Chivenor Seakings to stand down night time rescues

[Razor61]

According to the defence minister, Chivenor and Boulmer will cut their 24hr rescue to 12 hrs and daytime only from 2012 as he says the 'new helicopters' will be much faster and will be able to respond from bases further away at night.

So that means only Culdrose will be providing a night time rescue capability along with Lee-on-Solent to cover the whole of the south of England and English Channel because Chivenor and Portland are only 12hr daytime stations.


So, has our MoD got wiff of what helicopter type we will be procuring or leasing yet?
And i suppose we will be still continuing to rely on the USAFE to provide long range SAR support with their HH-60G's as we did with their MH-53M's because our Government can't be arsed to utilise the AR capability of the Merlin...

[[email protected]]

The theory that you can reduce the number of bases (effectively what you are doing at night) and retain the same level of SAR cover is massively flawed, especially since Culdrose is expected (by the RN at least) to be one of the last flights to get the new aircraft and 'go civvy'.

Even if Valley were to be one of the first flights to 'go civvy' or simply re-equip with the new aircraft (again unlikely since their engineering is piggybacked on the OCU which will need to keep the military flight supplied with Sea King crews until 2017 (the date the SARH transfer is supposed to be completed).

It will leave some big holes in the coverage at night which none of us in the front-line think is acceptable at all.

Does no-one look at how many jobs we do at night from Chivenor?

As soon as either Valley or Culdrose is used to cover Chiv's patch at night you have no SAR cover either in the whole of N Wales and the Irish Sea (in the case of Valley) or none for the whole of the SW approaches, Scillies, Channel Islands or the W half of the Channel.

What idiot thinks this is a good idea? This is not driven by good sense or a desire to provide 'no lesser service' as promised by SARH - this is cost-cutting, pure and simple and it will cost lives.

[Biggus]

Maybe they plan to use Airwolf for the nightime SAR role, I seem to remember that it was very fast, over Mach 1 apparently.....

airwolf - helicopter tv series at rotaryaction.com (http://www.rotaryaction.com/pages/airwolf.html)

[Saintsman]

It's been a while since I was on SAR, so things probably have changed but the primary purpose of the RAF SAR was to rescue RAF aircrew. What RAF aircraft are flying at night down that part of the world?

So from that point of view it perhaps makes financial sense. If you follow that arguement though, it'll be only Monday to Friday next.

[SinkingMallard]

Saintsman - Hercules, Chinook, Merlin, Apache, Lynx - I think that warrants proper SAR cover.

[Biggus]

I thought we are required to provide SAR cover within the UK FIR, in fact out to 30W, under the terms of some post WW2 argeement/convention.

Of course the definition of SAR cover might be open to interpretation...

[airborne_artist]

I was at CU, though not a SAR boy, 30 years ago. Would the proposed SAR assets/availability, post 2012, be able to manage with another Fastnet?

[calli]

I thought there was already a plan (pre 2012) for RAF SAR flights to go down to 12 hour (day time) ops for periods of time due to a lack of manning?

If true, how can the MoD then justify a requirement to have 24 hr coverage at all bases for SAR(H)?

Calli

[Gainesy]

Chivenor and Boulmer will cut their 24hr rescue to 12 hrs and daytime only

Any comment from the Boulmer point of view?

[[email protected]]

I am sure that the boys and girls at Boulmer feel equally annoyed at this ill-thought out concept of ops. They are a busy flight and if you take them out of the equation at night there is a huge gap up the East coast between Leconfield and Lossiemouth - maybe the Minister is expecting Bond to plug this gap!!!

Out of our 205 jobs so far this year, 45 have been at night after 2100 and would not, under the proposed regime have been conducted unless an aircraft from Culdrose or Valley were diverted into our patch.

It is like suggesting that having fewer but faster ambulances will improve the NHS stats and service - neatly forgetting that once your asset is tasked, you have no back-up or overlap for hundreds of miles.

Much statistical analysis has been done of SAROPs and interpreted in different ways; when you see a cluster of jobs near to SAR Flts you can either conclude that having the flt there tends to generate jobs because people are more likely to call it out (the erroneous but fashionable version if you are a bean-counter) or that in fact, the SAR flts are in the right place to meet the needs of the British public, whether at work (fishermen etc) or at leisure (walking,climbing,sailing,fishing,swimming etc etc).

The job rate does go down at night, you don't have to be Hercules Poirot to see that, but to naively believe that you wont get more than 1 night job at a time is delusional.

How on earth the Minister can state that the new service will meet and exceed current levels of provision is utterly laughable with these proposed cuts in availability/manning.

Calli - it is what will happen to any two RAF flts at a time when those flights lose a crew to the Falklands. This is due to the MoD downsizing us from 5 crews to 4 but keeping our level of committment the same and not one of us is happy with it.

