The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

[jimf671]

DfT STATEMENT

Search and rescue helicopters - News - Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/penning-20120208/)


As posted here previously, Bristow and CHC.

[Banksman]

Bristow wins SAR-G northern area from CHC so boys in Sumburgh and Stornaway on there way back so well done every 1 in winning contract so come on with SAR-H :D:D

[Thomas coupling]

It is going to be very difficult to remove these from the running for Long SAR. Could one imagine the mess it would be in if another 2 were added to the mix :ugh:

So much for admonishing CHC for the SARH debacle.....goes to show, it's not what you know it's what you do behind the scenes that counts. :mad:

[Manchester]

Let’s step back a bit and do a hypothetical exercise to separate competence from slagging. If you could pick which civil operator(s) should fly two dozen largish helicopters in the SAR role around UK for 10 years, who would you pick? To take out some of the variables and concentrate just on the different companys’ capabilities, pretend that the helicopters are bought separately and given to them, and that their operating prices are about the same too. And place your list in order of preference.

[Thomas coupling]

Bristows
CHC
Bond
Lockheed
Sikorsky
AW
Eurocopter
Boeing

[jimf671]

Talking about making a list, shouldn't the DfT be sending out some invitations today?

Anyone heard?

[Thomas coupling]

Invitations went out last Friday (10th) nothing heard, all quiet. They are keeping tight lipped so far.....
I am going to guess:
Bristows/ CHC/Bond/Lockheed. :hmm:

[Tallsar]

Keep guessing TC! :E

[jimf671]

From the DfT trade day list. OK, so several bean counters, trainers and so on in this list but don't betray anything by adding anything new, simply delete as applicable. :ok:

agustawestland
Babcock International Group
Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
Bristow Helicopters Ltd
British International Helicopter Services Ltd (BIHSL),
British Southern Air
Burges-Salmon
CHC
DevelopingAssets (UK) Ltd
Dial Eipex
DLA Piper UK LLP
Elbit Systems UK Ltd
Eurocopter UK Ltd.
Evergreenhelicopters
Ernst & Young
FB Heliservices Ltd
Ferranti Technologies Ltd & Elbit Systems
Lockheed Martin UK integrated Systems
Milestone viation Group
Mott MacDonald
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Persides Consultancy Services Ltd
Primeguild Ltd
Quintec Associates Limited
Serco Defence Science and Technology
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Thales
WPK Management Consulting BV

[Epiphany]

Bond have just ordered a shed load of S-92's and AW189's coincidentally?

[Tallsar]

Good starting point Jim! Many usual suspects in that list as expected... Whether some have moved ahead with an application is of course open to debate, as is whether others that may not have attended the Industry Day and yet could still have submitted. Attendance at the Industry Day is not an essential precursor for an application.
No doubt we will all hear in due course via a Parliamentary Statement like the GAP announcement last week. :(

[[email protected]]

Any thoughts on who will be assessing the technical compliance of the bids this time?

Last time the SARF provided most of the SMEs and they spent a lot of time having to show that superficial claims of compliance and capability were exactly that.

Who will call the bidders' bluffs in the DfT?

[jimf671]

Who will call the bidders' bluffs in the DfT?

MCA Aviation, Bristol?

[[email protected]]

The reason the Mil were used last time is because the MCA had no expertise in aviation - has anything changed?

[Epiphany]

The Mil have no experience in commercial aviation - has anything changed?

[[email protected]]

No-one is going to defend the MoD's poor commercial nouse.

But, if you want to ensure that what a bidder claims as compliance with the contract specification is, in fact, compliance rather than smoke and mirrors or outright lies - then you need SMEs who know SAR operations and SAR aircraft capability inside out.

Sadly, caveat emptor was the watchword with the last SARH competition since believing everything the salesman said was a sure path to lack of operational capability.

[Manchester]

How do you know that? It never produced a service to be judged

[Night Watchman]

What do the RAF know about modern Search & Rescue technology or modern helicopters? Their own fleet is old and dated and their personnel have NO experience of what these aircraft and its equipment can do.

However, if you want a 40 year old aircraft with a single hoist and a radar that points backwards all at a HUGE cost then......

Why is it that certain people in the RAF think they know it all, are the elite of the profession and that its their god given right to judge everyone else????

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[britinusa]

NM-That old back wards facing radar got me to several trawlers in thick fog nearer to the shetlands than Lossiemouth, because the all singing, modern tecnology S-92'S couldn't get to any of the boats due to fog!!!:=:=

[jimf671]

Aye. And it may be relevant to mention that the view from the damp peat and rocky outcrop, with your shoulder against a fuselage, up into the staring eyes of a pilot with one-wheel-on and limited points of reference, turns out not to be any different whether they are RAF, Bristow, CHC, male, female, or have a background in RN, Irish Air Corp, civilian contractors or USAF.

[louisnewmark]

No - stop. Don't, DON'T let's have to put up with yet another round of radar willy-waving. Please.

The ideal scenario would be to have a group of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who have appropriate experience of 1) SAR ops, 2) civilian ops, 3) modern aircraft and 4) modern rescue equipment systems. In order to advise in an unbiased fashion they would also have to 5) be independent of any of the bidders in the commercial project that requires their services.

Unfortunately, the very great majority of SMEs who meet requirements 1) to 4) will probably be employed by one of the companies involved in bidding for the project, hence these SMEs would not meet requirement 5) and would therefore be unacceptable to the DfT.

Military SMEs acted as SAR-H advisors primarily because they were independent of any commercial company, and their lack of familiarity with some modern systems was the price that had to be paid for this independence - though this would not prevent a good brain from being able to analyse performance claims vs graphs, or SOPs. Unfortunately there aren't many people available in the UK who meet all the criteria 1) to 5)!

Louis

[SARowl]

Last time the SARF provided most of the SMEs and they spent a lot of time having to show that superficial claims of compliance and capability were exactly that.

Who will call the bidders' bluffs in the DfT?

Anyone except the team that chose the last SARH aircraft. The AW139 can't take two stretchers, can't take MIRG, hasn't got the range required in the contract, at the time didn't have an autohover system...

[Rescue1]

Quote Britinusa "NM-That old back wards facing radar got me to several trawlers in thick fog nearer to the shetlands than Lossiemouth, because the all singing, modern tecnology S-92'S couldn't get to any of the boats due to fog!!!"

I'm sorry but that is a load of twaddle:=:=

[Wiretensioner]

Quote Britinusa "NM-That old back wards facing radar got me to several trawlers in thick fog nearer to the shetlands than Lossiemouth, because the all singing, modern tecnology S-92'S couldn't get to any of the boats due to fog!!!"

I'm sorry but that is a load of twaddle

And would one like to expand on that please

Wiretensioner

[louisnewmark]

WT, don't bite! There's already a SAR radar discussion thread from a few months ago that had a few useful comments in and among the sniping; please (I say again) PLEASE don't let this one degenerate into the same to-and-fro arguments.

Please?

Louis

[bigglesbutler]

I think WT is referring to R1's refuting the MCA cab couldn't do the job, especially as WT has operated the SK with said radar and not the merits of it.

Si

[[email protected]]

The stuff the SARF SMEs had to trawl through had a little to do with the radar but plenty more to do with claimed performance of both the aircraft and equipment not meeting claimed specification by the bidders.

I had no intention of reopening the radar debate though some here seem very sensitive about it.

I am also very aware that the civsar capability as presently demonstrated by CHC up North is (apart from lack of NVG) very impressive and the layout of the back of the aircraft (and the cockpit I suppose) puts the Sea king to shame - as it should since our aircraft is 60 plus years old.

However it is not the RAF's fault that the AW139 is not fit for purpose as a SAR aircraft.

[britinusa]

R1 &WT-The summer of 2008, there was a week of thick fog over the North sea in the Shetland area. Lossie and Shetland also had fog. Fisherman with heart attack, so a rush to hospital job, ARCC informed us the S 92 couldn't do the job due to thick fog. Which did surprise us. So we did the job, so it isn't twaddle!! There was a second job that week, which we were ask to do, for the same reason.

[Bluenose 50]

Britinusa
Not doubting your recollection of the circumstances but are you sure it was 2008? Assuming summer, or what passes for it up north, is around May to September, a quick trawl of my personal memory banks - increasingly suspect it has to be said with the passage of time - doesn’t come up with any matches. The name(s) of the vessel(s) or date(s) might spark a response and help inform the debate.

[Lioncopter]

britinusa to be fair the amount of times we (stornoway) have been told by other crews that we have turned down jobs with out even being asked could not be counted on all my fingers and toes.

Not happened recently but a few years ago calls to people on the unit from friends in the Mil happened ever few months to ask why we turned down a job we knew nothing about.

So the truth is not always what you are told mate. ;)

Cheers

Lioncopter

[britinusa]

B50& lionc- Fair comments. It happened in my last year of flying seakings before I retired from flying at the end of 2008,I am fairly confident because the year before I was in Florida flying Jayhawks. I will have to find my logbooks to provide a name, of which there are many! I didn't ring the unit, we were told by ARCC that the S92 considered the weather out of limits.

[Epiphany]

ARCC informed us the S 92 couldn't do the job due to thick fog. Which did surprise us. So we did the job, so it isn't twaddle!!

Anyone who even considers flying in thick fog is an idiot.

[[email protected]]

Tallsar, as you were involved in the last competition and seem to still be involved in the new - your opinions of what the bidders did is somewhat biased.

Try talking to the guys who actually were the SMEs and ask how far they had to dig into performance charts and specs to validate or invalidate claims by bidders to meet the contract specifications. I am sure that some elements were just errors but others were not. If there is no scrutiny of the bidders claims we run the risk of repeating the S-92 saga with claimed RoA not being true (until finally a tank was installed) and the AW139 fiasco of being introduced into service without night overwater capability.

The 139 is a space-age aircraft, perfect for what it was designed for - which isn't UKSAR. It is just too small to fulfill all the roles required - as mentioned can't carry a MIRG team, can't carry 2 stretchers and couldn't carry a baby in an incubator from Jersey to Southampton the other night. If that is what you propose for UK SAR you had better make sure there is another, bigger aircraft on standby somewhere close to do all the jobs it can't.

[Epiphany]

can't carry 2 stretchers and couldn't carry a baby in an incubator from Jersey to Southampton the other night.

SAR/EMS AW139's in Australia do this every day. Offshore AW139's can carry 15 oil workers in the cabin so I don't know what your problem is but it is not the AW139.

[jimf671]

I am aware of a number of dry jobs in the north where communications of one form or another have not been of a good standard. This means communications at a number of levels and by a number of agencies.

For a start, not having the MCA aircraft under direct ARCC control until April 2010 was a mistake. Therefore, we know that anything told to 202 by ARCC in 2008 about the Shetland or Stornoway aircraft was passed through ... an extra filter.

Throughout most of the 2007 contract, aircraft capability, training availability and a number of other matters have been shrouded in unnecessary obscurity. On the MoD side, there have been problems with comms and aircraft availability during the same period. A lot of work has been done fixing this stuff.

What I look forward to is a time when a document like CAP 999 is in place that acknowledges all the players and gives them their proper place, the contract requirements are publicly available and widely understood, aircraft capability and availability is an open book, all aircraft are controlled operationally from ARCC, the MCA authorise wet jobs (and invoices), the police authorise dry jobs, and all in the world is safe and wonderful.

One day soon?

[LHSboy]

Hi All,

Anyone have any information on this job(s) advertised on CHC's website?
Would it be a good career move to apply at this point in time? For winch operator position, any elaboration of the medical technician qualifications would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. LHSboy :ok:

[Bertie Thruster]

"Anyone who even considers flying in thick fog is an idiot."

That's me then, (and instructor, Flt Lt N. R...H)

When we positioned for first take off on my 2 day FHT (final handling test) on the RAFSAR Seaking course, at Culdrose, we had to ground taxi as there were insufficient references to air taxi, due very thick fog.

(with diversion fuel for Heathrow)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Anyone who even considers flying in thick fog is an idiot


Er, you don't know much about SAR, do you? Or are you just being a twunt?

[Epiphany]

I know enough to know that anyone who knowingly plans to fly into thick fog at destination is an idiot. Superman SAR God (or even a Flt Lt instructor) or not.

[jungliebeefer]

Epiphany - I suspect that you are not a SAR pilot. The ability to cope with adverse weather is essential and this most definitely includes fog. A properly trained crew in an appropriately equipped aircraft should be able to deal with thick fog. Whether this be in making your way to a fishing vessel with a patient in sea fog or hover taxying up the side of hills to a seriously injured walker. This is the current capability of UK SAR and long may it continue. Additionally I can assure you that in these cases the aircraft captain utilises all of the expertise of his crew to ensure that the risk is appropriate to the situation.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I know enough to know that anyone who knowingly plans to fly into thick fog at destination is an idiot


Please elaborate. I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to find out why this is so wrong, seeing as SAR crews have been doing it without a problem for decades. Maybe you could also write to OC 2 Group and ask him to amend SAR Force orders to remove our clearance to do so.


