK. So stop bleating ...please. Embrace change and find something constructive to say about it. It is the future - your 'golden age' is over...it is now the golden age for all the newbies on the block. Change happens, stop being a dinosaur - you are part of a dying breed, jump ship or go down with her.
Decision for preferred bidder has gone to early Jan 2010. My guess is another delay until June. :hmm:

[pasptoo]

Crab,

Like I mentioned in post 1241, re pensions costs etc, I suppose what the taxpayer saves on your and others pensions or savings on Boarding School Allowances, a little might find its way into the pockets of some shareholder. In fact if you bought shares in the winning company you could get double your pension, now there is a thought!

As for NVG, do you start SARF as a NVG guru or do you have to learn like everyone else? Yes there are a few out there with 100s of goggle hours but there will also be those in civsar with 100s too. My guess is anyone with NVG instructional time might be head hunted to provide a suitable base intro to NVG, my guess is a lot of civsar have flown on NVG before….no?......and they wouldn’t necessarily need to be yellow! Green, grey, red and grey?

Coastal or Inland, I guess you go where you are tasked. Nowhere in the UK is more than 65 Nm (30mins) from the coast! We ARE a COASTAL nation.

Senior Trooper – “why wasn’t Crab@ the SAR conf?” Too busy hustling on pprune I’d guess………..

Pas.

Ps Well done to HMS Gannet SAR Flight for another year in the record books, 400+ call-outs and still 4 weeks to go. I guess there aren’t many inflatables off Chivenor these days.

[[email protected]]

Why wasn't I at the SARF conference? Oh yes, I remember I was on shift:) My attendance had to be cancelled at the last minute due to shift plot faffs.

Senior Trooper - it's not a question of moving on from a golden age, all things change - I accept that as part of life. But when you get to my age and have seen some of the 'changes' that have been implemented, for what seems like all good reasons at the time, but are often the result of 'empire building' and ambitious individuals rather than through a real need for change, one can be rather cynical about claims made to support such change.

Unfortunately the senior guys in the MCA know very little about helicopter SAR - strangely enough the main reason the MoD got involved with SARH - and that attitude of 'with us or against us' is not the way forward. The MCA care about things maritime and coastal, as they should, but have minimal experience of inland/mountain/urban SAR - SARH helicopters will be tasked to lots of stuff the big MCA don't understand so they need to bring that experience into play not alienate it.

Pasptoo - there is lots of NVG experience out there, some relevant, some not - some current, some not - but in order to operate safely and with no loss of capability, a robust, well structured and monitored training scheme will be required and there is not a huge time frame available to organise it. Time spent on goggles is no guarantee of capability.

Yes well done to Gannet - we are running second to them as usual but the 'inflatables off Chiv' remark is a cheap and pathetic shot:=

Forgot to mention - with 66 mil pers remaining in SAR all on pensionable service and plenty with kids at boarding school that will still be picked up by the taxpayer and the operators profit goes on top - no savings I'm afraid:)

[500e]

"it's not a question of moving on from a golden age, all things change - I accept that as part of life. But when you get to my age and have seen some of the 'changes' that have been implemented, for what seems like all good reasons at the time, but are often the result of 'empire building' and ambitious individuals rather than through a real need for change, one can be rather cynical about claims made to support such change."
crab been there seen that then when X month, years, later another good idea is thought of !! it would appear they have thought of the old (NEW) way again Great if it did not cost, but every time more waste, of people, skills & resources.
Why reinvent the wheel? I have found the old adage if it aint broke no need to fix it! works well.

[Spanish Waltzer]

...with 66 mil pers remaining in SAR all on pensionable service and plenty with kids at boarding school...

Oh so have the 66 been identified already then? :ok: :E

Or are you just hoping crab??!!

In fact same mate's wife's bird who heard the last rumour I mentioned also suggested that the 66 was looking a bit iffy and that the contractor may decide to go it alone......:oh:

rumours rumours got to love them really.....so when do we get to know who has won? :D :D

[pasptoo]

66 pers = 3 SAR flights ? give or take? no engineers?

That saves 5 SAR flights plus support staff, that'll be a saving of about 250 pensions then? :}

Wonder when it'll go Pete Tong and be canx with GBs great big savings plan!!!!! :hmm:

P'too

[[email protected]]

Get with the program pasptoo - our engineers were civilianised 18 months ago so no pension savings there either.

Spanish - at my time of life the RAF are unlikely to retrain me to do anything else so I would hope to stay in SAR

[Rescue1]

Spanish - at my time of life the RAF are unlikely to retrain me to do anything else so I would hope to stay in SAR

In Your dreams Crab In your dreams

[seniortrooper]

Do you honestly believe you will be able to play: Poacher turned gamekeeper?
Can you imagine the dilemma of keeping a moral hand grenade in amongst the great unwashed:=

I'd make plans if I was you..............

[sarboy99]

Do you honestly believe you will be able to play: Poacher turned gamekeeper?
Can you imagine the dilemma of keeping a moral hand grenade in amongst the great unwashed:=

If the previous RAF SARF Commander, who was a fervent opponent of SARH, can take a job with one of the bidders then why can't Crab?

[lost horizon]

SAR without Crab? unthinkable!! :)

[Spanish Waltzer]

...and there was me thinking that the 66 mil in SAR-H was all about providing SAR experience back to the front line....silly me...so its actually all about providing the old boys of SAR who don't want to go civvy otherwise they lose their boarding school allowances somewhere to quietly retire....:ugh: :ugh:

please tell me I'm wrong :sad:

[[email protected]]

Spanish - the 66 was supposed to be the minimum number required to allow for 'rest tours' and to keep a steady trickle of SAR experience going to SH. But no-one is going to be sent on rest tours (from SH anyway, the junglies might do it though) because of the cost of training guys onto a new aircraft type just for 3 years and then retraining them will be prohibitive - and that's just the pilots, the winchmen with all their paramedics hoops to jump through would be even less likely. Those 66 will also be spending a lot of time in the Falklands - I'm off there again at xmas - since the SARH contract doesn't seem to include that bit any more.

The lack of night capability in Cyprus of 84 Sqn and the miniscule number of SAROPs the Cypriots let them do means that capability could well be sh*tcanned to save more cash so they won't need SAR crews either. SAR experience is not really a requirement on SH, especially given their roles and theatres over the last few years.

Few guys and girls will be sent as first tourists to SAR because it will be a major career foul so the only people left to populate those 66 posts will be the more mature variety and those looking to get their licences and jump ship.

Not quite sure why there is such bitterness about boarding school allowance - it is and always has been a retention measure and works very well across all 3 services, a multitude of ranks and far more non-aviators than aviators.

If I can stay in, fly the new SAR aircraft and live somewhere decent then I will - if not, I will have to jump ship and see if my professional credentials are good enough to get me a job with the company (whoever wins).

Not quite sure how taking many years of SAR operational and instructional experience to civvy street is being a poacher turned gamekeeper - that was 20 years ago when I became a QHI:)

[seniortrooper]

1000hrs minimum to join SARH - compulsory requirement by sarh-pt.
No bow wave of pilots for converting to the new type.(sarh pt).
66 crew for SARH, of which 44 are RAF and 22 are RN. (sarh pt)
There will be a mix of flying limits, both civvy and mil, encapsulated by an appropriately named AOC. :D

Crab: Did I just read correctly what you just said:

"...see if my professional credentials are good enough to get me a job with the company..."

They can never be in doubt - those who know you would all agree on that......that's not the problem though is it? Senior SARH management read this forum often. 'Bridges' and 'Burning' come to mind. Perhaps you could train the new paramedic aircrew?