Airborne Artist - no is the short answer, you would have one aircraft from Culdrose and the next available one would be from Valley or Lee - and that still only makes 3 total even if you assume there are no other searches, rescues, medtransfers, bendydivers etc etc happening anywhere else in the UK.

[Biggles225]

Chivenor in summer was always a bear garden, even in the Whirlwind days, IIRC when they tried to close the flight in the 70s the response from the local community was overwhelmingly against and meant the flight stayed.
God alone knows what these people are thinking, if indeed they are, but do we really expect any less?
PS How long from Culdrose to Croyde?
BG

[Union Jack]

Chivenor and Boulmer will cut their 24hr rescue to 12 hrs and daytime only

Any comment from the Boulmer point of view?

Any comment from Flight Lieutenant Wales's point of view? Maybe he had prior knowledge of the "plan"!:)

Jack

[[email protected]]

It deos seem rather bizarre that the MoD are putting MilSAR into self-destruct mode just as we are expecting to take on our future king as a SAR pilot:ugh:

[Donna K Babbs]

Crab:
They are a busy flight and if you take them out of the equation at night there is a huge gap up the East coast between Leconfield and Lossiemouth - maybe the Minister is expecting Bond to plug this gap!!!

They may have overlooked the fact that Bond is not part of the SAR Framework and are not cleared for overland SAROps!

[Biggus]

Bond can do anything......

The James Bond International Fan Club (http://www.007.info/)

[Moose Loadie]

DKB

I think there may have been a hint of sarcasm in Crabs comment about Bond.

I have to admit, it's very frustrating to have been briefed MANY times that there will be no reduction in capability, now to be informed that Chiv and Boulmer will go to 12 hr ops. I feel sorry for the British public who are ultimately the people who will suffer from this debacle. Thankfully I am no longer one of them.

[Jimmy does SAR]

Where and how has this announcement been made?

[Green Flash]

Does the MOD pick up the tab for civvy rescues? If not one would assume the Home Office eventually gets the bill and maybe have decided that they don't want helo cover any more?

I assume that the MOD would be Ok covering their own but once day flying is finished it's up to the Air Rozzers/Helimeds etc to pick up the Great British Tax Payer?

[SWBKCB]

Defence Minister Quentin Davies in a letter to MP Andrew George - See link below to BBC news story

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Devon | 'Day only' rescue helicopter plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8191314.stm)

[[email protected]]

Green Flash - the MoD do not charge anyone for SAR rescues - it is only medtransfers that can't be done by air ambulance or land ambulance that are charged to the NHS.

98% of UKSAR jobs are rescues of civilians and the govt discharges its responsibility of provision of SAR to comply with the Chicago convention by utilising the military. The 4 civilian flts are separately funded by the Home Office but do the same job.

Whichever way you cut it, SAR is paid for by the British taxpayer (as it should be) and the Govt should ensure they get value for money which doesn't look like the case under SARH.

Quick sums show a £5Bn contract for SAR provision for 25 years which is £200million per annum. Divide by 12 flights gives you a cost of £16.5 million per flt per year under SARH which seems like an awful lot of money to me.

Even if you take out the capital costs of providing new aircraft and put an approximate price tag of £50 million per airframe (to include all spares provisions) and provide 2 aircraft per flight that is only £1.2 Bn.

If you spent just the £1.2Bn and left everything else as it is (basing, crew compositions, infrastructure etc) I don't think it would cost £3.8 Bn in fuel, wages, heating and lighting for the next 25 years.

Just give us new aircraft and let us get on with our job!

[leader12uk]

Just seen how the MOD are going to cover the shortfall:ugh: use our neighbours helicopters!!!

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Kent | Belgian helicopter helps diver (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8192909.stm)

[[email protected]]

This is exactly what the impact of the EUWTD and pathetic manning policy from the MoD will mean more of! For 'RAF helicopter busy' read 'RAF helicopter on 12 hour overnight shifts with no daytime cover'!! This is where we are, robbing Peter to pay Paul:ugh:

[airborne_artist]

Crab - it's entirely possible that the Wattisham cab was already tasked when the Belgians got the call, and even if the Wattisham cab was available and at 15 mins readiness, a Belgian cab from Koksijde could probably be on task in the Straights of Dover faster anyway, surely?

It begs the question why we don't have UK SAR assets for such a busy sea lane closer than Wattisham and Lee on Solent, too.

[Green Flash]

crab@ - thanks for the update.

leader - interesting! I see it mentions the ARCC coordinated the job. Does that mean we have a formal tasking arrangement with the Belgians and others?

[Bertie Thruster]

It begs the question why we don't have UK SAR assets for such a busy sea lane closer than Wattisham and Lee on Solent, too.