SAR/EMS AW139's [sic] in Australia do this every day. Offshore AW139's [sic] can carry 15 oil workers in the cabin so I don't know what your problem is but it is not the AW139.


Well then Crab must be lying.

[Epiphany]

I am no longer a SAR pilot. When I was I seem to remember that we had weather limits and zero visibility was below those weather limits. However I am glad to hear that these days you operate helicopters that can operate effectively without actually seeing anything and that if an accident were to occur whilst flying in those conditions that the crew are absolved from any kind of legal repercussions or judgement from their peers.

You might not be aware but SAR is not an exclusively UK military based practice. Civilians do it and also foreign civilians - quite well.
.
Well then Crab must be lying.

I don't recall saying that Crab was lying. It is just a fact that AW139's (sic) regularly do what he says they cannot do.

[jungliebeefer]

Epiphany - at the risk of stating the obvious - just because your in fog does not mean that you can't see anything. The RN, RAF and MCA use properly authorised procedures utilising radar to make approaches to ships. By hover taxying you are able to maintain visual contact with the surface and control your forward speed so that you don't hit anything. Same applies for climbing up mountains in hill fog - you keep visual by hover taxying up the mountain utilising visual references and appropriate Conn/VM from the crewman. We'd be a pretty useless SAR organisation in the UK if we could'nt fly in fog!!

Additionally as far as I can see this has nothing to do with whether you are Military or Civilian - both are able to fly in these conditions in the UK

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Civilians do it and also foreign civilians - quite well.


Perhaps - but they clearly don't do it very well if they are unable or unwilling to fly in thick fog.


I am no longer a SAR pilot. When I was...


Things have clearly changed somewhat since those long-ago days. Did you know that we also fly at night these days? There are these new-fangled things called Night Vision Goggles, but then you wouldn't want to know about them...no doubt anyone who flies at low level overland at night is an idiot, too...

[explorer99]

Epiphany: perhaps it's worth clarifying - no self-respecting pilot, SAR or otherwise, would transit overland below MSA in thick fog (ie cloud). The exception to this, however, would be if he/she and the crew had deliberately got themselves into that situation starting from a position that was clear of fog and he/she was able to maintain visual references with the surface sufficient to maintain accurate aircraft control. This would normally mean a low hover, but (as jungliebeefer states) it could also be horizontal distance from a steep hillside arising from an ascent into the cloudbase. There are obviously other considerations as well, such as having an option open in the event of an engine failure. The end needs to justify the means, as the risk obviously increases, but it's not idiocy. (It had better not be, 'cos I've done it often enough.)

Over water, the pilot doesn't even need external references (until you are 'short finals' to the target eg ship) as long as he/she has a) a suitable AFCS and b) a radar to act as the aircraft crew's eyes. Again, there's no idiocy, just good training, good SOPs, common sense and practice. It's not even an exclusively SAR thing - the RN was doing this in the Wessex 3 years before the Sea King came along, and ELVAs are, by definition, intended for dealing with thick fog.

What type did you fly on SAR? Was it a Wx 2/5, without AFCS? If so, I can understand your point of view (to a degree).

E99

[Lost at Sea]

However it is not the RAF's fault that the AW139 is not fit for purpose as a SAR aircraft.

Really? So who did the contract evaluation on the AW139? I think we all know... :=

[[email protected]]

As I recall the 139 was not the weapon of choice of the SMEs but the politically and commercially preferred option.

[[email protected]]

You have just reminded my why you were so loved and admired when you were in uniform:ugh:

[3D CAM]

Have I missed something here?:confused: Has a post been removed?:confused: Someone slagging someone else off? Never!!!
3D

[Rescue1]

Has a post been removed?:confused:

Yes from Tallsar;)

[Tallsar]

Several in fact - sorry for any confusion

[SARowl]

As I recall the 139 was not the weapon of choice of the SMEs but the politically and commercially preferred option.

So what's the point of SME's if the Politians were won over by Swiss Tony at AW? Surely, they should have refused to accept the decision, resigned on mass etc? Or, were most RAF members trying to line their own nest and cosy up to the winning bidder? No names no pack drill...

[[email protected]]

As even a 4-Star will tell you - and did last week - you can make all the recommendations you like, backed up with appropriate evidence to support your case, but when the politicians have significantly different agendas they choose what they want.

[jimf671]

Plenty about AW139, but this, though it wouldn't be my choice for big oceans and big mountains, seems to be a reasonably-sized aircraft in relation to Lot 2 requirements.

- Is there anything really wrong with AW139?
- Is it Lot 2 (and its predecessors) that has the errors rather than the aircraft?
- Is criticism of the AW139 connected, rightly or wrongly, with the ORNGE farce?

[louisnewmark]

JimF - got your PM, thanks - appreciated. Soz, for some reason I can't reply to PMs at the moment, despite trying on 2 PCs!
Louis

[jimf671]

Anyone heard anything about the transition-out plan for the MoD SAR bases? The thoughts are meant to have been thought and the meetings are meant to have met but I suspect it's all gone political. NIMBY time.

[Thomas coupling]

C'mon Tallsar spill the beans give them the latest dodgy news............

[Tallsar]

And where did that come from TC?:) - everything about UKSAR seems a tad dodgy at the moment... But all will be well in the end I'm sure!;)

As for transition plans...MoD or otherwise... Who is going to know anything about that? Perhaps in a year or so, when a contract has been signed, the winning bidder will be able to reveal all about their transition plans. As you know, MoD plans to retire all SAR SKs by Apr 2016.... Well that's what the SDSR said anyway... So it's bound to be true!:E

[jimf671]

... As for transition plans...MoD or otherwise... Who is going to know anything about that? Perhaps in a year or so, when a contract has been signed, the winning bidder will be able to reveal all about their transition plans. As you know, MoD plans to retire all SAR SKs by Apr 2016.... Well that's what the SDSR said anyway... So it's bound to be true!

Service commencement dates are published as part of the DfT's publication package. These refer to unnamed bases 1 to 7 but with their Lot numbers specified, across a nine month period from 1 April 2015 to 1 January 2016.

The DfT have been asked if more detail is available. It was expected that by this time the MoD board would have provided an answer. However, no answer was available last week.

While all this is of great interest to flyers and their bosses, on the ground, or on the coastline, or on the launch slip, the foot-soldiers of SAR want to be able to plan for the changing capabilities of the air assets in their area. Certainly within the next few months, and probably over the next couple of years, I expect that a few events will take place to disseminate information and build the necessary new relationships. Hopefully, there won't be too much screaming and shouting between now and a group hug. :)

[Ron Fenest]

Let's hope that DfT have not started how they mean to go on. They still haven't announced the PQQ results yet but companies from around the world are now planning the site visits that start this week!

I believe that the visits were meant to be part of the dialogue phase of the process..after PQQ results.

As it stands there will be people en-route to Lossie that may find out in an email on Friday morning that they may as well have an expensive round of golf instead....OK, so it's not all bad!

[jimf671]

As it stands there will be people en-route to Lossie that may find out in an email on Friday morning that they may as well have an expensive round of golf instead....OK, so it's not all bad!

Now that you mention it, the bar at the Hopeman Golf Club might actually be a useful addition to the visit list. Aircrew, MRS, cas. Perfect.

[calli]

I thought this thread was about the future of UK SAR!!:zzz:

[SARowl]

[QUOTE]I thought this thread was about the future of UK SAR!!/QUOTE]

RAF SAR force always get their priorities right - golf, pub then moaning...

[Ron Fenest]

At the risk of going back on thread for which I apologise.

It looks like all potential bidders have passed the PQQ stage, what this means in reality is that DfT didn't manage to assess them properly and as such are hoping for a bit of natural down-selection.

The way to do this is to completely change the time available to react by reducing it, with no notice, from 12 weeks to 4 weeks. This will effectively give those new players no time whatsoever to firm up tentative plans that may have been on hold pending PQQ success. 12 weeks was challenging enough, 4 weeks just plays into the hands of previous SAR bidders.

A sceptic might suggest that this automatically reduces the field to 3, FBH, CHC and maybe Bond if they can secure the right partners, and this may be the aim of the "authority". I'm a sceptic.

[4thright]

Am thinking you are so right Ron, especially if all the PQQ bidders got through. What on earth are the DfT thinking? Mind you, it's also debatable if all 3 of the companies you mention may have done any work either, given it costs money and they will be as reluctant as any other not to spend cash too soon.

I am sensing a stitch up... Big time! :eek::ugh:

[[email protected]]

So are we set for another fiasco which falls flat on its face at the last moment?

[SAR Chasm]

Has anyone seen the Helicrew Job Forum on LinkedIn? Developing Assets (UK) Ltd are currently advertising for S61, S92 and EC225 pilots on a contractor basis. A little bird tells me there might be a S92 type rating up for grabs paid for by the company which could come in handy in the not too distant future.

Say what you want about life outside the military, this company's not just emerging into the market and currently have 25 operators employed across UK, Ireland and worldwide. Might be worth a punt!?

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=4328598&trk=myg_ugrp_ovr

[shetlander]

Surprises in rescue service list of bidders

Press and Journal - Article - Surprises in rescue service list of bidders (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2670145)

The list... Bond Offshore, CHC, Bristow, and the Ipod Consortium, made up of ERA Helicopters and British International.

[4thright]

Shetlander...having read the article myself, I suggest you go back and read it yourself again, and then consider a serious redrafting of the above post. You are in danger of seriously misleading the devoted readership of this thread.... Well that man who calls him or herself crab, anyway!:)

[Tallsar]

IPOD?? ... I don't think so!

[ResQ]

Anyone have a link to the press release at The UK Government's Department for Transport?

[400hover]

Developing Assets (UK)

Are they a serious company? Or is another agency like zenon? I've never heard of them!

[Flounder]

Developing Assets -well connected I would say. Not an agency, more a one man show.

[farsouth]

Can't find anything on the DfT website, but this is a link to a Rotorhub article dated 7th March -

Shortlist of bidders for long-term UK SAR contract revealed - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/shortlist-bidders-long-term-uk-sar-contract-reveal/)

[400hover]

The way they are advertising the job for sar it seems like a agency. What they win with that??

[winchweight1]

Just to clarify, Developing Assets UK Ltd, is a perfectly legitimate company who do currently have 25 operators, Front and backseat,working globally and in the UK.
This is expanding and the posts on LinkedIn are genuine.

It is definitely not an agency.

Hope that helps.

[louisnewmark]

Child of Ptolemy - Check PMs.

[Lioncopter]

SAR Chasm

I take it this is a S-92 SAR job and that is why you are posting it on this forum?

[jimf671]

I believe that today's the day. Contract process stage X.

Maybe some have helped the DfT out by merging or walking away ... or not.

Anyone heard anything?

[[email protected]]

One for the potential contractors to consider - apparently all future paramedics will be required to complete degree level training before they are allowed to call themselves paramedics.

This seems part of the over-qualification race that affected the nursing profession.

So, do the future SAR providers embrace all the extra study (and costs associated) to retain the title of paramedic for the winchmen or do we go back to them just rescuing people and taking them as quickly as possible to definitive medical care?

[Helimed24]

At the moment you don't need to have done a degree to be called a paramedic, Thats the bottom line! In the future to become a paramedic that might be the only route.

[jonnyloove]

In regards to UK HPC Registered Paramedics after July 2013 all paramedic training will have to be Degree based learning.

You can still complete the Modular learning route at the moment and there is two medical providers providing the modular training to approprate private indviduals COSAR and Promethus Medical of Hereford.

The cost os around 10,000 Pounds.

[snaggletooth]

Scoop and run Crab, scoop and run! :ok:

[Wiretensioner]

For once I agree with Crab. This is over the top. When I did the Advanced IEC in 1993 myself and most other winchman felt it was just the right level of knowledge we needed.

During my last visit to COSARM in 2009 I was talking with a few very experienced winchmen (mostly my ex-students from SKTU!) when this was being first mooted by W**l H*&^%s as the way forward. And they all said-why? Why not in that case just get paramedics and train them up as winchmen. Oh that old chestnut again.

Wiretensioner (ex)

[ropes away]

There is certainly a case for scoop and run but it really depends on what you mean by 'definitive care.' If you mean getting patient with head injury to definitive care (i.e. somewhere with a neurosurgical facility) then a paramedic in a helicopter travelling in a fast, straight line is a good idea whatever their basic qualification. Depending on how that paramedic is trained, they can value add treatment enroute to make the patient's recovery/survival that much better. I suppose that's where the education comes in and hopefully a robust governance system to support the clinician and crew.