[sunnywa]

Crab,

The winning bidder would be silly to knock back an experienced body like yourself. As one who has come from the military where good training is just a way of life, you just have to smile and bear it when you see all the silly things happening around you (remembering that as you are in the service, you have seen some absolute stupidity as well). Remember, at the end of the day, it's just a job and the main thing is to get home to your family post shift.:)

And if you are lucky enough to remain in uniform whilst playing with new aircraft, you will still have to maintain a diplomatic stance if you wish to get anywhere. You never know, you might learn something from someone and teach something to someone, all whilst doing a job you like.

No matter what you think, the light at the end of the tunnel might not be a train (or might be:ooh:). Just have to be quick on your feet both ways.:ok:

[[email protected]]

Sunnywa You never know, you might learn something from someone and teach something to someone, all whilst doing a job you like.
I'm already doing exactly that:) At the moment I am a flt pilot doing shifts, a flight QHI doing training and mentoring, the Sqn QHI doing catchecks and upgrades and an OCU doing Mk3A refresher and conversion - keeps me busy!!

Seniortrooper Senior SARH management read this forum often. 'Bridges' and 'Burning' come to mind. I have never been and never will be a 'yes' man - if I think something is wrong I will say so - living in a climate of fear and being scared of your own shadow is no way to exist. If the future management were that petty I really don't think I would want to work for them anyway:)

[spamalot]

Hi Crab,
Bad news i'am afraid, OHHHHHH how they LOVE yes men, the truth is often ignored, and yes they are that petty!! :bored:
Many worries you have are spot on, having said that, the professionalism amoungst the coalface workers is equal to any military unit ( after all 70% of the crews in most civ bases are ex mil), and the them and us Civ v Mil debate is almost non existant, its a job we do to the best of our ability, with the kit supplied with at the time, thankfully, we all appear to get the same results at the end of the day:) I for one would not give a damn as to what colour, type, or mil/civ rescue helicopter , that would come to my aid if in trouble.:D Compared to many other parts of the world, we are very lucky to have this excellent service around the British isles and Ireland. Lets just hope it stays that way.

[Max Contingency]

Spamalot

How do you know what senior SARH senior management like or dislike? Do you work for Soteria or Air Knight???

[lost horizon]

Spamalot

One of the bidders definitely does NOT like yes men. Trust me, I know :=

[Tonka Toy]

Off track a little, but can anyone confirm if the MCA CNIS / SAR Islander has been pulled from Manston early? Have been hearing rumours!:suspect:

[Support Monkey]

The end is apparently in sight!

Ministry of Defence and Department for Transport officials will choose between two bids – believed to be very closely matched on price – by the end of the month.
The first team, called Soteria, is made up of French defence company Thales, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and helicopter operator CHC, which is already doing search and rescue from four UK bases, under an interim contract with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Soteria plans to use the S92 helicopter made by Sikorsky of the US.
The second bidder, called AirKnight, is composed of VT Group, US defence giant Lockheed Martin and British International Helicopters. That team will use the Eurocopter EC225 helicopter, made by EADS.
There are currently 40 Sea Kings carrying out Britain's coastal and inland search and rescue from 12 bases, but it is expected the new fleet of aircraft will be reduced to between 25 and 30, because they will be faster and require less maintenance.
Search and rescue is carried out by either the Navy, the RAF or the coastguard, which each run different bases. After the PFI comes in, most staff will be employed by the private contractor with a small number of Navy and RAF personnel.
After choosing the preferred bidder in January, the Government will aim to get a contract signed by April in order to give the winning team enough time to get ready to take over in 2012. However, people familiar with the process expect the signing of the contract to be put off until after a general election.
The preferred bidder will also have to get its financing in place between January and the contract date. RBS is an equity partner in the Soteria bid, but will not necessarily be the lead bank in the financing. AirKnight is expected to use three or four banks.
The role of RBS in the bid has raised concerns of a conflict of interest, with the bank almost wholly owned by the state and bidding for government work.
The MoD insists the involvement of RBS does not raise a conflict of interest and the winner will be chosen after a "competitive process conducted in accordance with the European Union procurement regulation".


Search-and-rescue helicopter £5bn PFI deal nears take off - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/6928410/Search-and-rescue-helicopter-5bn-PFI-deal-nears-take-off.html)

[[email protected]]

Not before bl**dy time either - the final result will be interesting especially if the IPT's 'favourite' bidder turns out to be the official preferred one!

[Bucaneer Bill]

Don't hold your breath!

[sox6]

Mmm I wonder does that mean its AirKinght that the IPT prefer - if so the newest aircraft in the SAR fleet will be replaced first?

Or is there really a more interesting scenario?

PS:- Not expecting an answer!

[ironchefflay]

just my opinion, but i think they would be daft to go for the EC225 over the S92.

<awaiting the bunfight>

[lost horizon]

ironchefflay.

Bun incoming!!

The S92 is certainly a good cab with many fine characteristics but so is the 225. It's a proven aircraft with long lineage, maturity, excellent speed, long legs (with the aux tanks), little or no vibration in the cruise and hover and an autopilot that is the equal if not better than any SAR cab flying. The winch ops Hover Trim system is outstanding giving geat flexibility during winching operations and i don't think the S92 has that capability. The one slight issue is the cabin volume particularly head height but my spies tell me that Airknight have done a good job on the cabin configuration and it is very user friendly.
I would have thought that any government worth its salt would look at the financial robustness of the AK bidders and conclude that they have a far better chance of delivering a 25 year service than the opposition. Time will tell, they will probably just go for the cheapest!!.

[Rotary Girl]

Ironchefflay,
Interesting first(?) post!:rolleyes:

I think the government would be even more daft to base its decision on an opinion of the aircrafts' performance.
I understand that extensive modeling was conducted to demonstrate the a/c's suitability wrt the requirement, as well as a demonstration of each platform's capability.
I also believe that the technical aspect is but as small part of the process in deciding who the preferred bidder will be.

Any particular reason that you think they would be daft to chose the 225? Flight International opined that it was an excellent SAR platform recently. Care to share with us your reasoning for your statement - unless of course you have a vested interest!;)

[Rescue1]

The one slight issue is the cabin volume particularly head height but my spies tell me that Airknight have done a good job on the cabin configuration and it is very user friendly

So can Someone who is 5'7" tall now stand upright in a Airknight 225?

Answer NO:ugh:

[Epiphany]

Then it is a good job Airknight will be putting seats in them.

[lost horizon]

Rescue 1

Your point about standing up in the cabin is a contentious one which has been noted by many rear crew both involved and not invoved in SARH.
I would say this. Not all RAF winchmen can stand up straight even in a Sea King what with MRS boots and a Mk 4 helmet, and the fact that they have to stoop as they trudge up to to Jocks Box and back (eg to get the entonox) might be a contributory factor in so many having back problems. How much better if the casualty is brought to into the cabin and is immediately in a position where all the med kit is to hand and the winchman hardly has to move anywhere to get anything and start treatment as in the 225. If you're not walking up or down all the time head height is less of an issue. If you look at it as a new way of operating then the advantages become apparent.


The S92 has a taller cabin which is great from that perspective but its not perfect in every respect. (That long range tank!) The winch (door) is at the front of the cabin so everything that comes through that door has to be carried or dragged aft, possibly past some other stuff already there. The 225 has the door on the middle of the cabin so there is not so far to travel which means the head height is less of an issue.