How about a SAR unit at Manston?:E

[airborne_artist]

How about a SAR unit at Manston?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Cracking idea, BT, but not entirely original :ok:

[PICKS135]

How about returning 22 Sqn to Leuchars. 30 minutes is a long wait for a lifeboat or Chopper.:eek:

[[email protected]]

Airborne - the Wattisham cab wasn't tasked, it was, as I said on 12 hour shifts but overnight not daytime.

Green Flash - there is plenty of cross border co-operation in SAR - just as well since moving a SAR flight from Manston to Wattisham was a ludicrous idea - who thought a SAR fl;ight with a 15 min transit to the coast was a good idea?

Our local news has been running a piece on the Chivenor proposals, unfortunately the MoD line is still that newer faster helicopters will meet present response times with fewer bases. Hmmmm:(

[Spanish Waltzer]

So Crab,

Can I get this straight, the Wattisham crew are only coming to work at night time? Are they then holding a 15 mins readiness all night or simply coming to work in their pyjamas & slippers and straight off to bed at 2200 like the rest of you working 24 hr shifts? :ok:

[airborne_artist]

If Wattisham are permanently stood down during the day, who is covering for RW SAR the Southern end of the East Coast round to the Dover Straights during daylight? Not the Belgians, surely, not that I have anything against them.

[[email protected]]

airborne - it isn't a permanent situation, just a temporary fix to get over some manning problems - I believe they had Leconfield on 12 hour days and Wattisham on 12 hour nights for a short while to keep the E coast covered.

However, this will become more commonplace if the MoD implement the scheme to man the Falklands on a flight by flight basis and is only happening because MoD thought it was a good idea to reduce us to 4 crews per flight.

Essentially, after Christmas, at any one time there will be 2 RAFSAR flights on 12 hour ops because those flights will have lost a full crew to the Falklands and you can't run 24/7 SAR with 3 crews.

This pretence that the FI is an operational theatre and justifies the assets we have trapped down there is long overdue a review with some probing questions asked of our Lords and Masters.

But in answer to your question - yes the Belgians - Lee is the nearest other flight but I believe the 139 is still waiting for the night over-water winching capability it was supposed to come into service with.

[sapper]

crab
I believe the 139 is still waiting for the night over-water winching capabilityWrong, the 139 has been able to do this since the phase 5 introduction last Oct/Nov

spr

[taxydual]

"Hello, this is __Flight of 22/202 Squadron Search and Rescue. We cannot take your call right now. Please leave your message after the tone" Beep

And really to rub it in, "Your call is important to us". Cue Beethoven's Third Symphony.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Any comment from the Boulmer point of view?


Here you go.

In Feb 2007, when the train crash happened in the Lake District, Boulmer sent one aircraft, Leconfield sent one aircraft, and Valley sent two (even though 2nd Standby had formally finished for the day, a scratch crew was found for the second aircraft).

With the new manning level of 4 crews per flight, the possibility of finding a crew for the spare aircraft will vanish.

Were the train crash to be repeated after 2012, Boulmer would be unable to send an aircraft (night-time). Valley would only have one crew available, who might or might not be somewhere in Wales doing a job in Chivenor's patch. Leconfield would be able to send an aircraft, but by doing so the ARCC would leave no cover along the east coast between Lossiemouth and Wattisham!

Discuss.

Apart from the reduction in SAR cover, which will - as Crab says - end up costing lives at some point, what seems most daft about the whole proposal, is that dropping to 12-hr ops will save only pennies. To save a worthwhile amount of money, one would need to totally close a base. Not that I am advocating this...

[Gainesy]

On the night shift, are crews allowed to sleep and be at, say, 15min readiness or do you all sit around wide awake and waiting for a call? If allowed to sleep a la civvy fire service could you realistically maintain 24hr coverage with four crews per flight?

Any particular reason for the sudden (?) shortage of SAR crews?

[moosemaster]

Gainsey, this gov't has done away with sleeping firemen too.

All beds have been removed and some stations have been converted to "part-time volunteer" status overnight.

Now the few remaining "overnight" fire crews are expected to undertake "cleaning duties" or complete the paperwork outstanding after all the clerical staff were removed.

Oh yes, and "due to more modern equipment" the crews have been reduced from 5 to 4 per appliance in some areas. 1 to drive it and man the pump. 1 to monitor the BA crews and 2 guys to actually fight the fire.
This despite the fact that the appliances in question were designed around 5-7 man crews. Ho-hum. :rolleyes:

Anyway, what makes us think the SAR fleet would escape unscathed from good 'ol Gordos f***-ups. :ugh::ugh:

[[email protected]]

Gainsey, we are RS 15 from 0800 to 2200 and then RS 45 from 2200 to 0800 which allows us to sleep (well, until the job phone goes that is). I believe the civvySAR crews do overnight from home but that would affect reaction times compared to sleeping on the flight so we don't do it - well not yet but it might be in the pipeline along with RS 75 at night but we will see.