I came into the ambulance service at a technician/certificate level and I have seen the current flock of degree student paramedics struggle with attempting to apply their advanced knowledge to the vast majority of ambulance work which doesn't need anymore knowledge than how to depress the accelerator on the ambulance. So, a degree education may not be needed for the vast majority of work but it certainly helps when you're operating on the rarer case presentations that paramedics find themselves with now and again.

I currently work in HEMS environment with a permanent paramedic/doctor system delivering up to a full anaesthetic capability. I'm certainly no where near educationally than the doctor is but then I'm employed for my general pre-hospital experience to enhance the team. I would not propose a similar system for SAR although I am sure it would benefit patient care. The ability to deliver definitive care in the back of a helicopter is extremely difficult but not impossible so most of our interventions are done before packaging and transfer so that the helicopter can be used for what it was designed for--a versatile and fast(ish) transfer platform.

I wonder how the argument would go if the pilots only required a PPL to fly SAR helicopters? Education does have a place, it's getting the balance right to give the best service to the user and allowing the practitioner to intervene in a safe and responsible way.

take care all,

ropes

[OafOrfUxAche]

I'm certainly no where near educationally than the doctor is


No sh1t Sherlock!

[chopabeefer]

In a LOT of years in RAF SAR, I saw crewmen save thousands of lives, often with complicated and prolonged medical intervention. I saw countless doctors express incredulity that the casualties had been kept alive as long as they had, and watched them heap praise on countless RAF winchmen for their superb and 'of the moment' medical skills.

I never once saw a winchman's medical skills criticised, although I watched many doctors founder in the back of a Seaking, before the winchmen politely moved them aside and saved the casualty.

Skill and ability are where you find them. I know pilots with degrees who are lethal, and should not be allowed to fly a kite. I know pilots with 'no' quals, who are senior RAF instrucors and fly with near perfection.

The imminent loss of the military ethos, standards and pursuit of perfection (don't believe me? - then you have never been trapped by SAR Staneval) are the real crime. Standards will drop and lives will be lost. Are civvies less professional? Of couse not. Less dedicated? Nope. Less able? No. But 50 years of corporate knowledge, ethos and dedication cannot transfer across without loss. I Would love to be wrong and will be the first to admit it if I am, but somehow I am guessing I don't need to make these words sweet, because I won't be eating them.

[Vie sans frontieres]

There will now follow a collection of angry words by people who have never set foot in SARTU or been trapped by SAR Staneval.

[Lioncopter]

There could also easily be a post from someone who have experienced both systems.....

I thought we had managed to move away from this CiV vs Mil stuff... I guess not. :(

The standards at a CIV base are always moving on the up as well.....

[ropes away]

Dear oaf... please excuse the lack of proof reading, perhaps you would like to add to the debate rather than acting as my spell checker?

[Thomas coupling]

Chapabeefer: perleeeeze....for the sake of humanity...don't go back down that old, wornout, sanctimonious route again.. Can we move along in a progressive manner, please......paracetamol please? :ugh:

[4thright]

Just as well that paracetamol is cheap then!:)

[chopabeefer]

Thomas Coupling,

Thank you for your erudite, incisive and considered reply:hmm:.

Which part of my post is it that causes you difficulty?

Do you disagree that the RAF have been carrying out SAR for years and years?

Do you disagree that RAF winchmen have saved thousands of lives, and that doctors have praised them for doing for so?

Do you believe that a life saving service, recognized as the best of it's kind, can be scrapped without consequence to life?


You have taken issue with my post. Please, which statement of mine is factually incorrect? I await your expert response.

Or... - are you simply one of those who will benefit from the civilianisation of SAR, and therefore deny the truth in order to further your own ends?

A reasoned, exacting and factual reply is required (although not expected)

Good day to you.

[Flounder]

In a LOT of years in RAF SAR, I saw crewmen save thousands of lives

That's quite a claim for starters. How many thousands of lives did you see saved? I don't have a LOT of hours of SAR but to see thousands of lives saved you must have done a LOT of jobs because in my experience a LOT of calls are not life saving.

I only hope when I have flown a LOT of SAR hours I will have helped saved thousands of lives too but to date I reckon about <5% of jobs are actually life saving.

[Lioncopter]

"recognized as the best of it's kind"

Losers are always whining about the best, winners go home and........... ;)

To say something is the best needs a bit of backing up with facts.... so feel free to give the facts (not expecting any).

....and i think you will find we will all benefit from the civilianisation as the crews will have "better" (there is that word again)" equipment to carry out there jobs....

Since you wanted to go round this point yet again! Round and round it goes.... where it stops.... oh thats right we do know where it stops... ;)

[Snarlie]

Chopabeefer should be aware that SAR operations have been conducted by many and varied organisations over the years and are not the exclusive property of the RAF. The late Alan Bristow set the bar at an astonishingly high level when he rescued wounded French troops in Indo China in a Hiller in the 1950`s, gaining the Legion d`Honeur for his efforts. All three services have been involved in the evolution of techniques and myriad civilian companies have taken advantage of military expertise to provide local services as and when requiired, such as Management Aviation, North Scottish, Bond, Bristow, British Airways, BEAS, CHC, BIH to mention but a few.

It is about time the Crabs stopped working themselves up to orgasm over ownership of bragging rights for SAR and acknowledged that the new world of SAR is here to stay, crewed by professionals front and back seat who may well come from different backgrounds, not necessarily military.

Finally, never lose sight of who it was who taught the RAF to fly the Sea King in the first place, it was the RN, I know cos I was there!

[Tallsar]

You may have helped teach the first RAF crews how to fly the Sea King Snarlie, but insinuating you taught them how to do SAR would be pushing it a bit. Crabtu (RAF Sea King Training Unit), while under naval command was a joint unit with a syllabus blending RN Sea King type experience with RAF SAR knowledge. After the first 2 years and for the next 32, RAF Sea King training moved on as as an exclusively Crab affair. So whatever the truth of your main point about general SAR development, I am afraid your RN point falters after the first fence.
Agree about your broader point though - The Crab SAR boys maybe good but hey, much has happened elsewhere in the UK SAR scene over the last 50 years. Didn't Bristow introduce FLIR first? - Oh yes, so they did! :ugh:

[Geoffersincornwall]

I always bristle when I hear or read about someone leading off about saving lives. There are a number of organisations that are very quick to wrap up there efforts using the 'saved lives' title but those of us that work or have worked in that part of the business (SAR, HEMS, Police) know the reality is that we are for the most part one element in a team of people who contribute to the saving of life. Those occasions when you can put your hand on your heart and say "we/I saved that persons life today" are few and far between.

You or your crew may have provided the critical stabilising care that gave the casualty the best chance of survival or maybe you removed them to a more secure location but we should not forget that the treatment provided by the doctors and surgeons also counts, as does the TLC in the ICU (not to mention the plethora of support staff that put you in a position to do your job).

Over-stating your efforts should be done with care.

G. :ok:

[SARowl]

Didn't Bristow introduce FLIR first? - Oh yes, so they did!

And fully automated SAR autohover/autopilot - LN450.

[Geoffersincornwall]

........fully automated auto hover - I seem to remember having that in my Sea King in 1970 and if you leave out the aux hover trim then my Wessex 3 had full-auto hover in 1969 and was around a while before that.

G.

[Thomas coupling]

Chopabeefer - I think you have been suitably chastised re your post. Go and stand over there in the corner for causing a near riot in the classroom!
The rest of you get on with your work and concentrate on the job in hand which is Civvy SAR for the Uk i.a.w. European legislation. Who the players might be and how they are going to do it (especially in the remaining time frame!)

Honestly...............:ugh:

[jimf671]

Good summary Mr TC Headmaster Sir.

Yes, we all know it's going to happen so let's do all we can to make it the best.

[Hompy]

Well said GinCornwall

Here, here!:ok:

[John Eacott]

........fully automated auto hover - I seem to remember having that in my Sea King in 1970 and if you leave out the aux hover trim then my Wessex 3 had full-auto hover in 1969 and was around a while before that.

G.

I think the Wx HAS1 had a vaguely reliable system before that, but certainly the HAS3/Newmark Mk30 AFCS was front line in 1967: about the time we started at BRNC, Geoff!

I'm not sure when Bristow started FLIR SAR ops, but the NSCA (Vic) had civil FLIR use somewhere around 1982-83, IIRC.......

[Tallsar]

I think the points made about LN450 and Bristow's FLIR were made in direct reference to UK SAR (and in the LN450 case - to the first use of the coupled auto pilot for SAR under UK CAA certification). There is no doubt that other military ac had coupled AFCS's before that but thats not quite the point.

Fully concur with Geoffers' and TC's points though!:)

[OafOrfUxAche]

in my Sea King in 1970 and if you leave out the aux hover trim then my Wessex 3


Who are you, Phil the Greek?

[Snarlie]

...and my Wessex 1 had full auto hover long before that, although the transition down and up needed a bit of encouragement from the pilot in terms of radalt tweaking.

As for Tallsar, if you read my post closely you will note that nowhere did I imply that I had taught the Crabs SAR, everyone knows you can tell`em but you can`t tell`em much. Suffice it to say that RN Sea KIngs were practising night SAR including night live lifts when the Crabs were still stumbling about in Wessex 2`s.

The p*****g contest between RN and RAF which has been going on since April Fool`s Day 1918 does not play any part in the current discussion about the future of SAR in the UK.

[Tallsar]

Snarlie - friend.... my post was to ensure the younger members of this thread understood precisely what happened all those years ago. Sadly I can still recall it far too well.
Whether you intended it or not, the tone of your message, along with the short statement about the RN teaching the RAF to fly the Sea king could have been interpreted several ways.
Of course the RN was doing great stuff with the Sea King (and the Belgians and Noggies too!) for quite a few years before the RAF got their hands on some yellow Mk3s - and amongst other things you learned about salt accumulation on compressor discs during prolonged hovering in gales near large vessels!:mad::eek:
We learned a lot in those early days from many RN hand me downs, including night low level over water expertise, and from Culdrose bar talk... and were grateful for it... as we were soon to find out. It doesn't change the fact we then took things further, as was inevitable once it was our train set to play with - SAR mountain flying with the Sea King being an early and demanding learning exercise! We learned too that our monthly winch usage was on average some 10 times per cab greater than that of any RN cab at the time...and exposed several key problems with it that the RN experience had yet to fully expose. All in all then a joint effort that has contributed to the SK's continued success in the SAR role, even if the old girl is now well past its sell by date by modern standards. I for one really do hope the future comes sooner rather than later... its well overdue now.:)

[John Eacott]

Of course the RN was doing great stuff with the Sea King (and the Belgians and Noggies too!) for quite a few years before the RAF got their hands on some yellow Mk3s - and amongst other things you learned about salt accumulation on compressor discs during prolonged hovering in gales near large vessels!:mad::eek:

Since the salt encrusted IGV's were during Dave Mallock and Tony Baker's rescue in 1974 it is only fair to include the Luftwaffe, as it was one of their cabs that Dave was driving ;)

Apologies for the OT rambling......

[Max Contingency]

"Captain to crew, MASTER CAUTION - Thread Drift." :zzz:

[[email protected]]

everyone knows you can tell`em but you can`t tell`em muchthat's the attitude snarlie - well done:ugh:

I think quite a few night live lifts were completed by Wessex 2 and Whirlwind before that whilst we crabs were 'stumbling around' doing SAR.

[Epiphany]

Took a little longer than we thought but you can always catch a Crab with the correct bait.

[jimf671]

"Captain to crew, MASTER CAUTION - Thread Drift."

Maybe if there was a Sycamore thread they could go to ...

[Tallsar]

Good Grief Jim..... not tales of warping rotor blades too!! JE - it was remiss of me not to mention the Germans too (Kriegsmarine not Luftwaffe?)...
Now...back to the future......and the past too!:confused::)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Ah yes, welcome back Epiphany. Your last contribution on this thread was:


Anyone who even considers flying in thick fog is an idiot.


Funny how it all went quiet from you right after you made a prat of yourself last time...would it be worth learning from your past experience and appearing ignorant by remaining silent, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt (again!)...? Or are you still so bitter that the world of SAR has moved on since you left that you can't refrain from denigrating very capable and current operators like Crab?

[Epiphany]

Remarkably TOD I still stand by my statement. Sorry you have missed me but I do not rush home everyday to breathlessly log onto the SAR thread to read yours and others words in awe and admiration.

Scrabble around in thick fog as much as you like to prove whatever you think you have to prove (the usual 'saving lives' BS no doubt). That is your choice. My choice is not to do that and my crew and family are very happy about that too. Perhaps I am alone in my opinion. So be it, I can live with that and your scorn.