In my experience you could design a SAR aircraft with a cabin the size of a C17 but eventually it would be filled with c**p and someone would want something bigger. The 225 is not a Sea King nor is it an S92 but it is a damn fine SAR cab and once the rear crew get used to it's many excellent attributes everything will be fine and we can all concentrate on the really serious issue of the day namely, when is Tiger Woods coming back ;)

[GLGNDB]

Regarding the long range tank in the S-92 cabin, would the CAA certify a set of external drop tanks for the S-92, similar to the ones carried on the USCG Sikorsky's.

[Droopystop]

If they go for a 225, I hope they put an APU in it. Otherwise they only start if they're connected to the national grid.

[Wizzard]

If they go for a 225, I hope they put an APU in it. Otherwise they only start if they're connected to the national grid.

Rubbish! I have personally done several battery starts in the ESB on the same afternoon on a famil flight for deck crews with no trouble at all. Do you actually drive the 225?

Wiz

[detgnome]

Colleagues of mine, who fly the 225, reliably inform me that more than 10 mins on battery power and an internal start becomes increasingly unlikely. Ours always start from ground power... then again that's not much worse than a Sea King! I remember being stuck at Corpach with a dead Sea King after the battery refused to start approximately 30 mins after we had shut down following a 4 hour flight!

[ironchefflay]

well, firstly, its not my first post. had another account but wont seem to let me in!

funny how only the 225 lovers seem to come in here and have to try to prove why its the platform to go for!

as for me, well, im not a pilot, im an engineer and i work on both types, and i prefere to work on the S92. thats just my opinion, im not going to try to convince anyone otherwise, thats just how it is.

operationally, i think the cabin is MUCH better for SAR. you CAN STAND UP in it, its much roomier for kit and patients, cockpit has better visability, and the ramp is very handy as attested to by the current CG users. that together with an APU makes it much more useful in my book. then there is no problem with the battery, can have air con and electric with out needing the use of the engines. im sure, heat in the mountains would be appreciated if parked up! these things alone i think make it far more suitable. i will accept however, having a door at either side may be of some limited value as some have lauded before. but im sure if the door is on the wrong side, the pilots can easily turn it round, or move!

i believe if the 92 is picked, the coastguard will get S92B's instead of A models, which will include a redesign of the Aux tanks. I noticed sumburghs aux tanks are up on the storage roof still wrapped in plastic, so i dont think they are much of a problem for them! im sure any other problems will have been looked at as well

from a maintenance perspective, i find them much better to work on. thats as far as im going with that!!

the above are my musings for you folks to mull over. im not entering into a fight as you pilot types always seem to want to! thats just what i think!


PS. our 225's constantly need bump starting on ground power!!! even first thing in the morning!

[ironchefflay]

Rotary girl,

Lucky i'm not on the choosing panel, cos all i have is an opinion!

i dont seriously think they are waiting till they read some sort of sensible consensus from this thread, which aircraft to choose! or mayby thats why it keeps getting delayed!! come on people lets make a decision!!

[Hilife]

I believe CHC is the largest EC225 operator in the world, yet their platform of choice for UK SAR-H is the S-92.

Irrespective of which side of the fence you sit, you have to wonder why that is? :hmm:

[northseaguy]

Interesting comment Hilife, however it’s also interesting to note that CHC have subsequently ordered SAR EC225’s for Norway contracts, and not the S92.

This has occurred post CHC wining the UK’s Coast Guards interim contract where they are using the S92 at Sumbrough and Stornoway. If the S92 is CHC’s SAR platform of choice, then why change? Was there a change of heart post the Halifax incident?

I’ve seen one of these new SAR 225’s, and a lot of thought, investment and technology has been applied to them.


http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2007/Pages/ContractCHC.aspx (http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2007/Pages/ContractCHC.aspx)


I’ve not seen any orders for SAR S92’s lately.

[Ian Corrigible]

i believe if the 92 is picked, the coastguard will get S92B's instead of A models
With an EIS date of 2012, I doubt it. More likely S-92A+.

I believe the EC225 is already offered with an APU: Microturbo Saphir 20 (PDF, 343 kB) (http://www.microturbo.com/IMG/pdf/saphir20.pdf)

I/C

[heli1]

With all this global warming going on I hope they order something that can operate in icing conditions !

[ironchefflay]

you people should already know this.

CHC may be the largest operator of EC225 in the world, even maybe including EC225 SAR aircraft, but that is because the contracts for these jobs are tendered usually with a choice of platforms and it is the oil companies normally who choose the platform and the equipment fitted.

im not surprised an APU has possibly been offered, but it is an option on the 225, and as such may not be taken up as its takes up payload capability. its standard on the 92, so theres no penalty for having it.

Ian,

I am sure if any recent incidents have influenced peoples perceptions of aircraft it is because they have only heard on side of the story. for every problem the S92 has, the EC225 has one to match it! they may not be the same problem, but the outcomes would be the same! As does the AW139 or any other helicopter flying today. it takes many years of development and redesign to get the reliablity to match the fabled S-61!!! (which also had its fair share of problems!)

From what i understand, the Coast guard Like the S92 and are happy with it. that is what i was told by someone in the organisation. if thats the case then i for one would be happy to go work on them. if AirKnight gets it, well, im sure if i needed a job and they offered me one, the 225 wouldnt put me off it.

[725_driver]

Yes, this is my first post, glad to read you since about 1 year !

I'm a EC725 pilot for French Air Force, with many Puma background, and some Fennec...

2 precisions :
On the 725 (similar to 225 in a lot of systems) we often start without any GPU/APU using the battery. The only thing to survey is the tension and if we intend to stay power ON waiting to start, we switch off several screens leaving only the 2 VMS on. we can stay easily 10 minutes there. But in an alert take off we often put BATT ON, external lighting, Fuel pumps and engine selector ON. So, no time to loose starting the APU and ready to taxi in less than 3 minutes !
Secondly, we are operating Air Force 725 in Brittany as a SAR helicopter under Navy responsability. The crews are mixed, Air Force and Navy Pilots, Flight engineers, Divers in the same helo : trust me it goes very well !! (most of the problems come from HQ's...). Starting this cooperation most of the Super Frelon operators were very critical about the height of the cabin... But it has been very quickly admitted that most of the time they were not standing in the cabin, even during winch operation, and that the central door compared to the Super Frelon front one was really a great advantage, allowing to keep a dry area (front) and a possibly wet one in the rear. Very often people first refers to these good old days... or when thinking about changing their habits seems so hard they prefer to stay with the same way of action...
Voilà, this is just my experience, but who has the truth... every one !!

Next post next year.

PS : last month French Navy has ordered 2 EC 225 for SAR in Brittany

[lost horizon]

725 Driver

Welcome to PP.

You are absolutely right about the cabin height of the 225. there will always be resistance to anything new but generally people adapt quickly.

If a tall cabin is an essential working environment for any particular individual, the RAF has just ordered lots of Chinooks...................................!!!!! :rolleyes:

[ironchefflay]

Starting the APU on the 92, and im sure on the 225 if they specify it, takes only a few seconds. its one switch, and since its only a little engine, its up and running in no time. then you can sit about on full power for as long as you like waiting for the final call to go or while waiting in the field, for example in the mountains working with MRT's etc.

this is about both aircraft here, notice how i did that?;)

about the cabin though. "people adapt quickly"

dont have to it in a 92!

oops, my stab at constructive brainstorming went a bit a wry at the end there!!