You can run 24/7 SAR with 4 crews but not if you have to man the Falklands (especially on a flt by flt basis) and not if you have to comply with the EUWTD.

This is not one of Gordon's f***ups, this is all home-grown from the MoD.

[SinkingMallard]

This is a the article from the Northumberland Gazette:

Rescue cover at night threatened - Northumberland Today (http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/Rescue-cover-at-night-threatened.5549406.jp)

A RADICAL review of helicopter search and rescue operations across the UK could leave RAF Boulmer providing only day-time cover, Government Ministers have admitted.
Under a Private Finance Initiative bid, two consortia are now in the running to supply both the Ministry of Defence and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) with a single fleet of ultra-modern aircraft from 2012.

Known as Search and Rescue Harmonisation (SAR-H), it could also include emergency helicopter services operated by the Royal Navy and the offshore oil industry.

But the MoD has confirmed that RAF Boulmer's current 24-hour watch by its Sea King crews would be halved under the programme, with any night missions instead being flown from RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland or RAF Leconfield in east Yorkshire.

The move was first revealed by Defence Minister Quentin Davies in a letter to Cornish MP Andrew George, who was concerned about the impact on his local station at Royal Marines Base Chivenor, in North Devon.

This week, Mr Davies and the MoD sought to justify the plans, saying that the new helicopters would out-perform the old yellow RAF workhorses which had provided search and rescue cover for the last three decades.

But community leaders in Northumberland have demanded assurances that lives will not be put at risk.

Unitary councillor for Longhoughton, John Taylor, whose ward includes RAF Boulmer, said: "I am absolutely appalled and very angry about this development, which is to effectively privatise search and rescue.

"This is a return to the problems faced by RAF Boulmer when it was earmarked for closure, and I strongly believe that taking search and rescue out of the hands of the station will threaten its future survival.

"Privatising that facility, which has played a vital and integral role in the local community, will be like lopping an arm or a leg off."

And he added: "I seriously wonder whether this will be the first step towards charging for search and rescue."

North Northumberland MP Sir Alan Beith said: "I have asked the Minister to provide evidence in support of this decision as I am extremely concerned that the North East could be left without vital helicopter cover at night, especially since the air ambulance cannot fly at night and the police helicopter cannot winch.

"It is not long since a decision was made to close RAF Boulmer and I got this reversed as the figures did not add up.

"I shall be looking closely at this situation to ensure costly mistakes –in terms of public safety and money – will not be made."

But Mr Davies said: "In light of the capability of these new helicopters, we have been able to conclude that we can continue to provide effective and responsive coverage for all night-time incidents utilising only nine of the 12 bases.

"Additionally, historical data shows that the level of incidents falls markedly from the daytime peaks.

“This will still enable us to meet, and indeed exceed, previous historical concurrency and surge incident levels at night-time across the UK, when we transition in to the new service from 2012.”
An MoD spokesman said: “In the light of the capability of these new helicopters we will continue to provide effective and responsive coverage including any surges in night-time incidents.” WHAT HARMONISATION MEANS SAR-H will take over at sites progressively, starting with the Coastguard sites in 2012 and follow on with the MoD sites.
Using modern helicopters, the aim is to enable faster transit times to incidents, resulting in reductions in response times around the UK.
Nine bases will remain on 24-hour alert, with the remaining three offering day-time cover.
Two bidders are in the running – the Soteria Consortium, comprising of CHC, Thales and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and AirKnight, consisting of Lockheed Martin UK, VT Group and British International Helicopters.
Soteria has chosen the Sikorsky S-92, the aircraft currently being used by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for search and rescue operations from Sumbergh in the Shetland Islands and Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides.
Airknight has chosen the Eurocopter EC225, known as the Super Puma.

[cornish-stormrider]

Whatever we do we must never ever get to a point that we charge for SAR. We would end up in a situation whereby a boat gets into difficulties, does not call it in, it gets worse, coastguard mandates a SAR launch in much worse circumstances and people die.

Am I over dramatising? Think it would never happen?

Then Google "Penlee lifeboat" or "Solomon Browne."

Those unpaid volunteers that man the orange boats - the wake you see when they are moving at speed is not the boat, it's from their Balls. Big, Round, Shiny and Solid ones.

And we still do not pay them.......

We need SAR cover 24/7. Fact. Someone please drop the muppet responsible in a liferaft 5 miles out in a force 8 with a big sea at night and tell them that budgie will be out in the morning......
Problem solved.

[[email protected]]

I don't believe they have any new figures and are basing their plans on old studies which were used to try and justify closing bases completely to save money.

The bid which inlcuded the EH101 was predicated on this idea that a faster helicopter would allow similar response times to incidents further away thus allowing a larger area of Ops and fewer bases.