In relation to Crab I am certainly not alone in my opinion. His condescending views on civil SAR and his blatant self-promotion will always be his downfall. I may be out of date with the latest SAR technology and techniques as my last SAR flight in an S61N (FLIR, autohover etc) was 8 years ago but I somehow survived 15 years SAR/EMS as PIC in various parts of the world so I am entitled to an opinion.

My self-preservation instincts apparently paid off as I now fly a nice modern helicopter in a very pleasant part of the world with no night-standby duties, earning an enormous tax-free salary. I knew a few collegues who did not share my views on flying in conditions well-below sensible limits who are no longer with us. One of them decided that he would push his luck one night and not only killed himself but also his crew and the young mother and child who was being 'saved' by our hero. He killed them all but the fog didn't help. After the fog cleared the next day I was one of the first on the scene. Not something I will forget in a hurry.

I may look back in here in a week or for my own amusement (but don't hold your breath) so feel free the pour on a few more buckloads of scorn. I wish you well in your own mission to save lives in those dark, satanic and frequently foggy hills.

[Fareastdriver]

earning an enormous tax-free salary

Never, never advertise.

[[email protected]]

Fortunately Epiphany, many people's lives have been saved in appalling conditions by the sort of 'hero' you wish to denigrate in your rather smug and self-satisfied post.

I am not fan of the gung-ho approach to SAR but flying in ****e conditions to save lives is often what is required and if it is done it should be a crew decision.

I must point out that this is neither blatant self- promotion nor civvy bashing, the fact is that a lot of SAR crews both mil and civ have put themselves at considerable personal risk to save the lives of others - that is the reality of SAR and probably why you didn't fit in well.

Enjoy your tax free salary.

[Thomas coupling]

For God's sake everyone - calm down. You're behaving like brats at a birthday party. If members of the public looked in, they wouldn't believe most of you were well educated extremely professional experts :mad:
Let's keep the wise cracks to the gutter and concentrate on what's happening at Long SAR (which at the moment is precisely nowt!).
Tallsar - nice post and well controlled too:D

OK: so all the advisors were sacked 3 weeks ago. ALL of the PQQ participants have been given the ITT documents BUT only a hand full can go fwd on May 10th. Now why is DfT holding back with the decision to name those shortlisted???
And your comments on the new advisors would be gratefully received:E

[chopabeefer]

TC

Thank you, I feel suitably chastised and will retreat into my shell.

Or B.

You, and others, have completely failed to answer or refute the points I posed. Are you a labour politician, deny the truth and push your incorrect point no matter what?

Do you deny the RAF have saved countless lives?

Do you deny that 50 years of expertise can't be transferred without loss? If not, please let us know the secret - you'll make a mint.

Or, are you simply one of those who will benefit from the civilianisation and the truth is too uncomfortable? (Rhetorical - I know the answer).

When the civvies screw up, lose a casualty at night in the mountains due to lack of goggle expertise, I will be there to remind you. If it doesn't happen, then you are right and I am wrong. I am not wrong.

As for experience, I have 4800hrs Seaking SAR, 2700 Wessex SAR. 1476 casualties picked up (I logged every one), including 59 in one day.

PS. Epiphany - you are clearly an aviator with scant knowledge of SAR. Flying in fog is sometimes necessary to save lives, especially in Britain. If properly trained and equipped, it is safe, even relatively easy. Done it several times (always to save life) and always saved those lives. EVERY time. No losses, no accidents, and had a ball. Still, at least you know your limits. As Gordon gekko said, 'Stay out of the tall grass if you can't piss with the big dogs...';)

[Thomas coupling]

Who is going to take the bait then guys. Don't belittle yourselves and move on eh?

[Geoffersincornwall]

To be fair to both sides of the camp the degree to which you have been exposed to fog-flying will colour your judgement. Remember the crabs were first exposed to Sea King Ops in an RN environment - an Anti Submarine environment. They no doubt learned to be confident in foggy days because we had come to terms with those conditions many years before.

When the fleet depends on you protecting them from submarine threats you need a real day-night all-weather capability. The Fleet AIr Arm developed that capability to the point that we had systems and trained pilots capable of flying the mission totally blind in fog at night from the moment you disappeared over the side of the ship into the inky gloom til the moment you returned and landed back on board. Gaining the confidence in the systems and the training is a very important step towards being able to add SAROPS to the list of capabilities. Remember for us SAR was a SECONDARY role that we were all trained for and all expected to do well at despite this not being our primary activity.

I am not surprised that SAROPS are conducted in fog and conducted safely and effectively, it is merely an extension of the skills the RAF were given in those early days of the 1970s by crews (RAF & RN) who had the skills and the confidence to take it on with all the benefits of a 'looker' on the radar (search radar not weather radar). Remember that RAF SAR is a PRIMARY role, that's all they do so they have the opportunity to polish the basic fog-flying skills and can do it well and do it safely.

Epiphany holds a view that I identify with whole-heartedly and I don't criticise him for holding it. We all need to know and understand our own limitations and because I believe Epiphany comes from a military rather than a naval background he would not have had the opportunity the allow fog-flying to become an every-day event. If you are not trained to work in fog then don't go there.

Now do as the headmaster says, stop this 'mine is bigger than yours' nonsense and lets return to a more interesting discussion.

G. :ok:

[thorpey]

Why were the advisors sacked, has nothing been learned from the last fiasco?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Geoffers,

All valid points. Unfortunately for Epifanny, his statement was so sweeping and so damning - without any hint of understanding that other people might be able to achieve safely what he cannot do himself - that he managed to alienate pretty much everyone! Even Crab rarely pisses off that many people at once - and most of the time he's only doing it out of badness anyway...:)

[SARowl]

fully automated auto hover - I seem to remember having that in my Sea King in 1970 and if you leave out the aux hover trim then my Wessex 3 had full-auto hover in 1969 and was around a while before that.


Geoffers

Serious question; was the Sea King/Wessex auto hover system fully duplex with RNAV route, MOT (mark on target), trans up, trans down, and AHT (Aircrew hover trim manoeuvre)?

[Thomas coupling]

SARowl the seaking is simplex , not duplex. There is no automatic back up auto pilot?? If HT or CYC fails, that's it, the channel remains inoperative.
I believe the AW139 is triplex.

[Geoffersincornwall]

The Sea King - from memory - has TD and TU with the MoT being an Observer function. He would drive you to a TD position having marked the on-top position on his plot or use a radar fix from the target.

In that respect the Wessex 3 was more advanced. The pilot's HSI incorporated a Nav Display that provided track and distance to a point where you trimmed the IAS hold from 90 its to 70 its then engaged 'Pilot Turn' to auto-turn into the wind (Hdg Bug). When the turn light went out you engaged TD. The definitive point used to set up the circuit pattern was set by the Observer based on either an on-top position or a radar target. The Wx 3 was duplex. The Sea King was simplex and not having done the Phase 5 course yet I can't tell you for sure what the AW139 system is but I will be surprised if it's triplex given that there are only two series actuators in PR & Y axis and a simplex collective actuator with duplicated inputs.

G.

[skadi]

Since the salt encrusted IGV's were during Dave Mallock and Tony Baker's rescue in 1974 it is only fair to include the Luftwaffe, as it was one of their cabs that Dave was driving http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Apologies for the OT rambling...... John, I am putting another bit of fuel into the fire :}
Dave Mallock was on a German Navy Seaking! The Luftwaffe never had such a nice helicopter.

skadi

[jimf671]

Can somebody explain to me what difference it will make in the future to the poor sod in the water or lying in the snow what type of air speed hold the Wessex had?

No. On second thoughts, don't bother.

I think there might be other matters to which you guys could make a serious contribution. For instance, as mentioned in a recent RUSI report, where are all the helicopter pilots coming from in the future?

[[email protected]]

SarOwl - the Sea King 3A has a duplex FCS since each VG feeds a lane in the ASE unlike the Mk3s and 5s and it has comparator circuits to monitor each lane. It has the SN500 FPC which should be familiar to S61 drivers as I believe they have the SN550 fitted for SAR work.

The 3A also benefits from the RNAV rather than the CDNU which brings better connectivity so it can drive the aircraft around search patterns and nav routes just like a real autopilot. Additionally the RadOp can send marked targets forward to the RNAV from the radar.

I think the 139 is just duplex but benefits from an inertial/GPS nav system that doesn't rely on doppler for the AHT functions. I didn't particularly like the TD on the 139 - it was quicker but steeper than a Sea King which felt uncomfortable in light winds at night. The Sea King profile with a gradual reduction in speed which reaches set height before zero groundspeed (or the 10 kt trickle in a 3A) is more comfortable in IMC.

[Geoffersincornwall]

RUSI specialises in research, research is about what has happened, what has happened is in the past, QED what is passed is interesting and relates to today and the future. It's called 'learning the lessons of the PAST!!!!'

The Wx3 was technically more advanced than the a/c that succeeded it at least it was in concept if not in execution, being analogue rather than digital. The question is was a simplex system with basic instrumentation better than it's analogue duplex predecessor with superb displays? The answer is that reliability trumps clever-dick design every time. Now how has the Merlin fared? What will the next generation displays have to entertain and inform I wonder?

G. :)

PS where's the link to the RUSI article you mention?

[jimf671]

PS where's the link to the RUSI article you mention?

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/BlueLightHelicopters.pdf

Note the use of the word 'future' in the title!

Most of this is much more appropriate to the NPAS thread than this one. However, there is some stuff about SAR in this document. Some of it is SAR viewed from a large quiet desk in a large noisy city but nevertheless some important questions are being posed.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Interesting article - sadly for the author, time is running out!

Don't like the title of the third chapter though...brings back unhappy memories...:sad:

[jimf671]

Don't like the title of the third chapter though...brings back unhappy memories... :sad:

Yes. Sent a shiver down my spine. :{

[Saint Evil]

So what's the latest? Any new dates for the process? Bristows still stuffed when it comes to GAPSar?

[farsouth]

What did I miss St Evil?? - How does winning Sumburgh and Stornoway for GapSAR equate to Bristows still stuffed when it comes to GAPSar

Care to elucidate???

[jimf671]

So what's the latest? Any new dates for the process? ...

You want dates?

The latest published dates are from February and are in here
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/part-1-instructions-to-bidders.pdf
at "4.11 Procurement Timetable".

That makes the next event on Monday 30th but before that can happen they need to be told who's invited and who's out.


___________________

Quote of the month: "This is all about cost you know."

[jimf671]

Here are the short-listed bidders who are invited to participate in Phase 1 Stage 2.

LOT 1
(Larger spec. Sumburgh, Stornoway, Culdrose, Leconfield and Valley)
1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd
3. CHC Scotia Ltd

LOT 2
(Smaller spec. Lee-on-the-Solent, Chivenor, Prestwick, Lossiemouth and Wattisham)
1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd
3. CHC Scotia Ltd
4. Noordzee Helikopters Vlaanderen N.V
5. Osprey Consortium (Babcock, ERA, BIH)

LOT 3
(Service requirements of both Lot 1 and Lot 2)
1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd
3. CHC Scotia Ltd
4. Lockheed Martin UK Integrated Systems Ltd
5. Osprey Consortium

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/phase-1-stage-1-sar.pdf

[Vie sans frontieres]

jimf671

Who was it that came up with the 'this is all about cost' line? How can anyone be expected to provide a quality SAR service on a shoestring budget?

[Thomas coupling]

At this bureaucratic stage we are now 6 weeks behind schedule.

[jimf671]

Who was it that came up with the 'this is all about cost' line?

Mr Beaver made it clear anything from that part of the proceedings at RUSI last week was 'unattributable'. :=

I couldn't possibly comment.

:confused:


______________________________________________________

The Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org)
I wonder if Justine Greening will pay for my membership?

[4thright]

Surprised at how little interest this topic generates these days especially as the latest list of bidders has just been posted on the Department of Transport's website? Does anyone think the EC175 will be suitable for the Lot 2 bases? Eurocopter seem very quiet on where this aircraft is at the moment. With the UK's investment in the AW189 its difficult to believe that this aircraft isn't a natural choice for any bidder. Bristow and Bond have the 189 on order so its seems to point to what they might be hoping to fly.

[jimf671]

Bristow have also been described as the launch customer for the EC175. It probably ticks many boxes for Lot 2 but I don't know if it does so in all the right combinations of load, endurance, altitude and conditions. I'm sure people known to us will be trying to tick those boxes, even on a Sunday afternoon. :E

Aw 189 looks a bit '21st century Sea King'. Perhaps not quite Lot 1 and maybe over-sized for Lot 2 unless ... somebody notices the deliberate mistake: weakness in the DfT's approach to land SAR because they just wish it would go away.