[Tallsar]

Hi Guys

I have little doubt that both remaining competitors have looked very closely at the merits (and disadvantages) of both the S92 and the 225. My understanding is that the detailed nature of the requirement demands that they do, and both will have had to make their own stuided conclusions as to which they prefer. I can understand CHC staying with the S92 over the alternative 225 ( of which they are the biggest operator so far). Given CHC's investment in the S92 for the Interim UK HMCG contract I can imagine that this had a significant influence in not moving away from the 92 given the closeness in so many ways of the 2 ac in terms of meeting the SAR-H requirements. IMO either ac will be a step forward from the venerable SK, and both will need a little time to bed down properly in the new SAR-H role. Each new operator/role always places additonal demands on a platform that are only exposed by the detailed nature and geography of that new role, so whoever wins we should expect these sort of teething troubles no matter how well the manufacturer's and bid winners believe they have created a great SAR platform and service. Lets hope the government moves forward to a decision soon - anyone who knows anything about introducing a new type and service in such a demanding role, will understand that time is already (too?) tight for all contingencies to get the service up and running to contract - so any political delay will not be helpful.

[Oneclub]

Soteria are the Preferred Bidder. The official announcement will be made on 1/2 Feb.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Will we now see the recently ex-mil folks who have been working for AirKnight going cap in hand to Soteria? Or even trying to get back in to the RAF/RN...crew quotas have just increased, after all!

[rotor-rooter]

I hear of all sorts of change going on within the CHC SAR programme right now, as a new leader stamps his authority on the entire organization. :eek:

What on earth is going on?:}

[lost horizon]

One club

How do you know?

[Spanish Waltzer]

One club

How do you know?

I would bet he doesn't, unless he is talking about 'in his own opinion' of course and as a newbie he is undoubtedly fishing!

I would imagine if either bidder was leaked early as the 'preferred' then the other would mount a significant legal challenge that would delay the process further. Something nobody wants.

Of course should Soteria end up as the winner I have no doubt oneclub will rant I told you so and we will all think he has an inside link to the world of UK SAR. If they lose we will not hear from him again. Don't rise to it.

[Hilife]

NSG

I’m sure the Norwegian operator had an all Puma fleet and wanted it to remain that way.

Regarding post interim S-92 SAR selection, the Saudi MOI has just completed a 16 ship delivery used for Interdiction/SAR OPS and didn’t Bristow’s place a SAR S-92 into Nigeria last year?

[TwoStep]

Some interesting comments by Bill Chiles on page 8 in this article: RH Dec 2009-Jan 2010 (http://mags.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/2009/RH%20Dec%202009-Jan%202010/pageflip.html)

Read recently that the 84 Sqn contract in Cyprus is up at the end of March, will FBH get it again?

[farsouth]

Spanish Waltzer -

Regardless of whether you are correct or not about Oneclubs post,

your comment
"I would imagine if either bidder was leaked early as the 'preferred' then the other would mount a significant legal challenge that would delay the process further. Something nobody wants"

is, I think, incorrect.

The selection and announcement of a "preferred bidder" is a perfectly normal business practice (just try googling the term), and I seem to remember that CHC were announced as preferred bidder for the interim SAR contract before the final decision was announced (but cannot immediately find the reference, so I might be wrong)

This quote from a business text-book refers...

"For large-scale and high-value contracts, the client may undertake tender evaluation in two stages. The first stage uses the process of technical and financial evaluation to identify, say, two or three shortlisted bidders who are asked in the second stage to refine their bids and develop further their proposed solutions to the client’s requirements. Commercial negotiations may start during this second stage. The short-listed bidders will be evaluated on their final responses and the client will then select a preferred bidder for detailed negotiations. Following a further review a final decision will be made"

[AS332L1]

I think you will find this has already been renewed until 2017 with a further option to 2020, using FBHeliservices

[Spanish Waltzer]

farsouth

every day is a school day - happy to be put right! :)

[seniortrooper]

I was under the impression that 'down select' was on the 22nd January. Hey ho.
Secondly (even though I am happy either way) bear in mind that the chosen one (225/92) has to survive 35 years of SAR. How old is the 225 currently?

This contract will go ahead, there will not be a delay - the SeaKing fleet is relying on a replacement a/c NOW. Further delays (after 8years of planning already) will cost the (new) government dearly.
Having said that, exactly this happened in Germany with their SeaKing replacement (the NH90 will not be replacing it now:eek:). Secondly, did you know that 85% of ALL previous MoD contracts were between 3 and 5 yrs late:=

[Ian Corrigible]

How old is the 225 currently?
Less than 1 year, according to Flight (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/29/336622/2009-a-year-in-first-flights.html). :E

I/C

[chcoffshore]

It might have already been mentioned, but apart from the CG bases already up and running, which will be the first military base to be converted by the winning bidder to the new aircraft type?

[Hummingfrog]

What are the sloping ground limits for the S92 and 225? I know that the Puma is prone to tipping over even on level ground if the xwind is strong or inappropriate taxying techniques are used. There have been at least a couple of instances at Aberdeen plus many close calls.

A SAR aircraft has to have good stability as many landing sites are not level!!

HF

[Rotary Girl]

A SAR aircraft has to have good stability as many landing sites are not level!!

Good job both aircraft will have a dual hoist fitted!!!:rolleyes:

I would hazard a guess that both bidders took sloping ground limits into consideration when selecting their chosen platform.
I also suspect that the MCA & MOD may also give this element of the aircraft's performance suitable weighting in deciding who should be chosen to provide the contract.

The SAR-H IPT issued a substantial requirements document, and despite what some people on this forum may think, the Project Team are not one big troop of baboons;)!

[SFHawk]

What are the sloping ground limits for the S92 and 225?


For the 225 (North Sea config):

Nose up: 12 degrees (8 if above 10000kg)
Nose down: 8
Lateral: 8

For stopping rotor:
Nose up: 10 degrees
Nose down: 6
Lateral: 5

As for age; 225's have been operating in the North Sea for at least 5 years.

Is there not a seperate thread comparing S92 and 225?

[[email protected]]

chcoffshore - both bidders have their transition plans but nothing offical will be released until the decision is made.

However, it makes sense to convert the Mk 3 flights first becaause the aircraft are older and more knackered - the 3As have better avionics/autopilot and are more serviceable.

If it were me I would tackle Valley first because the engineering there is still struggling and it would be easy to improve on the availability and look good - it also allows the bidders OCU to be establlished in its permanent location and co-locates the new management with the old (mil) meaning that in theory any difficulties with the transition process would be easier to sort in person. From there one could just work clockwise round the country.

[chcoffshore]

Crab thanks for the reply.

[Bucaneer Bill]

Another facet to the SAR(H) programme to consider is what real estate improvements will need to be made at some of the flights.

Is there any reason why 3As could not be relocated? Why are they where they are now?

[leopold bloom]

If it were me I would tackle Valley first because the engineering there is still struggling and it would be easy to improve on the availability and look good - it also allows the bidders OCU to be establlished in its permanent location and co-locates the new management with the old (mil) meaning that in theory any difficulties with the transition process would be easier to sort in person.
A fairly logical plan but not the most attractive location. I wonder how difficult it would be to attract the right people to up sticks and move there?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

85% of ALL previous MoD contracts were between 3 and 5 yrs late


...presumably the other 15% were in the 'over 5 years late' category...


how difficult it would be to attract the right people to up sticks and move there?


Potentially very difficult, as shown by the problems that the civ companies had when taking over first the Hawk support and more recently the Sea King support. Perhaps by making it the first location to change, the SAR-H people would attract those who are really in need of a job and are prepared to go to Anglesey for it, and then recruit for the more popular locations later. If they have the same restrictions on them as the SKIOS people did, they won't be allowed to offer extra financial incentives to get people to Valley.