The problem with this idea is that to follow the logic properly you would have to re-site all the bases to optimise response times - that would clearly be too expensive and the answer is to close some of the existing bases (or in this case reduce operating hours) and try to ignore the very big gaps in overlap for concurrent ops that it leaves because you have only met half the reuqirements the operational analysis demands.

It also ignores the very real fact that historical data is exactly that and is only of limited use when planning future capability - in order to provide the sort of cover the UK presently enjoys and to have sufficient surge and concurrency capability, fewer bases is not the sensible choice - especially since under SARH there will be no second standby aircraft and crew; something that the RAF have provided (serviceability permitting) for many years and has proven its worth when the unexpected (Boscastle, Gloucester, Sheffield, Lake District train crash, etc etc) happens.

It also assumes that the weather will always permit rapid straight-line transits to the far away jobs which is most certainly not the case in my experience and ignores the fact that to jump from job to job still requires refuelling, especially when going from one extreme of your patch (or someone elses) to another.

Sadly the lies, damn lies and statistics brigade have only addressed single response times which looks good on paper (especially to those ignorant of what real SAROPs entail) and appeals to the bean-counters.



Sapper - are you sure? We have been carrying extra map cover for over a year to allow for Solent and Channel night jobs. Has the Phase 5 been cleared for use?

[Wander00]

Cornish-Stormrider - correct in one - start with Cyclops in No 10

[cornish-stormrider]

With pleasure, I will need one liferaft, a trip in Budgie, beer and hookers, some food and about 30,000 to play blackjack with.

[upgently]

Wessex Flight - Leuchars - October 1992

That others may live - we've worked hard each day
That others may live - to work hard and play
That others may live - our purpose has been
That others may live - where death might have been.

The Squadron at rest the pace seems so slow
A contrast indeed from the scramble we know
The team it reacts - the scramble bell goes
A polished routine - the training it shows.

The team it's been tested - by day and by NIGHT
Yet now we respond when only it's light
Our history records the successes there've been
Short sighted superiors this history not seen.

The future they say no problems will hold
Protection assured our clients are told
But do they believe that assurance they give
Honours our resolve, THAT OTHERS MAY LIVE.

[sapper]

Crab
Sapper - are you sure? We have been carrying extra map cover for over a year to allow for Solent and Channel night jobs. Has the Phase 5 been cleared for use?Quite sure! Not a subject to be treated lightly. Phase 5 clearance is a bit above my head but can't imagine for one minute that the Solent & Portland flights would allow us to task them to such operations without such clearance. Strange that ARCCK hasn't told you.

[Tallsar]

Well this has been an interesting thread. Crab, as usual, brings to the table his clear and often well thought out views of which of course, there are always alternative perspectives - whether its analysing the statistics differently or just plain having different views on how best to do the job of providing the UK with a top class SAR helo service.

The 12 hour standby of two RAF flights is a sad reflection in my view of how low a priority this (miltary) capability has become since the lack of a proper defence budget impinges on our operational needs and tasks as presently defined. While there may be an undercurrent of SAR force neglect inherent in some of those serving in the MOD (and there is!!), I do sympathise with the wider need to support our people in Afghanistan with the right kit and people - its a shame we ain't doin that as well as we could either given the lack of leadership and money some years ago! I have never accepted that our helo:troop ratio should be so low (although not equivalent to the Yanks - thats overkill) and its a testament to our combined failure to sort this over 30 years that has now been fully exposed in this aggressive operational campaign - goodness knows we had plenty of indicators - just read the helo availability lessons from Borneo, NI, FI and GW1 - so its no suprise that UK SAR gets to suffer its share of underresourcing in the cirucmstances - sad but true!

Now guys - what is sacrosant about 12 bases (the present lot)? - )or for that matter them all being located on the seaside? - a 1950s idea for sure!! - in my view absolutely nothing - nor is Crab's argument that if neccessary an innovative approach to rebasing to best encompass op demand and optimise base/ac numbers and types would have been too expensive. The sad reality is that this approach has been prevented under the SAR-H procurement requirements - and ask yourself what politics has driven us into that hole. This only leads industry to seek solutions that are "conventional" as any interpretation of the UK SAR-H approach is that it is "low risk", wants to avoid controversy, and certainly is not open to providing a truely innovatve and best value for money approach to taking UK SAR helos foprward for the next 30 odd years. Any of the 4 original Bidders' approaches had to account for this as they no doubt strived to bring their proposal in on budget and time - some chose to leave the competition as a result

We could spend days debating Crab's valuable point that reorganising and re-equipping the UK Mil SARF with new ac etc would be more cost effective - I support that view myself despite the realpolitic we have faced in MoD SAR, and more importantly it would allow military planners a better view point (if they only opened their minds!) to UK homeland defence and the use of a large number of capable all weather helos sat around the UK at readiness - see other thread re MPs report on Uk coastal defence for example!! This debate has not been helped by the lack of SH and the ongoing MoD internal politics and policy that deployed ops always have priority for resources of any sort - hence the untimley demise of the UK mil SARF to a PFI - this is a fundamentally flawed policy in my view but not surprising in the circumstances.