Not going away.
DASA, Feb 2012:
84 Land
6 Coast
13 Maritime
(MCA 43, unknown split.)

DASA, Mar 2012
75 Land
18 Coast
16 Maritime
(MCA 42, unknown split.)

And what will all that head-scratching about Lot 2 a/c with 2 big doors do to the a/c choice for Lot1?

[Support Monkey]

All Bidders

To inform you that OSPREY (Babcock, BIH and ERA) has withdrawn from the competition and we are content that they are no longer bound by any constraints within the Contract Letting Process Agreement (CLPA).

So 3 competitors left for Lot 1, 4 left for Lots 2 and 3 - sweepstake on the next faller?

[fagin's goat]

Any rumours as to why the Osprey consortium pulled out? Not enough cash in the deal? I wonder if we will see others do the same.

[jimf671]

... sweepstake on the next faller?

CAUTION
Normal rules of chance are suspended in the alternative universe that is government contracting.

[[email protected]]

I wonder who is going to be doing the technical compliance assessment?

[Thomas coupling]

Crab - stop going on about that will you:ugh: You are not going to be the SME, OK?
Bristows and CHC will do their own tech compliance it's obvious.:oh:

[4thright]

I was told that the DfT team has chosen its own way for this competiton. It would be too easy to think this is just SAR-H reborne but it's not. The MoD has withdrawn in most respects and thats how it is.:hmm:
As a result, an independent evaluation consultancy has been contracted in to do the technical assessment after the DfT ran a short and swift competition for the role before the last submission. As far as I understand it, they are composed of a suitable range of technical experts that meets the DfT's evaluation needs.:8
I think the DfT will be more worried about the reducing number of competitors before the next submission is due:(:sad:

[Vie sans frontieres]

a suitable range of technical experts

Who?

As has been seen in these pages over the years, a lot of people claim to know what they're talking about in SAR but relatively few actually do.

[jimf671]

I think the DfT will be more worried about the reducing number of competitors before the next submission is due

That's OK then. At the current rate of attrition they will end up with the required 2 or 3 per lot for ITT without the need for any selection decisions.

[4thright]

J671 I don't know how you fathom that one. Any of the bidders will have their bids assessed even if there was only one per Lot - no one will get a bye. I think originally the DfT was hoping there would be a wider bidder field than expected so as to give Bristow and CHC a run for their money. Maybe it would produce a better solution too. Looks like that possibility is fading fast and if so, it will be the final solution that might suffer.:uhoh:

[Max Contingency]

A suitable range of technical experts

If we dont use real operational SAR aircrew then there is a very real chance that the aircraft will be delivered without even having a chilled meat cabinet or an ice cream freezer. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[4thright]

Nothing to fear there MC as I read that the tech spec is demanding satcom internet to allow affiliate shopping en route to and from the target area.
All purchases will be drop-shipped to the home SAR base without any "embarrasing" need to provide impromptu photo ops to the ambushing paparazi! :)

[jimf671]

So glad you guys brought up the catering issue. I have been really worried about how I was going to get along without the boiler opposite my favourite front pax seat in the Sea King. No sign of Starbucks in any of the bidding consortia unfortunately.

I checked CAP 637 but can't find the signal for Cappuccino.

[Shell Management]

Don't you just drop into a Starbucks en-route?
Or does that just apply to butchers and ice cream shops?
;)

[Wiretensioner]

When CHC won the interim contract from Bristows in 2005 they came and visited the flights to ask what we wanted on the new aircraft. I mentioned the hot water boiler (ex Sea Kings), amongst other things. Basically it was just laughed out of court and never appeared along with a few other things asked for which never materialised. There idea-couple of flasks that when scrambled where the winchman's reponsibility to sort out, while getting changed and finding out what the job was and did he need any extra kit!

Civvy SAR do not appreciate how valuable the boiler is. To many ex-Navy involved!

Wiretensioner

[3D CAM]

Water boilers??? You'll be wanting Playstations/X-boxes for the crewroom next.;)
No time to fill flasks? get the engineers to do it... they've got nothing else to do after all. Or...... fill them, the flasks, at the start of shift.:rolleyes:
3D

[Max Contingency]

The RAF SAR hot water boiler is primarily there for getting a warm drink into a cold wet survivor. A couple of 'self heating' cans of coffee kept on the aircraft would be considerably cheaper, safer and much lighter.

[Wiretensioner]

Water boilers??? You'll be wanting Playstations/X-boxes for the crewroom next.

Sumburgh playgroup have already got them! In fact within the first year of being with CHC.

Wiretensioner

[tedted]

No time to fill flasks? get the engineers to do it... they've got nothing else to do after all

Classic ignorance by a classic ignoramus :=:=

When did you last do something to 'help out' i.e. go beyond watching people work and offer assistance?! Take off your blinkers, you may even find some day someone will like you...........:ok:

[Thomas coupling]

Water boiler: A joke when it was installed and a joke to this very day. More bother than the worth of it. Nil by mouth comes to mind! Can you imagine a civvy cab having this onboard: some bright CAA spark will insist on adding it to the MEL:ugh:

[Wiretensioner]

TC you seem to be someone who has had little to do with long range SAROPS or you are a pilot! I certainly wouldn't call the boiler a joke. Bloody useful on a long job to get something hot to drink or a Pot Noodle (only way to get Leopold Bloom out of the radar shack in the Falklands!), heating up fluids before we got the heater packs and if able to hot liquids into a casualty.


Wiretensioner

[Vie sans frontieres]

a lot of people claim to know what they're talking about in SAR but relatively few actually do

For example

Nil by mouth comes to mind!

[4thright]

Is it me or is there something a bit sad about this thread having drooped down to a mere discussion on the merits of long range hot coffee?:ugh:
Its no wonder few seem to enter any sort of signifcant debate on here about the future of the Nations SAR service anymore:{

[Vie sans frontieres]

Well you see 4thright, we've got a bit of a problem. The SARH bids were assessed by chaps of the calibre of RWOETU and SAR Staneval and the like - long time SAR pros who had years and years of front line SAR and SAR training experience. Now that SARH is dead and buried, who's going to assess the bids for Longsar and how can we tell they've got any pedigree whatsoever? The whole of military SAR is going to be replaced, potentially by a winning bid that has been scrutinised and recommended by people with minimal SAR experience.

Water boilers are only one small issue but there will be many more like it and if anyone involved in appraising bids holds strident and pre-conceived views like, 'a joke when it was installed and a joke to this very day' then it's unlikely that the future of SAR in the UK is going to be rosy.

[4thright]

VSF I think you raise a good point. I don't know who in detail is assessing the bid but if what you say is true, then there is a problem. I am still not convinced that arguing about some aircraft bits and pieces is the place this thread should be at this stage. I would be more concerned about whether the new service will deliver good mountain rescue and overland capability. With the Transport Ministry and MCA in charge, what do they know of these issues and the focus needed? The Police have authority and experience in these rescues but the Home Office is nowhere to be seen. Of course there is the perenial issue too about ANVIS, as far as I see it, the CAA and its new CAP999 is taking a very tentative approach. There really is little chance of the new service being anywhere near that presently offered by the military in this essential area.:ugh::ugh:

[Lioncopter]

A helicopter with HM Coastguard on the side spends half its time doing overland work in the north west of scotland.... so you might be surprised how much they do know...........

How ever it is a intresting question, who are the advisers on this new SAR stuff?

The CAA have no issues about ANVIS.... and thats what they have said.... someone just has to talk to them about it. :ok:

[4thright]

LC I am aware of Stornoway's activities but its daylight only in the hills is it not? I do not agree with your rather sanguine view of the CAA. Talking to them yes of course, but their actual reaction to ANVIS when faced with their first AOC application might be more cautious than you would like to hope for.
Anyone know what's happening to the ARCC now Kinloss is closed?

[jimf671]

CG/CHC Stornoway is 24 hours and regularly doing mountain work, night and day, summer and winter. They are not contracted to have a low light capability, so do not have NVG. In extreme low light conditions, other aircraft must be deployed.

MCA Aviation have stated that the Gap SAR technical requirements are broadly similar to the 2007 contract, so no contractual requirement for a low light capability (NVG) and, presumably, not the best comms fit.

The effect of a contractor change, with similar technical requirements and the same a/c type, is going to be extremely interesting.


(With LC on CAA & NVIS, though NVIS from a standing start is always likely to be problematic.)

[snaggletooth]

In extreme low light conditions, other aircraft must be deployed.

That'll be every night then :p

[Thomas coupling]

Wiretensioner / Vie...whatever / Lioncopter, you are what we term: bottom feeders: end users who come into work each day, do a solid days work, earn a decent crust and get fed (info) from above, (if they remember) occasionally.
You know very little of what is going on - and to be honest, you are not expected to either.
The water boiler was a side show, bringing in some light relief. But please believe this when I tell you - it serves absolutely NO purpose whatsoever in front line life saving missions. It is a typical RAF bolt on accessory about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Vie: why do you think the RAF are so important as to be the default for SAR advice? The RN were doing SAR before the RAF could spell it :=
As it happens the work stream for this current SAR project (Long SAR) is driven by a very competent civil servant and a Commodore. The consultancy firm is well versed in SAR doctrine. You MUST give other people credibility and you must aslo accept that perhaps people like you don't know it all. [Because you only operate in a tiny part of the jigsaw]. Civvies around the world have been doing SAR for decades, it is NOT a fine art (as the RAF would like it to be - to justify their empire), it is for most military units throughout the world a SECONDARY ROLE. It is not nuclear science and most of all Civvies do it very very well indeed.
Lioncopter: The CAA have issued NVD certification to several AOC's (The police for instance); they have already formalised applications for SARH NVD Ops. Again, not a difficult evolution and one which future operators will take to overnight.

Try and look at the big picture. Future civvy SAR service isn't going to see massive degradation. It will see change (and for some long in the tooth, has been's) and it will take time. But change it will, adapt it will and develop it will. With better. cheaper, more reliable aircraft. Civilian crews infused with military experience will run the service FAR FAR more effectively and financially more efficiently than any military outfit. Move on guys. :sad:

4thright: It is my personal view that the ARCC might eventually be re-located to the MCA HQ @ Southampton (but still retain uniformed personnel).:suspect:

[Al-bert]

I was initially a tad irritated by TC's comments, but then I realised he must be ex navy - bless! :cool:

[Vie sans frontieres]

Those that get most defensive usually have most to be defensive about.

[3D CAM]

Ted,

When did you last do something to 'help out' i.e. go beyond watching people work and offer assistance?!

Actually about three years ago! And I would still be doing so if I had my way!:{
I know very well what the engineers do.... I am one!!!!!:ok:
3D
P.S.
Do you know me?? If not, don't get personal. I like to think that I was/ am helpful in my job, to the best of my ability anyway.
I don't expect, nor want a reply. Lets keep the thread on track.

[jimf671]

I agree with much of what TC says.

However, the p1ssing contest between the MCA and the MoD, equalled only by the similar contest between the RAF and RN, continues to prevent proper analysis of the existing task and preparation for the new one. This scene of division leaves an open door for those skilled at grabbing extra slices of the taxpayers' dosh, detracting from Treasury and DfT objectives of good value and fair competition.


The ARCC should be in the hands of those who know about aeronautical matters, about rescue and about co-ordination. This means there are no options better than leaving it as it is.

[4thright]

TC - I read much of what you said with little concern and much agreement.
However, I do not agree with several points/facts.

Firstly, it is not so that most other militaries view SAR as a secondary role. Many see it as a a significant primary role, and indeed many smaller countries have it as one of the few primary roles they operate at all. Indeed it can be argued that the UK over recent decades has been one of the few European nations to eschew military ownership of SAR as a primary or secondary role.

As for your statement that the RN operated SAR a very long time before the RAF reflects a lack of knowledge of the actual UK service history on this. This is so whether you look at purely rotary SAR or go back to early pre WW2 days and review what happened during that War - with of course the rescue means being via launch, pure fixed wing or with flying boats. This of course is not meant to detract from the very fine contribution that the RN has made to SAR over the decades too.

I do support your opinion that the ARCC will close - probably after the MoD finally loses its last SK SAR flight, and it becomes logical to colocate it with some MCA MRCC somewhere. Should we worry about this - well maybe if it loses its expertise on overall rescue coordination and any specific aviation and overland focus it now has

Ho Hum - now thats a bteer thread already with no sign of coffee boilers anywhere!:p:)

[Tallsar]

Ahh..... good to see some life in this thread again!:hmm::rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

You have to understand that TC's bitterness comes from his predicament - ex RN (not real SAR though) and resigned to working on a daily basis where he gets to see an almost endless stream of professional RAF SAR pilots put through their paces and producing performances that he and his 'secondary role' chums would struggle to match;)

If you want mil pers in the ARRCK in a different location then Swanwick would be a much better choice than MCA HQ.