For the 225 (North Sea config):

Nose up: 12 degrees (8 if above 10000kg)
Nose down: 8
Lateral: 8

For stopping rotor:
Nose up: 10 degrees
Nose down: 6
Lateral: 5


Are these the limits for take off/landing or for shut-down? Or are the limits the same for the 225?

[SFHawk]

Are these the limits for take off/landing or for shut-down? Or are the limits the same for the 225?

For the 225:
12,8,8 degrees for take off/landing
10,6,5 degrees for shut down/start up

[steve_oc]

S92 slope limits:

Maximum nose up and down slope 10°
Maximum lateral slope 13°
Valid for all slope operations including rotor shutdown and start-up.

[Pennyroyal]

Hi all from a newbie with an extremely biased interest in the SAR-H contract. I am one of the engineering team located at Valley and find the comments regarding our struggling engineering section a little surprising. There were no doubts that at the initial stages of the SKIOS contract, Sea King experience was, at the very least, lacking!

If it were me I would tackle Valley first because the engineering there is still struggling and it would be easy to improve on the availability and look good

However "still struggling" does not quite cover SAR eng ops at Valley. Considering airframe numbers have at times reached 7 Mk3's with 8 people per shift. This has only proven the resolution and determination of engineers at SKIOS RAF Valley, who through professionalism and outstanding SAR ethos have adapted, via a forced upon learning curve, to become some of the best Sea King engineers I have ever had the pleasure of bodging a job with.;)

Then again crab could simply be referring to the fact that either new platform would make Valley stick out as an extremely proud thumb in the briar patch of Sea King aircraft.

I for one hope, amongst all my 32 colleagues, that some of our jobs will saved.:suspect:

[ironchefflay]

i heard that either bidder would be looking for something in the region of 200 engineers when the time comes. sounds like a lot to me, but i havent thought about the breakdown, so not really sure how realistic that is.

if its true. im pretty sure there arent a readily available 200 people with the skills to take on the jobs. so im sure there will be jobs to be had.

[ericferret]

It is not just engineers with the skills it is also engineers with the qualifications. These aircraft will be maintained to civil standards and licensed engineers will be required.

One of the reasons for poor take up of jobs on military contracts has been poor pay.

Looking at one of the aviation job sites today gives an idea of what the difference can be.

Senior technicians for a military contract GBP30,000. S92 engineers for Scatsta GBP 54,000.

North sea pay for someone with multiple types sits at around GBP 46-50,000.

[Epiphany]

Which is one of the reasons I wonder if the bidders have factored in realistic wages for engineers, crewmen and pilots. Maybe Bristow were being realistic and the numbers didn't add up?

[RotaryWingB2]

Out of the two, I know which one I'll be betting on using realistic figures.

[ironchefflay]

well, as an engineer i know only too well the difference in pay. both in fixed wing-rotary and military-civil.

i was offered a job with FBH as a licensed engineer for £31k. I was earning more at the time as a north sea helicopter Mech. now with multiple types (including those on offer from both bidders) they would have to pay more than the current interim contract does which is around £5k less than im on now. althought the lifestyle change may be worth it to those it suits. there wont be many S92 or EC225 engineers current on type who wouild want to move onto lower wages, unless it gets them a move closer to somewhere they want to be, or if its the type of job they a looking to get into.

i guess its horses for courses, but if the Skios contract is offering £27 ish for a supervisor, then there is a huge gulf between the two worlds to overcome.

[lost horizon]

Geordie

Which one?

[Spanish Waltzer]

Perhaps a tad simplistic, and as a health warning I am not an engineer, but if I understand it correctly from comments above, the majority (all?) of the present SKIOS engineers at the various SAR bases around the UK are gaining valuable experience but are being paid less because they are not licensed. They are however a local workforce who are proving that they are up to the job. I have no doubt therefore that the winning bidder, once they have decided how many engineers they want at each location, will dip into those workforces and offer those that have proved themselves capable the necessary training etc for their licenses. This will come at a cost so those individuals will be bonded for a period of time. I am sure there will be plenty of volunteers so this will solve the need to recruit and also ensure a stable workforce during the transition. The problem I imagine is that the present numbers of SKIOS guys at each location is probably greater than the number required for a new platform - but that allows the new company the ability to be picky.

[nodrama]

offer those that have proved themselves capable the necessary training etc for their licenses.


Probably a good idea, but licenses don't get granted overnight....what happens while they are spending up to a year or more getting their licenses?

[Spanish Waltzer]

but licenses don't get granted overnight....what happens while they are spending up to a year or more getting their licenses?

Nodrama - the transition to SARH is not happening overnight either. In theory the preferred bidder will be announced shortly, the first bases to be transitioned are the 4 MCA ones which already have licensed engineering followed thereafter by the RAF & RN bases with the final transfer not til 2016/2017 (cant remember the exact timeframe). There is plenty of time there for people to be identified and training programmes put in place while they still provide the current service to SKIOS. I accept there may be an employment law issue over conflict of interests between SKIOS & new company but I'm no solicitor either so dont know the answer on that.

[Spanish Waltzer]

If it were me I would tackle Valley first ............
........From there one could just work clockwise round the country


Oh would that mean Chiv would be last to go.........how convenient for you crab :ok::E :E

[ironchefflay]

lee and portland are part of the interim contract along with up north. the original plan was for two types.

139 will be binned in favour of a one type solution. ive been told some of the issues with it, but im not going to pass those on for my own safety as i dont know where i would stand with that!

I have never worked on it or operated with it so I cant make personal comment. except to say when one visited, it was quite a nice machine on the face of it.

i dont think those who work on it dislike it, i think maybe just not as capable as 92?

maybe ask crab about their availability, he seems to know more than most about it. i think a 92 from sumburgh has been down to cover for them before.

[ironchefflay]

about training engineers up for it.

it could cost too much take much longer than the company wants to wait. too many people not able to sign for the daily's etc wouldnt go down well. especially on such a small shift. and the CAA are turning down a lot of inital applications for lack of civil experience. (from the ones ive seen put in recently, dont know about generaly) then you would need time after type training if you dont have enough experience on type which i would imagine most of the SKIOS guys wont have on either type. If trained or experienced others are around im sure they will get precidence

i think those guys deserve a go at it if its possible, but theres a lot to overcome. im sure a fair few of them will find their way in, and if the money matches what a S92/EC225 guy gets now when qualified then im sure it'll be smiles all round.

[Coconutty]

What's the story behind the Sea King stuck at EGBB recently ?

Some sort of engine problem ?

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[seniortrooper]

The MoDwere out of budget for that week so asked the crew to land and shut down until into the following weeks budget:suspect:

[[email protected]]

Pennyroyal - your version of SAR engineering at Valley must be viewed through rose tinted specs because it doesn't match what the rest of the world sees. When you had 7 airframes (and that was only briefly) why was it? Possibly because all the ones you were supposed to fix were still U/S with the flt and the OCU crying out for even one serviceable Sea King.

BTW whose poor availability drags the rest of the SARF down? Oh yes a place in N Wales.

My suggestion to start at Valley is because if the new contractors can make that work, everything else will be easy.

Ironchefflay - the problem with the 139 hasn't been about availability, rather about how it was introduced into service without meeting the spec required for night overwater ops.

[Bucaneer Bill]

'However, it makes sense to convert the Mk 3 flights first becaause the aircraft are older and more knackered - the 3As have better avionics/autopilot and are more serviceable.'

Sound familiar? Perhaps the Mk3As could go to Valley to help them out!