As for the availability arguments from the 3 remaining bases to cover Chiv - well with a modern fast all weather ac this is a variable debate depending on which angle you look at the argument from. Given that the UK's primary SAR helo requirement is to arrive on top of any incident in less than 1 hour ( and there maybe arguments for having reduced this - at a cost!) (and excepting the long ditsance ones always take longer of course!) - then statistics will support the reduction in night time cover or numbers of bases at some locations depending also on crew/ac availability at the remaining bases. As Crab himself says - just because historic statistics show "hot spots" doesn't neccessarily mean we should co-locate a SAR flt next door in the future - particulary if you are trying to deliver a nationwide service where everyone, anywhere has an "equal" chance of a SAR helo (and backups) arriving in given time limits. (PS Crab - how many of your recent night jobs were in the near vicinty of Chiv (say 50nm radius)). Often as not - we now live in a politically motivated grandtanding world where no local politician will allow a local flight to close or be moved - as they simply don't want to wrap their minds around the "national capability" debate as there is no mileage in it for them nor is there a well thought out wider government policy to support such changes.

Finally, it will be interesting to see where the SAR-H process and decisions go in the near future - an impending election and lack of government money and the continuing turmoil in the banking sector must be creating some interesting situations in decision making board rooms - almost as I write.

Cheers
and best wishes to all those who continue to do a really significant and important flying job - all those elements of the UK SAR helo force!!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

what is sacrosant about...them all being located on the seaside


In case anyone really does ponder this!

It's because generally people in difficulty in the water have a lower chance of survival if rescue is delayed than somebody stranded with the same illness/injury on land = base the helicopters as close to the sea as possible (standfast Wattisham/Leconfield!). As it happens, most of the biggest hills in this country happen to be very close to the sea as well, albeit not necessarily near the SAR helo bases, but that's a different argument...

[Tallsar]

ToD - You raise a valid point - but it is only valid to the degree that a base on the coast happens to be close to an incident - many over water incidents are quite some distance from a coastal SAR base and can be reached just a quickly from other locations. Furthermore, my point was not to suggest that there would be no bases on the coast - indeed there would always need to be some, if not the majority - but others need locating elsewhere (the key mountain areas being the cases in point as you suggest, or for example cost effective long range rescue ) - but these options were not presentable as SAR-H solutions whatever the maths, logic or need. I stand by this point - there is simply no need for all SAR bases to be on the coast - the majority of SAR missons are now overland, and the focussed need for a concept of ops for overwater aviation rescue using short range helos as evinced in the 1950s deployments are no longer valid.

[[email protected]]

It now seems rather ironic that the SARH process was initially trumpeted as a 'blue-sky thinking' and 'completely free from constraints' concept, so far in fact that they weren't even allowed to mention helicopters because other 'platforms' might prove more efficient.

Many of us said at the time that it was all pointless bo**ocks and that the only decision you needed to make was which helicopter would be used.

Several years and many millions of £s down the road and that is fundamentally the choice - 2 bidders with similar bids using the same bases and needing plenty of mil people to jump ship to man those bases.

The final decider will probably be on cost (despite all the SARH claims that it wouldn't be) and there now neems little doubt that the new service will not be 'at least as capable' as the old service because there will be fewer operational bases at night.

Well done the Govt, MoD and MCA - what a successful outcome:{

Tallsar - quite a few of our night jobs are, as you suggest, within 50nm of Chiv which highlights how far Valley or Culdrose would have to come out of their patch to do those jobs, thus leaving huge holes in the SAR cover. It certainly isn't unusual for all 3 flights to be on night jobs at the same time so which poor punter will lose out?

As I have said before, one big loser will be the NHS who will very probably be denied the night medtransfers that they often request - if Culdrose or Valley had to take a patient into Central London then huge swathes of the country are again left devoid of SAR cover for several hours.

As to basing at coasts - apart from the short time to get to a PIW, the biggest advantage is the ability to recover at low level in poor weather with a coastal letdown or similar - something that Wattisham struggles with because of its comedy location inland.

The ability to recover to base rather than divert is important for several reasons; the aircraft can be serviced and rectified if required, the medical kit can be replenished, the crew can get quickly back into resting (at night) rather than faffing to organise hotels etc and, if the aircraft is U/S, the crew instantly have the second one available. Suddenly having inland bases doesn't seem such a great idea.

Sapper - I will ask the ARCCK but the 139s were still toted on the RCS until a couple of months ago as having no night, overwater winching capability and a crew that visited us earlier in the year confirmed that they were still waiting for the certification of the autopilot SAR modes. Have you actually tasked them to a PIW at night where they have completed the rescue? Anyone from Lee or Portland care to comment?