The RAF is facing a glut of pilots and a shortage of helicopters - just give us some shiny new S92s and let us get on with the job.

[SARowl]

The RAF is facing a glut of pilots and a shortage of helicopters - just give us some shiny new S92s and let us get on with the job.

I take that your CV is with CHC/Bristow then?

[NRDK]

Don't worry, Crab already has his CV in, but I slipped it to the bottom in the HR pile of --- :{

Straws, grasping at......'Give us S92's...:}

ARRCK?.......Will be MCA soon enough, why waste money moving it twice?:ok:

Surplus of crab pilots..some new Chinook's inbound, get in SH and go front line again with those fantastic skills that only the RAF pilots have.:D;)

[Thomas coupling]

Boys, boys....you asked for this:

Skills such as chopping sandfilters off and Confined area landings to position for ice creams...Mmmmmm Love it...more, more :rolleyes::eek::D:)

[Al-bert]

careful TC, some of us remember the Fastnet Fiasco....action photos a speciality?:=

[[email protected]]

Will be MCA soon enough, why waste money moving it twice yes the MCA know lots about aeronautical co-ordination so that will be useful;)

get in SH and go front line againonly 4 years until pension so unlikely:)

With my PA pension I could always offer to work for less than all the civvy pilots in SAR - would that go down well?

[Wiretensioner]

Gosh TC I didn't realise how important you think you are! Thank goodness there are people on here who make up for your rants.

Wiretensioner

[chopabeefer]

DfT reps and other 'heads of sheds' at RAF Valley recently to see what training for SAR involves. The questions asked confirmed that the future SAR service will be incompetent at best, and lethal at times. The guys making the aircraft and training specific decisions are accountants.

IE.

'Why do we need rearcrew?'

'Why does a qualified pilot need to keep training?'

'Why can't an NHS paramedic do shifts as a winchman without training - it seems he just hangs there.':ugh:

Nope, I am NOT joking.

Lives will be lost. I have said it before and will keep saying it.

[Helimed24]

I thought the majority of winchman are NHS paramedics!!! There was me thinking this thread was sarting to get adult like again.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Skills such as chopping sandfilters off


Ah yes, those inept RAF crews stupidly trying to carry out a rescue in tricky conditions in the hills. Of course, the only time that a Navy crew managed to hit the blades on the sandfilter was during a cack-handed bunt to impress some passengers. Far more worthy, of course...

[jimf671]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/blueprint_announcement_final_-_221111.pdf

[jungliebeefer]

Once again this thread becomes ... "the only people who can do SAR properly are the RAF!".

Regardless of where you sit - the RN, RAF and MCA have been carrying out SAR with great success for decades now, each with their own SOPs. Yet again I struggle to understand why supposedly professional aviators are so blinkered and arrogant to assume that its their way or the highway ...

SAR is going to civilianise - there are hurdles to overcome - but a more capable and modern aircraft crewed by both ex military and civilian crews, will deliver a capability on a par. I have no doubt that some refuse to believe this and struggle to comprehend how this capability could be provided by anybody other than themselves. The military of all three services has changed beyond all recognition in recent years and rightly the priority now is the Front Line (= war fighting capability) ... SAR is a second line capability and when you consider the savings that can be made just in manpower terms it makes complete sense for this to be handed over to the DfT - the MoD has far more important battles (literally) to win.

As for NVG, ex mil experience will provide the backbone of a training programme that will provide for all - the structures required for civilian clearance already exist (EASA and CAA).

[Vie sans frontieres]

'Why do we need rearcrew?'

'Why does a qualified pilot need to keep training?'

'Why can't an NHS paramedic do shifts as a winchman without training - it seems he just hangs there.'

Are these Thomas coupling's consultants that are well versed in SAR doctrine or just the guys that they'll be answering to?

What a balls up this is going to be and as chopabeefer suggests, a balls up that is going to lead to massive corner cutting and the dismantling of a quality of service that has been refined over decades. Where are the winning bidders going to source their personnel from when the drip feed of full-time SAR professionals from the military dries up? Training from scratch is a lengthy process (years, not months) that involves selecting the right people and taking them to their limits of capacity to see how they perform.

[4thright]

VSF (& Cbeef) I don't think it really matters if some senior types in the Dft arrived at Valley and demonstrated their ignorance. It seems to me that the visit was all about improving their understanding and hopefully that's what the visit did. Removing the ignorance of top neddies and civil servants is no bad thing.
I just don't buy this emotive crap about "lives will be lost" etc. Look at the likely winners from who remain in the competition. It's these companies who will actually deliver the service, and 3 of them have clearly demonstrated their ability to do it. This is what matters, not some ignorance shown by top neddies from London! As for the longer term, any of the likely winners have the capacity to set up a training pipeline to meet the gap of no more military leavers, and don't forget one of the beauties of a long term civvy run service is that many who join the service at the start will be there at the end - no 2 to 3 year posting rosta to mess people and experience about!:ugh:

[[email protected]]

Jungliebeefer - is it unreasonable that the Service who has been the main provider of UKSAR helicopters, views it as a primary role instead of secondary, has more SAR aircraft, crews, equipment and completes more SAROPs every year - has a claim to be the best?

It is a question of ethos and those of us in RAF SAR believe ours is unrivalled - our commitment to training (that element of SAR which detractors say is gold-plated and too expensive) stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Now it is fair to say that 80% of SAR jobs can be done without all the bells and whistles - hence the belief that SAR can be done as a secondary duty by pretty much anyone with a helicopter.

It is the other 20% which are on a sliding scale from slightly interesting to F*** Me which need the right crews, equipment and above all training to perform safely and efficiently.

Unfortunately it looks all too easy to design a a UK SAR system for the future which looks cheaper because much of that 20% is conveniently ignored.

[Al-bert]

:ugh:Many years ago, when Walter Wessex was Queen of the skies, I was asked by a member of the House of Lords Defence Study Group why we needed a navigator to operate the hoist, and if the pilot couldn't see downwards why didn't 'they' just fit a glass bottom to the aircraft? When I pointed out that the engines might obscure the view he helpfully suggested that they could be positioned 'down the back'! He was led away to the mess bar by another Lord - seems some things just don't change :sad:

[jungliebeefer]

Crab@

We have all sat in the crew room and bitched and moaned about the other services. However, I would hope that this bluster also belies a mutual respect and understanding that we are all professional aircrew who are fundamentally good at what we do ... To say that your way is the best and to automatically discount all other ways of skinning the cat is blinkered to say the least.

The main savings from military SAR will not be from training but from all the other areas where operating the Sea King on a Military Release demand a high number of personnel and maintenance hours, vice operating a modern aircraft. The S92 can maintain availability rates far in excess of the ageing King with 3 engineers on shift. Daily training rates do not differ from the military with an allowance of 4 hrs per day. I believe that the MCA crews would take task with your inference that they are only able to carry out effective SAR in the 80% of routine missions!!

The big piece for the future that has been rightly identified is the transition to NVG - again there are ex military experienced NVG operators already working on the solution ...

I'm not saying that there are not hurdles ahead but to completely put your head in the sand and say that it can't be done as effectively and safely (but maybe differently) to RN or RAF SAR is simply wrong ... the people that will make this work will be experienced civilian, ex RN and RAF crews.

I fully understand that those of you that have been involved in RAF SAR for your whole military career regard it as a primary mission - but again you need to look outside of your own world to see that the resource scarce services must prioritise ... rightly for capabilities that support a combat. Unfortunate for military SAR but thats the bottom line...

[[email protected]]

Jungliebeefer - everyone knows the Sea King is old and tired and costs a lot to maintain but to claim big savings will be made by buying V expensive new toys off the shelf just because you can use less engineers is simply not true.

Then add the expense of reinventing a SAR service that already exists (RAF and RN) under the banner of DfT and, as a taxpayer, I have to ask why not just give the military new aircraft and crack on. The military is already using civilian aircraft with military crews and it will become more and more widespread over the next few years.

The dogma about warfighting first has reduced many areas of the UK Mil to theatre-specific forces with little corporate memory of anything other than Afghanistan. Anyone in SH or jungly force doing EW training for example? If you keep chopping out what is not needed for Afghanistan then we will end up in few years (if we ever withdraw from there) with a very lopsided capability and a huge training burden to recover the lost skills.

So, leave mil SAR in the mil, give us the new aircraft promised for son of SARH and stop wasting taxpayers money reinventing something that doesn't need reinventing.

[Ray Stawynch]

Crab,

Please would you clarify, EXACTLY, how you quantify that RAFSAR's training is "head and shoulders" above all other's stringent, pertinent, accountable training.

Do you allude to knowing ANYTHING of the aforementioned training regimes?

Or was this yet another pot shot at belittling those of us that work professionally, diligently, currently in post?

Ray

[4thright]

Well said RS - too much lack of real understanding about how civ SAR training works against what the mil have traditionally done.
I support Crab in that there was a chance for doing something more innovative under MoD ownership and its a shame that too many working there didn't give it another chance after the PFI was chopped.
Crab is right too about dogma in the MoD about fighting the unwinnable war and what the aftermath will be, with many careers dependent on the faithful following the present mantra. :ugh:
Let's not forget either that military SAR was created around UK shores precisley because it was operating in a combat environment with many brave acts during WW2, (or could have been had WW3 ever happened). Its easy to convince ourselves that such a direct threat around our shores may never happen again. If so then we might regret the day we civilianised some key helicopter capability dottted around the country at high readiness. I am also intrigued to know what the RN will do in providing an experienced SAR helo capability off the new carriers. Anyone for civ S92 detachments on HMS QE then?;):E

[jungliebeefer]

Crab@

Junglie force already 90% withdrawn from Afghan and back at sea doing the Amphib thing. I'm not saying that I like whats happened to the forces over the years ... the ability to have a great second line tour at Culdrose or in Prestwick will disappear and the RN will be all the worse for it - thats the world that has been forced upon us. However, you need to get your head around the fact, that regardless of how much you dislike it, its not MIL SAR its SAR ...

[[email protected]]

Ray:

1. The training stats we are required to complete every month/quarter/year - this is not just one deck, one sit and one drum per month to keep 'current' but a wide range of disciplines day and night.

2. There is an embedded training team pilot/radop/winchman in each flight.

3. There is a roving training team who carry out annual cat checks and further training who visit each flight once per month.

4. There is a dedicated Standards team who check each flights operational effectiveness every 2 years and carry out no-notice Opevals at each flight.

5. Our simulator training (6 monthly) includes SAREX's and NVG as well as all the emergency handling sorties.

6. We have an ongoing training scheme to take Co-pilots to Op Captain - not just a captain's course when a slot becomes available.

In addition there are other training exercises including things like windfarm rescues, MRT, lifeboat, CG, beach rescue.

Is that enough?

I'm not saying civsar crews don't train or belittling their capability but those who haven't been involved in some of the night overland SAROPs the SAR Force have experienced are far too quick to dismiss our capability as 'just requires a set of NVG on an S92 and crack on'.

Iron i reckon there will be a huge saving in maint costs actually and an enormous capital outlay to get the aircraft in the first place.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Crab,

The capital outlay would surely still be required whether crewed by civilians or mil? As you yourself state the sea king is past it's best so a new machine is required.

SW

[John Eacott]

Crab,

Genuine question, how does RAF SAR training compare to the RN, specifically 771 NAS? Surely they are covering the same/similar tasking as you, same/similar equipment, and they certainly feature often in our GAPAN awards nominations.

Historically, RN tasking would include Planeguard & SAR for carrier ops which, whilst often a secondary tasking for an ASW squadron, would be as advanced and professional as could be achieved. With intense carrier ops around the world and Ship's Flight covering each and every FW launch and recovery, both day and night, ASW squadrons backing up that task plus covering any SAR task within the operating region there was a wealth of knowledge and ability. Indeed, auto hover was developed back in the 60s for ASW and came to a high level of maturity with the Sea King in (front line service) 1970, and incorporated for the first time a 10% authority hover trim for the rear crew when winching with auto hover.

Techniques and equipment have advanced dramatically in the ensuing years but it still remains an important element of the RN background in SAR.

Comparing what the UK CAA allows for Civ SAR and 'other countries', there should be no justifiable reason to deny 24 hour/all weather SAR by Civ operators in the UK. Australia has managed for many years to provide this service, often Single Pilot with qualified crewman left seat, on NVG, over water, overland, day/night, (winching too) all with "civilian" operators. I include the State Police Air Wings, who are often the primary responders especially on the East Coast states. They all have their own training and crew progression well established, with relatively few being ex Mil: these days they have their own 'Corporate knowledge' and little reliance on getting the military to do it for them. In fact the military seldom get called for civil SAR, and they don't have a primary tasking nor the equipment to cover it.