[ukv1145]

Just for info, the minimum CIVIL experience to hold a Part 66 B1 or B2 engineering license is 5 years. This can be mitigated by doing an approved ab-initio course which will reduce the experience requirement down to 1 or 2 years (normally the duration of the course). As far as I am aware no credit is given for military experience under EASA rules. If an ab-initio route is followed there will be no certification rights issued until a year after the issue of a license.
As can be seen there is no easy route to 'open a box of engineers'

An interesting problem for the 2 companies.

[RotaryWingB2]

The CAA have and still do give credit for military experience.

It is reduced from 5 years to 1 year. This is correct as of two days ago.

[Spanish Waltzer]

so....................has a decision been made??? I'm sure a few pages ago someone said the announcement was due this week............:confused:

and there's me getting my hopes up that for once in this project a deadline would be kept.......:rolleyes:

Whoever is making the decision sure isn't making it easy for the winning bidder to deliver on time. Days are ticking by and 2012 aint that far away for delivering such a massive contract. Cant see how they can be penalised for not delivering when the decision makers haven't kept to their own deadline!

Sincerely hope this is not a sign of things to come....:ugh:

SW

[ukv1145]

Hi Geordie,

Thanks for the info, I knew the CAA used to (got some myself) but I also know a couple of guys that didnt get any credit recently (EASA, the CAA dont have any teeth now lol). Maybe their experience was not as relevant, I am not sure of the exact circumsatnces. Do you still have to wait a year after gaining the license to be able to certify? Difficult to see how guys can take even 1 year out from their SKIOS jobs to train and then do type courses etc.

I hope all of this has been factored in, interesting times ahead!!

[RotaryWingB2]

UKV, I know of guys who have done type rating courses within that first years civil experience, sent basic application off with type rating course + experience and been certifying on type 3 weeks later...

It all depends on the quantity (and maybe quality) of the civil experience logsheets you send to the CAA. (Plus some other bits of 'playing the game')

PM me if you like, as we are drifting from the OPs topic somewhat.

Getting back on topic, what date is the announcement due to be made?

22nd Jan or 28th?

[TwoStep]

Parliament's not sitting today, so it ain't today...

Hearing early February now...:bored:

[[email protected]]

Buccaneer Bill - we did that when the engineering output there was classed as not meeting airworthiness standards - it didn't do any good and they ignored all the advice our Chiv engineers who were seconded up there, gave them - they knew better apparently, possibly why they are still in a mess. The big problem for SKIOS there is the ex-RN heavy management who have formed a clique and oppose any ex-crab input about how best to engineer the aircraft.
Moving the 3As there would mean moving the 3A engineers and that isn't going to happen - they are working well where they are because they are happy and settled - it wouldn't be so at Valley.

Spanish - end of next week allegedly but who knows, the bidders don't seem to have been told either.

[Bucaneer Bill]

Surely it would be relatively simple to train up anyone on the mysteries of the SN500 and the HF - which I believe are the significant differences twixt 3 and 3A? Accepting that is doable - what is the answer to my original question - why are the 3As where they are and why could they not operate from anywhere else - including MPC?

[Tallsar]

Hi BB
Quite simple - when intro'ed to service in 95 there was only sufficent Mk3as to equip 2 bases and also provide 1 extra/spare ac when available for training and backup.
Chiv and Watisham were chosen as 2 of the 3 22 Sqn flts to reequip with the SK at the time so Valley took some older Mk3s. The venerable Wessex then left UK SAR service

The differences in the autopilot (which are in many ways considerable), the nav system and at the time the digital radar (now equiping all RAF SKs) meant that aircrew (and groundcrew) training were specific enough to be considered as a seperate evolution with no instant cross over to the Mk3 without relevant cross over training. The handling characteristics in the hover in particular can be very different and the AFCS procedures can vary a great deal too. Clearly the winchmen and some groundcrew trades could swap over and this was done regularly. Otherwise pilots and radops did not swap bases in the early years to keep the shift roster going and needed a short refamil course with the Mk3 before swapping back to the Mk3 and/or going on detachment to the FI. Other than short term detachments the differences in the Mk3a were considered big enough to mean that a permanent move to another base would not be without expense.

We can discuss endlessly the potetnial safety management challenges of having pilots (and radops) multitype rated - but suffice to say that the duplex Mk3a autopilt/AFCS is very good and a major safety improvement over that fitted to all other UK SKs - good as that was at the time.

Cheers

[ericferret]

At the moment a full engineers helicopter B1 course (theory only) with one of the UK major training providers takes about 6 months and costs around GBP 9,000 plus transport, accomodation, meals and wages per head. So not a cheap option. Then there is type training on top. At least another 6 weeks. Then there would be OJT of another 2 weeks.

So about 8 months in total throw in some leave and time for the CAA to reject the paperwork
maybe about a year from start to finish.

Total cost

9000 basic, 5000 type, wages 30000, hotels transport e.t.c ???????
my guess not much change out of 65 grand

Obviously training a lot of people in block would reduce the cost, but then you have to have a block of people you can do without for a least 8 months.

[[email protected]]

Bill - the problems at Valley are not because they have 3s instead of 3As - it is all about ethos, pay and experience. Initially AW convinced themselves they could run a SAR flt and an OCU with a third less people than the RAF did - they couldn't and had to recruit more people but not before confidence had been lost in the engineering management. The pay is not sufficient to attract the desired level of capability and there are only a certain number of people who want to work at Valley - the same guys jump from FW contract to RW and back depending on who is offering the best deal. Then end result is that whilst many of the engineers might be good chaps, the management is often found wanting and there is a lack of the work ethic essential for SAR - handbagging snags to the next shift is almost de rigeur there and trying to pull the wool over the SAR captain's eyes to avoid having to do work on the aircraft is not unusual.

The 3As are more reliable and have far fewer avionic snags but they are still Sea Kings and break just as often but Chivenor's excellent availability is all down to superb engineers and management - we were extremely lucky that so many good guys transferred and stayed there.

Post SARH there will be fewer engineers required because that seems to be the industry standard but the whole SAR force will need experienced quality engineers and the contractor will have to pay appropriately for them.

[Spanish Waltzer]

the management is often found wanting and there is a lack of the work ethic essential for SAR - handbagging snags to the next shift is almost de rigeur there and trying to pull the wool over the SAR captain's eyes to avoid having to do work on the aircraft is not unusual.


Careful crab....I'm sure you have evidence to back up your assertions but they're pretty slanderous comments you're making. :=

[Winch-control]

Crabs comments ring true as the standard norm for civvy street, something he has yet to experience.
The work ethos of military serving engineers over those that work as civillians is second to none.

[3D CAM]

Winch-c.
I have stayed out of this lately for reasons known to a few.... but you talk absolute b****x!!!!!!!:= Most of the engineers now civvie, are ex-forces. The pride of being part of a Search and Rescue Unit is not confined to aircrew!!!!!! And if someone is not proud of that then they should get the **** out.:mad:
Sorry, a bit angry now so time to go and have some calming down juice!!
3D

[victor papa]

The engineering argument is simple to settle. Will engineers be allowed to run engineers, aircraft, AMO, planning etc with a set budget OR WILL THEY HAVE TO ANSWER TO AND/OR BEG BEAN COUNTERS, SPENT HALVE THEIR DAY JUSTIFYING THEIR EXISTANCE WITH TIMESHEETS iNSTEAD OF GETTING SPARES AND JUST WORKING:ugh::ugh:?

I have seen too many times happy engineering companies with the best serviceability and safety records being taken over by management which means the bean counters and within a month you have negativity, low serviceability etc. Also i have seen companies introducing say a pilot or non engineering type for Quality and Safety management-only engineers understand engineering and should be judging each other and introduce ongoing improovements-they see things differently and thus need different solutions. Imagine us as pilots and/or engineers trying to tell a heart surgeon how to do his next operation and iaw what?