[Tallsar]

Hi Crab - yes I think any objective assessment of where the SAR-H overall requirement and constraints have taken us has almost nullified any original aspirations for open minded innovation and providing a solution that delivers as originally concieved (by some anyway!). That said - its only when you come to test many such novel ideas in detail (particulary when the detailed costs are available) that you realise that many such ideas just prove unaffordable without better customer commitment at all decison making levels - and that is just not forthcoming at the moment.

The PIW debate I believe is not a driver for coastal location overall given the broader UK requirements - if that was so we would need many more op bases along the coast to provide the true short range/notice reaction that survival dictates across the UK - while there is a case (and don't I know it for some reason!:)) for having a larger number of coastal readiness bases (perhaps simply founded along air ambulance lines for cost and efficiency reasons) this was off the agenda once the 12 base lock down was directed by the SAR-H customer. There are some close mathmatics and costings to be done to get the balance right particularly if you have a mixed fleet and a large number of op locations (NB I do not say bases!), and like it or not, decisions to be made as to which locations would be 24hr all weather and which might be (VMC) daylight only - crewing dictates this if nothing else if the overall budget is to be affordable (never mind if it comes in at some nafarious limit such £5B and is driven by that extraordinarily facile legislation called the EWTD!)

As for all weather recovery to coastal bases - not neccessairly a winning argument these days if the right base recovery aids are provided and on for that odd occasion (lets face it it don't happen that often!)that a diversion is required then suitable prenominated locations are selected by long term planning and agreements - eg Southend for Wattisham - I disagree that it is essential to recover to base to maintain an effective standby posture for a short period until the weather clears if it proves that bad, nice as it can be.

As the guy who fought to prevent Wattisham happening as a location I need no further comments!!:eek: - what a waste of transit time that has proved to be - think of the cost of ownership of such a location over 30 years!! - yet another example of why sticking with the present 12 bases for optimum operation was ridiculous, and from an original decison that was mostly dictated by the need to place an RAF SAR flt on what was then percieved to be an RAF flying base and MoD territory (remember St Mawgan too!) - that insular thinking is not how to produce a UK wide approach to efficient SAR helo cover.

So there we go - I have a work to do - no doubt chat more later

Cheers;)

[Bertie Thruster]

as a slight aside,

something that Wattisham struggles with because of its comedy location inland.


it was a bit of a comedy just getting the Seakings into Wattisham....

the RAF Station had just been 'sold' to the Army and when the MOD asked for one of the existing hangars to use as the SAR unit, the Army told them to 'go away'!

So a new hangar was planned, to be sited on the old QRA dispersal.

To save money someone at MOD decided to use the same building plans as the recent Wessex SAR build at Leuchars. MOD did not bother to send these plans to the Seaking flight at Manston (the unit relocating to Wattisham).

At the subsequent siting board at Wattisham, the MOD and Army reps sat down and spread the plans out on the table.

Almost immediately the senior Army Air Corps officer present pointed out that the proposed hangar doors were not high enough to get a Seaking in.

16 years later, I wonder if it would help if the Army had a look at the SARH plans?

[Tallsar]

Yes Bertie - an intersting and still sadder perspective on the Wattisham affair. After 30 years in the RAF I can relate many similar tales of how hangar door heights were similarly badly specc'ed - talk about missing the wood for the trees! Despite that wrong Wattisham spec they could have at least built it somewhere more appropriate - Ah Well!

... and as for your proposal for Army staff scrutiny of the SAR-H requirement - what a great idea!! - must keep an eye out for the added requirement line for regular training deployments to somewhere near the Kyber Pass mind you!!:eek:

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - I think the diversion issue is still relevant and the reason it doesn't happen often is exactly because of where the bases are located.

If you have to divert after a messy rescue (lots of blood and guts in the back) unless you can get home you have no way of sanitizing the aircraft nor re-stocking the medical kit so you are left in the wrong place in what is effectively a U/S aircraft.

Appropriate recovery aids are expensive (we have just had our ILS replaced so we know!) which means inland bases would have to be sited on an airport with an ILS (still with a 150' DH) where a coastal base would allow an internal radar letdown to the beach and a hover taxi back to dispersal in far worse conditions.

Trying to move away from coastal bases ignores the fact that we are an island nation with a lot of coastline and both tourism and maritime trade and fishing generate the majority of our jobs. Add in the Lake District and Snowdonia being easily accessible from the sea and there seems little reason to have a SAR base anywhere except the coast.

The concept of inland bases was, I think, where the Fire and Rescue Service were going when they mooted the idea of having their own helicopters and it doesn't seem to have got very far.

[Tallsar]

Hi Crab - well you wouldn't expect me to not reply would you?:)

All good points you make - in principle and from both our own experiences - I have a feeling I might have been part of the first RAF SK crew that actually did an internal aids IMC recovery in anger to a certain Scottish base - but then.....it was along long time ago ( a certain Sgt Webb might have been on the tube too!!)

As for such technques' use in the future vs (expensive (a relative term) but safe) recovery aids - I'm afraid my vote still goes to the recovery aids - and the statistical certainty (or not) of needing to use them on exactly the occasion that you are full of contamination! My thoughts are also with the cost/likelihood of getting a proper clearance to do an internal aids recovery with the likely kit available to a SAR-H ac (whether mil or civ registered - thoughts of A139 night clearances have some indirect bearing on this argument)) vs the more regular need to get down to useful limits such as 150 ft - often a very acceptable DH for the vast majority of recoveries. Its all a balance of investment decision - and you can swing it one way or another - I am not sure I accept your point that internal aids recoveries have consistently allowed many recoveries to base in the poorest of weather. And of course - there's always the option of getting the GCs in a bus to come and sort the ac at the div location once the duty crew have done their bit too of course!

As for coastal base issue- I refer you to my previous but one post - I am and always will believe that there are many good reasons for having some if not the majority of SAR flts on the coast. But I also believe there are many good reasons for having others elswhere, depending on the missions you are trying to cover and the types of ac you have available - and of course the real and pressing need to keep operating costs within agreed bounds. I refer back to the Wattisham argument - no organisation worth its salt would have agreed to that location if the total through life op costs were on the table and needed to be managed within a budget - and thats before you considered the operational drivers in that part of the world that said it was crass anyway. I continue to believe there are better 21st century ways of sorting the complete UK SAR helo capability picture than just replicating the way we have done business for many decades. Much of it of course is well worth carrying across for ever - and its a shame some of it has already been allowed to change or dissappear - but onward we should be going - not just copying what we have done for the last 30 years with just another ac type - the public's expectation, the military requirement and the legislative, budgetary and regulatory environment require we it tackle it that way..I like to think!:hmm:

All this is a long way from discussing Chivenor's forthcoming 12hr status by the way!!;)

[Tallsar]

Hi Deliverance - perhaps I'm being a bit thick here but can't wrap my brain around quite what your're trying to say altogether.

My points above where effectively my own views on what an ideal approach to sorting out the future of UK SAR helos might be - particularly with regard to basing etc. As for the SAR-H PFI - well there's another matter - is it ultimately value for money that the taxpayer forks out much more over a 25-30 year period for a service that would be cheaper to purchase if we did it ourselves and paid up front - no I don't think so!! But thats the way Government has gone (as with many other major programmes) as it has insufficent immediate cash to do anything else (certainly now!!) without a complete priority volt face and even greater tax rises than we can expect next year anyway...and so here we are...

As for what level of service will result from the SAR-H contract - well I have to disagree in the most part. While there is no doubt that transfering from a majority military ownership will reduce ultimate flexibility to get a much larger military owned and manned fleet airborne in extremis ( and bear in mind that has rarely happened in the numbers I am thinking of) - then yes there will be a reduction in ulimate capability in this respect. However, I am in little doubt that despite some major criticisms I could make of the conceptual and policy approach of the SAR-H customer community, other detail of the requirement as I understand it has been rigorous enough to ensure as good and in some respects better capability than we have at present- Do not underestimate either the flexibility and efficiencies that will come from having a single all weather long range modern fleet operated across the UK by one organisation under one tasking authority - its never happend before, and given my own experience, its been a long time coming. This in itself will be one vast capability improvement over whats gone before.

My points in the previous messages were my own exaspiration that so much more could have been achieved if the UK Customer had given a proper open book approach to any bidders to resolve the future - Oh how niave I am!!. It was never going to happen given the funding issues and politics involved sadly. Take a look at how Norway is approaching the same problem - some lessons to learn there I think!

Cheers;):ugh::)

[Bucaneer Bill]

Under the traditional 24 hr shift regime there must be occasions where the crew are not fit for purpose when a job comes up in the small hours.

[[email protected]]

Tallsar - I know where you are coming from when you say there could have been so much more from SARH but it would have needed to be bigger in scope and cover the need for a joined up Govt helicopter service providing AA, police, fire and rescue and SAR - then we might see economies of scale and sensible basing/crewing.

[Tallsar]

Now there is the Holy Grail, crab.... don't we know it - and don't we know it ain't ever gonna happen unless heads are bashed at the highest levels by a true champion - no chance!!

Still - perhaps SAR-H, whatever else it brings,may be a largish step on the slowly slowly catchy monkee route to precisely that!! Stranger things can happen!! I suspect my (future!) grandchildren will be in retirement by then though!!:sad::rolleyes::)

Time for my Bo Bos....zzzzzzzzzzzz