[4thright]

A good list of RAF training activities there Crab. but what makes you think something similar cannot and will not be delivered as part of the new contract?

JE - thanks for reminding me of how the RN traditionally did carrier SAR. My point is that with the removal of all SAR training and experience from the military, how is the RN going to deliver even this level of SAR capability. I presumefrom any Merlins or Wildcats working off the carriers. Some people on here may not like it, but in this litigative 21st century the MoD has to be seen to be fulfilling its full duty of care by making its best efforts, especially in trying to rescue those at hazard such as JSF pilots who have crashed off a carrier. Suggesting it will be done ad hoc by inexperienced Merlin or other helo crews does not seem to meet that criterion.:uhoh:

Working in the civilian helo world can focus your thoughts on this type of thing! Sorry.

[Tourist]

Suggesting it will be done ad hoc by inexperienced Merlin or other helo crews does not seem to meet that criterion


I just love the Crab lack of understanding of RN SAR

RN crews maintain SAR cover on every ship with helicopters 24/7 wherever they are worldwide.

That is not amateur or inexperienced or ad hoc.
That is professional.

SAR is just a secondary role, and a limited one at that.

It is all just posh hovering.

[Spanish Waltzer]

I am surprised that there is an opinion out there that as soon as uk national SAR becomes a contractor delivered solution any ability for a trained mil crew to effect a rescue will be lost. As I understand, every uk mil helo (apart from apache) will have a winch on the side. Therfore every mil crew will at some point in their training be provided with the skills to utilise it. No doubt like other flying skills there will also be a currency requirement to ensure the skills do not fade.

Yes the merlin crew providing plane guard may not be a dedicated sar crew but they will still be capable, competent and trained to effect a recovery. Indeed as the availability of mil crews who have completed a SAR tour diminishes, the need to deliver winch training, as a secondary role, for rotary crews of all colours will increase. Funnily enough, as with all training, this will evolve and the knowledge will continue to be passed on from generation to generation. Nobody, not even crab is irreplaceable!

Am I the only one who sees the fact that the 'heads of sheds' are asking basic questions a sign that they are actually prepared to question the status quo? I have no doubt they were given passionate answers to such questions from those they asked and will make informed decisions when the time comes. Surely better to visit and ask 'silly' questions than not visit and make incorrect assumptions?

Similarly, when it comes to scrutinising the bids, I think you'll find there will be an expert panel of experience from the RN, RAF and civil SAR providers made available to assist those 'accountants'.

SW

[4thright]

Seems to me SW that if the MoD crews are going to be so well capable of SAR in the future, they are not in fact giving the role up! So why all this hassle in giving up the UK based capability. Surely it would be better to keep a dedicated outfit which delivers both at home and can ensure the deployable crews are well trained too. Not that I want to lose a job opportunity you understand:E
There is so much inconsistency in this debate,and Tourist, I dont think anyone has been suggesting that the present RN crews dont deliver very professional SAR. I am questioning where it might be in the future when daily SAR delivery in the UK and having the associated trained crews in the RN and RAF no longer exists. SW seems to think all will be wel, but I cant see that (yet).

[Ray Stawynch]

Crab,

Many thanks for that terribly comprehensive reply.

I did also ask whether you alluded to knowing anything of the training regimes of Others.

If so, you might not be as self righteous in feeling that RAFSAR training far exceeds those of the rest of us who, again, work stoically in maintaining a professional level of competency in all aspects of SAR currency.

Ray

[Al-bert]

yer aye doomed, doomed I tell yer! :hmm:

[[email protected]]

Ray - some of the guys who provide your training are ex-RAF colleagues of mine;)

4th right A good list of RAF training activities there Crab. but what makes you think something similar cannot and will not be delivered as part of the new contract? cost! The new SAR service may well be like a Citroen - built down to a price rather than up to a standard. Who will police its standards and levels of training, currency and competency? The CAA? with all their expert knowledge of SAR?

I don't think there will be a significant influx of mil pilots into the new contract unless it is specified somewhere (like the last one was). I expect big civilian companies like Bond and Bristow will recruit internally first and everyone who has ever done a SAR tour in the past will throw their hats into the ring. Inevitably priority will be given to those with seniority in the company rather than ex-mil people with current and relevant experience - I guess it all comes down to what is specified in the contract.

Spanish - all military aircraft with a winch??? you are having a laugh! Our SH bretheren have more than enough kit to worry about needing to be serviceable and the winch will be the first thing that gets red lined in the F700. We also get to see how poor winching can be when people don't practise on a regular basis.

[jimf671]

Who will police its standards and levels of training, currency and competency? The CAA? with all their expert knowledge of SAR?

___ Yes. ___

[Vie sans frontieres]

It is all just posh hovering

Yet another PPRuNe contributor who thinks it's pilots that make the difference.

[Shell Management]

Concerns over contracts revealed.
Search and rescue helicopter contracts awarded despite police probe: TBIJ (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/08/search-and-rescue-helicopter-contracts-awarded-despite-police-investigation/)

A Canadian helicopter company at the centre of an ongoing MoD police investigation into bidding ‘irregularities’ has been allowed to re-tender for the multi-billion pound contract for the UK’s search and rescue service.

The Bureau has learned that the Canadian Helicopter Corporation (CHC) has also recently been awarded interim contracts to run services in the south of England. The company’s alleged involvement in serious irregularities resulted in the government having to abort a previous bidding round at a cost of £10m. The Bureau’s revelations will now be brought before the House of Commons Transport Select Committee.

The multi-billion pound privatisation of search and rescue helicopter operations has been dogged by controversy since it was first proposed in 2005. It will hand over control of the service from the RAF, the Royal Navy and the Maritime Coastguard Agency to a purely civilian operation. Prince William, who qualified as a search and rescue pilot yesterday, was one of those who raised concerns directly with the prime minister, David Cameron, over the planned sell-off.

The whole process was thrown into disarray last year when the Government cancelled the £6bn procurement contract after it emerged that ‘commercially sensitive information’ came to be in the possession of CHC. The company was part of the Soteria consortium also including, Thales UK, Royal Bank of Scotland and Sikorsky.

In a Commons statement, the then Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond said: ‘The irregularities included access by one of the consortium members, CHC Helicopter, to commercially sensitive information … and evidence that a former member of that project team had assisted the consortium in its bid preparation, contrary to explicit assurances given to the project team at the time.

‘The Government has sufficient information to enable it to conclude that the irregularities that have been identified were such that it would not be appropriate to proceed with either the preferred bid or with the current procurement process.’

The MOD revealed in answer to a Parliamentary Question that approximately £10m had been spent on the project.

The Ministry of Defence has now withdrawn completely from the replacement PFI deal announced last November and the procurement process is being run solely by the Department for Transport.

According to the Department of Transport the inclusion of CHC Helicopter in the new bidding process is good for business.

‘The Ministry of Defence Police investigation into the failure of the PFI is ongoing. Not only would it be wrong to pre-judge the outcome of that investigation, CHC’s participation in the current UK SAR helicopters procurement increases competitive tension in the tendering process.’

However he asserted that pending the outcome of the police investigation, the Department did not rule out the option of trying to recoup the £10m losses incurred by the taxpayer in aborting the previous round.

The chair of the House of Commons Select Committee for Transport, Louise Ellman expressed surprise at the Department’s decision.

‘It is important that this procurement is conducted in a way that gives public confidence. I am surprised that anyone involved with the collapse of the previous procurement, where investigations have not been concluded, may be involved. I will discuss this with the Committee,’ she said.

CHC has been shortlisted in the procurement process along with 10 other companies. The range of 10 year contracts to run the new, entirely civilian, search and rescue service are worth between £2-3bn. They will replace more than 40 helicopters currently operated by the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Maritime Coastguard Agency. The final contract will be awarded in February next year, with operations starting in full in 2017.

Meanwhile, in addition to making it on to the DfT shortlist for the main national contracts, the Department renewed contracts with CHC to run the interim search and rescue helicopter services in Portland and Lee on the Solent in the south of England. The company also previously ran services in Scotland but lost those to a more competitive bid.

The MOD Police were also called in to investigate the bidding irregularities and decide whether a criminal offence had been committed. It has confirmed to the Bureau that its investigation is still ongoing. In a statement a spokesperson said: ‘The investigation has been continuing for over a year, and has required much painstaking work and the interviewing of potential witnesses over a wide area internationally. There have been no arrests to date, but when this investigation is complete, the findings will be reviewed before a final decision is made as to whether any further action is required.’

Responding to criticism over the move to renew interim contracts and allow CHC to re-bid, the company told the Bureau that the British public could be confident in the probity of the company. In a statement it said that as soon as it became aware of the irregularities it brought them to the attention of the Government, and that the information was irrelevant to the bid.

Mr T L Reid, vice-president of global communications for CHC in Canada said: ’Obviously we’d much rather that any seeds of poor judgement or worse don’t get into the organisation in the first place. But when they do we’ve got to make sure that they don’t take root. We’ve got high standards, people know them, overwhelmingly they follow them, in the air and on the ground, and the rare occasions that they don’t – we take action. Three individuals were properly dismissed from CHC.’

He added: ‘We’ve been fully cooperative from the time we called the activity to the attention of the Government. We know the case is continuing – we are not going to speculate about how it might turn out.’

Under EU law any company or individual convicted of offences involving corruption is excluded from the tendering process.

[jungliebeefer]

Spanish - all military aircraft with a winch??? you are having a laugh! Our SH bretheren have more than enough kit to worry about needing to be serviceable and the winch will be the first thing that gets red lined in the F700. We also get to see how poor winching can be when people don't practise on a regular basis.

C@S, all RN aircrew (regardless of specialisation) undertake SAR training during their respective OCP. These skills are then refreshed regularly throughout their aviation careers and even more so during an embarkation work up. Plane guard has not been provided by a SAR Squadron for many years with the task falling to embarked Pinger/Junglie aircraft - incidentally these are all fitted with a winch permanently when embarked. The Junglie aircraft will only remove the winch if the land environment that they will be operating over demands it. I think you do our SH brethren a dis-service, the ability to recover drums/survivors is not a black art and is in reality a quite easily acquired and maintained skill.

Having operated SAR both in and out of the service, I can safely say that the service provided may differ in method, but the results are entirely comparable.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Zzzzzzzzzz. Some pilots just don't get it. The best pilots are still completely reliant upon having decent rearcrew to do the job. If they're not well-trained, current in EVERY aspect of SAR winching and at least one of them has at least 9 months of everyday, frontline SAR experience, then when you do get a call off the back of your ship, your big moment could well turn into the proverbial.

[Bertie Thruster]

Vie hits the nail on the head.

[Al-bert]

your big moment could well turn into the proverbial.

Lyme Bay canoe cock up for example, oh, and the Fastnet! :oh:

[[email protected]]

Jungliebeefer - I have seen so many incident signals from the RN where winching has gone wrong due to lack of practice and currency with the crews that your comments become risible. It's all part of the Navy myth that anyone can do SAR and that statement is never qualified by the terms safely or effectively.

Try asking a Lynx crew down South who cat 3'd their aircraft because they wouldn't listen to the advice from the SAR crew about how to winch a stretcher - they knew better because 'anyone can do SAR' - oh yes, of course it was their engineer acting as winch-op instead of someone properly trained and current!

Was it an RN crew who winched in so far out of the overhead that they dragged the winchman and 'survivor' across the deck and through the railings? Oh yes, but 'anyone can do SAR' and 'winching is easy'!

the ability to recover drums/survivors is not a black art and is in reality a quite easily acquired and maintained skill. I'm guessing you have never been on the end of the wire and tried to get someone into a strop in the water - I have and it's bloody difficult and very tiring. This is the perennial non-dedicated SAR RN problem - 'yeah we've done a couple of grapple serials over the oggsplosh so we are good to go any time any place any where.'

SAR is not just about hovering.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Oh dear. Is this now where we have RN crews digging through incident reports to find equally 'embarrassing' examples of where RAF crews perhaps got it wrong.

Crab. Did you witness any of these? Thought not - so you're basing your ridicule on heresay, rumour or a biased slant on a report perhaps? Isn't hindsight wonderful?

Every time there is an unfortunate incident there are generally many links in the chain. I doubt even you crab have never made a mistake, despite your extensive experience and training. Picking holes in each other is hardly promoting a professional military service

SW

[jungliebeefer]

C@S

At the beginning of my career I spent a most enjoyable hold over on a SAR squadron acting as "survivor", spending time on the wire for any number of boat / wet / cliff evolutions. This certainly provided me with a great opportunity to fully comprehend the challenges and professionalism of SAR rear crew.