[[email protected]]

My criticisms of Valley are not a mil v civvy rant, they are specific to the setup at Valley and are certainly not without foundation. Unfortunately it became clear after the transition that the mil engineering there hadn't been that clever either - little things like the comp wash rig being U/S in the hangar for months so no comp washes were done and the engines were in a poor state. So poor practices were handed on from mil to civ and not gripped by the new civ management who were out of their depth with a relatively inexperienced workforce both on type and in role. SAR engineering requires a certain mindset that conflicts with the 'union-rules' type of individual who can't be flexible. Sadly many ex-mil heli engineers have worked on large RN squadrons where there is little interaction between aircrew and groundcrew which then fosters an 'us and them' attitude which is entirely counter-productive.

I highlight the quality of the engineers at Chiv because they were good engineers in the mil and equally good as civvies (if not better because they are not waiting to be posted or f*8ked around by Innsworth). It all comes down to good management because the work ethic and ethos starts there and filters down to all.

[ironchefflay]

i have to disagree there crab.

i have experience of millitary and civ engineering, fixed and rotary, line and base, SAR and commercial. The mind set is the same whatever you are doing, its merely the goals that change. we have to have the same flexibility and ability to think on our feet to run a commercial line or SAR. its just a question of what you as an individual and as a team are willing to do to get the job done. outcome of SAR may be more important, but getting aircraft and passengers away is still a job that needs to be done, or the job no longer exists!

[Artifical Horizon]

Crab

Your statement that engineering at Valley was not that clever is a model of understatement!!! No comp washes for months? If a failure of one of the poor state engines had led to a loss of life would that have been corporate manslaughter?

I am not sure I would support your view that SAR engineering requires a special ethos. In fact there are many commercial organisations that operate aircraft all round the world in all climates on a 24/7 basis. They in many cases have excellent engineering organisations that support them very effectivley in this regard. They are not hinbound by union rules.

I do agree with you that it will all rely on good management though. That however does not require it to be military.

I have been in the military and I am now in a union. Some good things from both sides and some bad things from both sides.

[seaking22]

Chiv seems to be thought of as the crowning jewel of SAR in the UK, indeed they have generally great stats and good engineers but lets not forget the other sites out there that also get good serviceability and consistently provide cabs i.e. Wattisham for one.:ok:

My View is go AirKnight, VT have slowly proved their worth more so it may be said than AW in this current endeavour.
I for one don’t like the fact that Soteria or CHC have cashed in their SAR operations on the other side of the pond as soon as their profit margins started tailing off.:=

[scottishbeefer]

Crab, I have to call you out on the comment above. Any squadron is at the whim of the aircrew/engineer interface - I've served on 2 "big" ASW squadrons and while there's always a few lazy aircrew - the driver/fixer relationship was excellent.

You may have a done a stint at 771 I suppose but even if that was a frosty relationship, it's not necessarily indicative of other RN squadrons. GANNET's (civvy) engineers are top of the line BTW.

I'm afraid me oldo, that you don't know what you're talking about there. Stick to what you do know, or at least have the decency to admit when you're speculating, good lad.

[ironchefflay]

i dont think it matters who is running it. Everyone involved, AirKnight, Soteria, MOD, all have their good points and bad.

As Long as the get the best from their aircraft and people, and remember it is an important service they are providing, not a cash cow. then it matters not who does it!

[[email protected]]

ScottishBeefer - I say as I find - at MPA there are 3 shifts and they have naturally polarised to ex-RAF and ex-RN. At the moment we are sharing a crewroom due to works services - the ex-RAF shift sit there and drink coffee with us chewing the fat and putting the world to rights - the ex-RN shift squeeze themselves into a tiny office because they can't bring themselves to share with aircrew and have never experienced shared crewroom facilities.

Personally I believe that shared aircrew groundcrew crewrooms are the way forward (although we don't have one at Chiv because of lack of space) - it goes a long way to preventing the 'them and us' mindset.

[seniortrooper]

Crab: Ahhh the smell of burning bridges again :ugh:
When will you ever learn. You have spent your ENTIRE working life in ONE job, you know nothing of the real aviation world, and guess what...................................
I suspect you never will after those engineering comments, tut tut tut. You should be ashamed.

[detgnome]

This is all very interesting, but there is a deafening silence regarding any further speculation on announcement timetable....

anyone...

Bueller.....Bueller...!

[[email protected]]

Seniortrooper - just to put you straight - I may have been employed by the RAF for 28 years but I have worked in many different units, including another Service with many different engineering setups, military and civ, so I am afraid your simplistic condemnation is, as ever, unwarranted.

However, I may have overstepped the mark in my criticism of Valley engineering and put some noses out of joint so I apologise for that but my remarks should be read in context and not sensationalised by those wishing to take offence.

My comments were also referring to a fairly well documented difficult period shortly after transition to SKIOS and I know that there are plenty of people working hard to improve the situation there and it is certainly better now than it was a year ago.

[Myra Leese]

Crab,

Ever thought of joining the Labour party, their u-turns are just as impressive!

Detgnome- hold your breath just a lttle longer and all will be told.

[Pennyroyal]

There were no doubts that at the initial stages of the SKIOS contract, Sea King experience was, at the very least, lacking!

However "still struggling" does not quite cover SAR eng ops at Valley.


I thought that I had conceded in my "cherry" post, the fact that the transitional stage for SKIOS at Valley was, as my quote shows "at the very least lacking". Still struggling could not be any further from the current, true engineering picture at C Flt. This is truly my unbiased opinion. If I truly believed anything to the contrary about my team, I would be the first person to bring my concerns to the fore, rose tinted glasses or not. Flight Safety is at the end of the day, paramount.

So in a final underlining, I would like to state, that in no way is Valley's SKIOS engineering department "still struggling". Comp washes are carried out regularly and I still love my mum :O

[lost horizon]

For what it's worth and at the risk of stating the obvious I think that the quality of engineering service provided at any given SAR base (or any aviation base come to that) depends on the ATTITUDE of the individuals concerned particularly the engineering boss.
I can remember being at Chivenor and the engineering was superb, (still is I understand) whilst at Leconfield it was poor for a long time and that was due in large part to a militant FS Eng. Successive Flt Cdrs tried to remove him but it proved impossible for years and the Flt suffered as a consequence.

Good attitude comes from good leadership at all levels, I am sure that will be provided when the right team wins SARH.

[fisbangwollop]

Scottishbeefer....GANNET's (civvy) engineers are top of the line BTW.



In my opinion the whole of the Gannet setup both aircrew and ground crew are the tops!!..:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

Just popped in here to read the same sort of drivel from "Crab" that I got on my recent post regarding a missing person in Fife.......How can you fly SAR duties with your head up your arse?? :cool::cool::cool:

[Hummingfrog]

fisbangwollop

I thought " head up arse" was a naval tradition not an RAF habit?;)

HF

[detgnome]

Apparently, if you're under way it's ok.. (original phrase modified to be slightly more PC!)

[onevan]

Preferred bidder to be announced in early February.;) No announcement on which year :E

[leopold bloom]

9th Feb is what I hear.

[fuel2noise]

about time - what's the hold up?

[[email protected]]

They're waiting for me to get back in the country:E

[Topdfb1]

Crab have you ever considered that due to your obvious contempt for civ engineers they may be just avoiding you ?

[[email protected]]

How tedious - my posts don't contain any obvious contempt for anyone, least of all the guys and girls who keep me and my colleagues up in the air:ugh:

[ironchefflay]

Maybe its just everyone else!?

[Topdfb1]

Anyone got anything interesting to say about helicopters for a change.

[Tallsar]

Yeah ---I do.....

Isn't intiguing that despite the helo SAR role beng in worldwide demand, there has yet to be a design created for the role from the drawing board onwards........all are adaptations (some good but none ideal) from designs created for other roles....

Isn't time we had a dedicated design (or designs) --one for long range and/or high capacity missions and another fro dedicated short range stuff such as beach/cliff and mountain jobs..both with all-weather capability too........:ugh: Expect the SAR-H choices might have been more interesting had such beasts existed.....

[ironchefflay]

unfortunately oil and war brings in more money!

[Bugs to forty]

Just charge people to be rescued. The necessary insurance cover could be a "freebee" from the banks like your car break-down cover!

[seaking22]

They should do that now with all the drunkards and drugys!:ok:

[ironchefflay]

im sure they do! you can be charged for calling SAR out when not required, and not for genuine concern. like i think it costs £100 a time, per fire engine attending a hoax or the like.

[Staticdroop]

Just thought i'd ask the question if there has been any news regarding the who won the bid, seeing as this topic has fallen by the wayside.:ok:

[fagin's goat]

Smart money is announcement next Tuesday afternoon.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Smart money is announcement next Tuesday afternoon

Problem is there ain't much of that around at the mo & even less smart people in Govt to know how to spend what there is wisely :(

[Doc Brown]

Problem is there ain't much of that around at the mo & even less smart people in Govt to know how to spend what there is wisely http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Then don't invest in SAR-H :ok:

[RotaryWingB2]

So, where will it be announced?

[TwoStep]

MoD Press Office have said there will be a SAR-H Brief tomorrow, so expect an announcement late afternoon.

[SARowl]

SAR-H winner to be announced

February 08, 2010
The winning bidder for the UK's £5 billion Search and Rescue Helicopter programme will be announced tomorrow afternoon - Tuesday, February 9.
The two bidders, AirKnight and Soteria have been waiting since late last year for a decision which had been originally due in December.
The joint Department for Transport (DfT) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) contract will end the involvement of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy in Search and Rescue operations and new fleet of aircraft will operate under the banner of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), although some military aircrew, roughly 66, will be retained to operate a handful of the new helicopters.
The entire process has been closed to public scrutiny as a result of the competitive dialogue tendering process the programme has been operating under, however, reports in the UK press in recent weeks have suggested that the bids are both closely matched on price.
The AirKnight bid, a consortium made up of Lockheed Martin, VT and British International Helicopters have chosen the Eurocopter EC225 while Soteria, made up of CHC, Thales and the Royal Bank of Scotland have chosen the S-92 as their platform.

SAR-H winner to be announced | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/5289/sar-h-winner-to-be-announced/)

[[email protected]]

I believe that in the oil industry when these sorts of delays occur, it is because there is a favourite bidder who is allowed extra time to pare their bid back sufficiently to make them the cheapest. Is any of that going on here?

[RotaryWingB2]

Crab,

Surely the winning bidder won't be selected based on price alone? :mad::ugh:

I just want to know who to send my CV to!

[Grounds Keeper Willy]

Just ahead of tomorrows SAR-H announcement I have heard that the military “options” are going to be located on the more remote bases; Stornoway and Shetland.

Apparently this is to cover the “ranges” and military exercises across the north of Scotland both land and sea which are to be utilised more in the upcoming years with longer and larger scale exercises.

In addition it will allow for the historic turn over of aircrew at these locations without costing the new company addition costs in relocation etc. military crews will rotate as normal.

[Rotary Girl]

Just ahead of tomorrows SAR-H announcement I have heard that the military “options” are going to be located on the more remote bases; Stornoway and Shetland.

:D:):):):D
Willy, in over 70 pages of this thread, that post is the winner!!!
Congratulations, you left it til the 'vinegar stroke' (AD's words -not mine!) to register on Pprune and share that 'Gem' with us! Thank you:ugh:

looking forward to hearing who has won the contract tomorrow. Finally the next chapter will begin...

[Lioncopter]

Just ahead of tomorrows SAR-H announcement I have heard that the military “options” are going to be located on the more remote bases; Stornoway and Shetland.

I can see there being allot of both happy and unhappy people about that statment!

[[email protected]]

Rotarywing B2 - both bidders have had to meet the exacting technical compliance and both have been scored on their financial viability to maintain the contract for the specified time - all that really remains is to select the cheapest or the favourite of those making the choice!

Groundskeeper Willy - yes, RNAS Stornoway and RNAS Sumburgh have a nice ring to them:)

[Staticdroop]

And the winner is...(queue drum roll):D

[TwoStep]

The chap/chapess doing the drum roll is going to have repetitive strain injury before the end of the day... :}

[Droopystop]

Oh come on Crab, do you really think two bids on such a complicated tender can be so easily compared like with like? Besides it will be how each of the bidders are going to manage the contract which will determine the quality of the "product".

It is interesting that in todays Press and Journal (NE Scotland) regional paper an oil expert predicts oil at $200/bbl before the end of the decade. Hope the fuel costs have been adequately covered, otherwise today's announcement might be a heavy cross to bear.

[Grounds Keeper Willy]

Crab, thanks for your thoughts, but why change history..........

RAF Sumburgh was located on the southern tip of the mainland island of the Shetland Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland_Islands), and was home to half of No. 404 Squadron RCAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._404_Squadron), (Royal Canadian Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Force)).
At the outbreak of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) the airstrip at the Sumburgh Links was taken over by the Air Ministry.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Sumburgh#cite_note-history-0#cite_note-history-0) By 1941 there were 3 operational runways at Sumburgh Aerodrome from which a variety of RAF aircraft operated.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Sumburgh#cite_note-history-0#cite_note-history-0)
The former RAF Sumburgh airfield had two runways,[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] the longest being 800 yards, and the shorter running a length of 600 yards from shore-line to shore-line. No. 404 Squadron operated Beaufighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufighter) Mark VI and X aircraft from this station on coastal raids against Axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers_of_World_War_II) shipping off the coast of Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway) and in the North Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea).

RAF Stornoway was a Royal Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force)station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_station) near the burgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgh) of Stornoway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stornoway), on the Isle of Lewis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis), in the Western Isles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Isles) of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland).
The station was founded in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) on the site of a former golf course. It was home to various Coastal Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Command) squadrons patrolling the North Atlantic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic) for U-Boats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Boats). In late 1940, a detachment of Avro Anson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Anson) aircraft arrived from No. 612 (County of Aberdeen) Squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Auxiliary_Air_Force). The Ansons operated from the site of RAF Stornoway while it was still under construction. By November 1940, the aircraft from 612 Squadron had been posted to RAF Wick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Wick) and were gradually replaced by Ansons from 48 Squadron RAF, based at RAF Hooton Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RAF_Hooton_Park&action=edit&redlink=1).
In March 1940, No. 827 Squadron RNAS operated Fairey Albacore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Albacore) aircraft from Stornoway in conjunction with the Ansons of 48 Squadron on maritime patrols across the Atlantic. This continued until the station was completed at which point they moved away. RAF Stornoway was officially constituted on 1 April 1941 as part of 15 Group, RAF Coastal Command.
During the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) the station was home to an RAF signals unit whose purpose was classified. The station was also subject to upgrading during this time, including the extension of the main runway to accept Panavia Tornado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado) aircraft.

[GroundSAR]

Any News? Any News?

Where's the gossip people?

[detgnome]

Should we change the name of this thread now...?



No, but you can have the honour of the last contribution to a long running, informative and sometimes contentious part of Rotorheads :D

Senior Pilot