Subsequently I have instructed on both Junglie and RN SAR squadrons. Wet winching in the Sea King with its stable hover and LVI doppler meter is a relatively easy evolution to pick up and most pilots do so very quickly.

"SAR is not just hovering"
Actually in terms of the main physical ability required of a SAR helicopter pilot that is exactly what it is ... can you hover next to a boat / cliff / survivor / confined area!! The difficult bit is not this, appropriate initial and continuation training ticks this bit quite nicely. Once established in the hover then the control of these situations rightly falls to the rear crew. A successful SAR crew is a team led by a SAR Captain who has that combination of Airmanship, Professional Knowledge and Leadership to consistently make the right calls - teaching/imparting/fostering sound SAR captaincy is the difficult bit.

Your general comments about the lack of capability achieved by RN crews deployed around the world in the SAR role is wrong, I know this because I have been there deployed at Sea as well as on land on a permanent SAR base and I am therefore in a position to make a considered comparison. Over the years deployed crews have achieved a plethora of rescues in some of the most challenging of SAR scenarios. Throughout their careers, crews will complete continuation training in the full range of capabilities required including those SAR related ones.

Your use of single examples is meaningless, i'm sure that a quick trawl of the RAF SAR incident signals would also throw up events that when quoted in isolation would seem to show what is a professional and capable force in a negative light ...

This is the perennial non-dedicated SAR RN problem - 'yeah we've done a couple of grapple serials over the oggsplosh so we are good to go any time any place any where.'

The fact is that there is no problem, the large number of rescues carried out over the years prove that this is the case. Your throw away "a couple of grapple serials" comment is so far removed from the truth, that I seriously doubt that you have spent any significant period deployed with a front line RN unit, because surely you must have at some point in the past to feel justified to make such accusations.

[4thright]

A well balanced reply JB - well IMO anyway. What is for sure is that both the RAF and RN over the decades have delivered excellent SAR capability, sometimes in the most extreme circumstances. Sure, things can go wrong, and Crab is right to a degree. Sometimes some fairly iffy decisions have been made and things have gone notably wrong. However, given at least 5 decades of such operations, its a testament to all and their overall professionalism that so few significant accidents have ever happened - lets hope it stays that way!:hmm:
What I think we could all agree on is that sufficient quality training aligned with continuous experience delivers top quality.
It is only right that some question whether a commercial operator is motivated to fund enough training of the amount and quality required to deliver the best service. While the RAF in particular has enjoyed well funded SAR training until recently, in the present situation, its hard to believe it was ever going to be sustainable.
What is for sure is that Bristow, Bond and CHC seem to deliver a competent service with the latest aircraft. While they may not do as much regular training as their military equivalents, it is foolish to say they don't have good people who don't understand the issues, manage them as well as possible and seek the highest standards. Whats more, the CAA under their new SAR regulations will be doing their best to underpin this. For those who think the MoD manages the broader fundamentals better, I have only one comment: Haddon-Cave!:{:ooh::(:eek:
The bidders for the new service must be working overtime at the moment. Isn't the next bid due in later next week?

[jimf671]

In about 2020 the SAR helicopter service will have consisted entirely of civilian contractors' aircraft for over 4 years and we could be entering the early stages of a contract process for a replacement service to start transition in 2023 through to 2026.

It's interesting to think about how much bitching will be going on then. Let's imagine that the main contract, rather like Gap, will go in 2 lots and lot 1 goes to company B and lot 2 goes to company C. :E

Will the crews from company B be seen and heard bitching endlessly about the inadequacy of crews at company C? And C bitching about B?

Well, they might. Perhaps some of them will and these are the ones that won't have jobs after 2026. The remainder demonstrate maturity and judgement in their understanding that it's just not that childishly simple and that shortly they could very easily be working for the other lot!

[[email protected]]

JB - you miss my points entirely - I am not talking about Gannet and 771 SAR crews who train on a regular basis - I am talking about your 'secondary role brigade' because that is where the 2 incident signals I referred to (and I did have personal experience of one of those - the other was subject of a detailed incident report with little room left for conjecture).

You also keep banging on about how easy hovering is for pilots - of course it is, it's our job - it is not very frequent that poor service from the front end causes problems winching, it is lack of skill and practise at the back end because, as we all know, winching goes from 'la la la steady' to 'f8ck me!' in an instant.

A SAR captain has exactly no influence on what goes on on the end of the wire - once the winchman is out of the door it is purely down to the winch-op and the winchman himself. All the captaincy and airmanship in the world at the front end can't affect that - all you do is assess the overall risk, approve the basic winching plan and then give the winchman clearance to go out of the door.

SPanish - I have been instructing and operating in front-line SAR for the last 10 years and am still doing it so I do have some knowledge of the subject.

Jim, it will depend on how open and honest reporting is in the post mil SAR world, at the moment all the form Rs and DFSORS are easily accessible and widely circulated so that fellow operators can learn from other's mistakes and experiences. Since MORs exist in civil aviation and the MCA will have access to all post SAR reports, one hopes that the desire not to air one's dirty laundry in public will not overcome the need for a free flow of information.

If we end up with two contractors for the new service, how much co-operation and cross-pollination will there be when KPIs and contract penalties might be at risk?

You only have to read some of the comments on other threads (especially the North Sea) to realise that every company will tell the world they are doing a brilliant job and yet the truth from their customers or employees is often very different.

[jungliebeefer]

C@S,

You must of mis-read my post, as it was written defending exactly those RN crews whose prime task is not SAR.

Quote:
The fact is that there is no problem, the large number of rescues carried out over the years prove that this is the case. Your throw away "a couple of grapple serials" comment is so far removed from the truth, that I seriously doubt that you have spent any significant period deployed with a FRONT LINE RN unit, because surely you must have at some point in the past to feel justified to make such accusations.

Just to clarify that SAR was always regarded as a second line tour.

[[email protected]]

Ah, the old 'only SH/Jungly flying is front-line' I'm sure the 771 and Gannet boys and girls love your dismissal of the operational capability. Fortunately we still regard SAR as operational even if it isn't war-fighting since bus-driving in a Sea King in the desert is a support task. I think the Apaches do the real fighting stuff;)

The fact is that there is no problem, the large number of rescues carried out over the years prove that this is the case.that is real head in the sand stuff - 'we haven't actually killed anyone doing it so it must be good' is hardly a qualitative assessment of 'secondary' SAR.

[Manchester]

Could you two start a new thread? Call it "My dad's bigger than your dad"

[jungliebeefer]

C@S

I don't see why referring to SAR as a second line tour is regarded as a negative. As a member of 771 in a previous life, all personnel regarded it as such. It provided an excellent opportunity to spend a significant part of our lives at home with family whilst recharging our batteries before returning to the front line. This doesn't in any way take away the skill and courage required to undertake SAR - all undertaken with an equivalent professionalism to our compatriots in the RAF SAR force. I see that your "head in the sand" comment is clearly borne of a clear lack of knowledge and understanding of embarked RN capability. Surely if SAR is regarded as an operational capability, the light blue powers that be would not entertain civilianising it?:E

Manchester

Take your point!!

[[email protected]]

Manchester - valid point so all I ask is for JB to detail exactly how much live wet winching embarked Lynx, Jungly or Merlin crews are required to complete annually to retain this excellent secondary role capability.

[BusinessMan]

For those who read this thread to keep up with the process - it looks like high level bid proposals are due in today, bidder presentations imminent & key downselect notification on 23rd July, if this timetable still stands (P24): http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/trade-day-presentation-5-3-2012.pdf

Sorry if all this has already been posted but I only have the heart/time to sift through this thread every once in a while :ok:

BM

[Support Monkey]

It has been shifted to the right by 3 days - 14th June is now the day for the vans full of paper

[jimf671]

The latest published timetable is on sheet 43 of the 30th April trade day presentation at the following address.
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/sar-presentation-30-april-2012.pdf

[Flounder]

Too relevant. Please keep it off topic in future...

[[email protected]]

Has anyone found a slide in these presentation where 'in the vicinity of' is actually defined? Some slides make reference to part 3.1.1 so I presume it is somewhere deep in the tender documentation.

[Gene Genie]

Crab

Here is a link to the document:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/part-1-instructions-to-bidders.pdf

3.3.1 is the only lace that "ivo" is mentioned as far as I can see. It's probably deliberately vague to allow a bit of creativity between the bidders.

Hope this helps.

Gene

[pasptoo]

IVO - perhaps by not specifying it will allow bidders to be creative in their justification of locations.

Inverness would be IMHO IVO Lossiemouth,
Glasgow IVO Prestwick
Newquay IVO Culdrose
Wattisham IVO Gt Yarmouth
Lecconfield IVO North Denes

And so on, if you can justify it why not move it? The bases were originally placed for easy access to fast jet bases / training area - sadly no longer required. Although there are equally good reason for the status quo, based on weather, access to low level maritime, ATC environment etc

Pas

[SiClick]

Crab
I generally think you have valid points (we have worked together in the past) but you must stop using words like "risible" as I have no idea what they mean and I have no interest in looking them up.
You should not have wasted so much time doing ISS

[Flounder]

Lecconfield IVO North Denes

Not really IVO (110nm away) and certainly not with Boulmer closed. Far too large a gap North of North Denes.

Humberside is more likely than ND for Leconfield (and I know you're only baiting me too but I can't let that gross misinformation pass uncommented on)

[pasptoo]

Flounder - thanks, I did mean Humberside, that whole flatland area is far too much of a mystery!

Pas

[[email protected]]

Si You should not have wasted so much time doing ISS aircrew C, no effort required just cut and paste;)

From one of the plethora of documents on the dft website about SARH - there is a costing xls that seems to specify 600 hours training per base per year which equates to 50 hours per month spread between either 5 or 6 crews or just over 1.6 hours per day. But it's OK there won't be any drop in quality because training is for poofs and everyone else just gets on with it and stops moaning:ugh:

[Thomas coupling]

Crab, that's about twice as much as they are getting presently with SeaKing serviceability being the way it is. But don't let stats get in the way :ugh:

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

that's about twice as much as they are getting presently with SeaKing serviceability being the way it is


...which must be about 4 times as much as Navy guys and gals at Culdrose are getting. Studes at 771 currently taking well over a year to get through conversion...whose stats did you want to highlight, TC?

[[email protected]]

Well TC , I have just flown 3.5 hours of training so don't judge all the SARF by the state of the dispersal at Valley:)

[Gene Genie]

The 50 hours per month are to include sim and HUET as well.

[[email protected]]

Blimey! That'll leave lots of time for NVG currency then:{

[Lioncopter]

Thats not bad Crab but I did 4.4 Hours on my shift yesterday... but being Civ sar we need all the practice we can get dont we ;)

One point of note if you go to ops only due to what ever... currently that time gets carried forward I imagine it would do the same in the future hopefully.

6 crews? that would be nice!

[[email protected]]

I did 4.4 Hours on my shift yesterday that's because you have shiny new aircraft that don't go wrong much:ok:

Out of interest has the amount of hours allocated for training gone up since the contract started?

[Lioncopter]

I think (and only think) there was a change but dont know by how much. All I know is every month we end up with a surplus of training hours to burn off and its not through lack of trying. :)

[IFR Piglet]

Yeah and there will be another change downwards if we keep telling everyone about our surplus...cheers! One or two months of heavy fleet maintenance and it’s time to play catch up for the rest of the year. The monthly allocation is - in my lowly opinion - about right. What can I say.......we need everything we can get!!:}

[S76Heavy]

How many hours per crew do you fly in an average month?

[Lioncopter]

That's my point every few months something happens and we don't manage to meet the training allowance for a month so it carrys over. So we are always playing catch up which means we never have to worry about going over the allowance. Which is nice. I agree the amount we have now works well and would probably allow us to do currency Training for other skills (such as NVG) with out an increase but It would be a real shame to have it reduced and lose the flexibility that it brings.

[4thright]

10 hours a month per crew seems reasonable, certainly for a crew with a reasonable level of experience. Having read the requirement off the site, its clear some can be carried forward too as now. How much is allocated to an RAF crew Crab? What we don't know is how much Type Rating and SAR role training will be offered prior to deployment on a new SAR base. I suspect it will be a good deal. Despite the naysayers, there is no way any of the credible bidders want to expose themselves as not delivering a high standard of service and capability. Everyone can argue about a few hours a month here and there, but the reality is that military SAR has had it good for too long in terms of flying hours allocation, so its time to get the balance right across the whole UK SAR show.
Despite Crab's pessimism I think there will be many experienced RAF and RN crews that will come over to us, so that will underpin the intial capability in depth. I know that at least one of the Bidders has a good training pipeline for new aircrew too so that will help sustain the longer term, and along with the CAA now looking at a proper Technical Aircrew licensing system, its hard not to believe that there is too much scaremongering going on here.:ugh: