The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

[[email protected]]

4th right we are allowed 4 hours training per day so, assuming 8 shifts per month, each crew member would get 32 hours of training. Jobs and unserviceability obviously reduce this somewhat but many crew-members do more than 8 shifts.

Lioncopter's training allowance pretty much aligns with ours so it would appear that about 4 hours a day should be the industry standard - the projected 600 hours a year needs to be at least doubled if there is not to be a drop in capability.

[4thright]

Thanks for the reply Crab, but its not the question I was asking, or trying to ask.
What is the formal allocation of monthly training per pilot, not what happens to come your way. Are you really telling us that the RAF merely says do 4 hours per shift? No you must have a monthly training requirement. Please tell us what it is? As for Lion, they way I see what he is saying is that they are getting a bit more at the moment because of servicing schedules meaning they have to defer training to the next or subsequent months, Not sure I read that he /or they were doing 4 hours a day every day of the year. Not what we are experiencing either, 1.5 - 2 hrs per dayis the norm I think.

[[email protected]]

4thright - our training is organised on a quarterly basis with a specified number of hours for each discipline both day and night but I don't have the figures available off the top of my head.

The fact remains that we need to use about 4 hours a day (with allowances for ops and being u/s) to ensure each crew-member completes their quarterly stats.

[Al-bert]

Crab et al,
having spent 22 years flying RAF SAR, Wessex and SK, I would contend that four hours per aircrew member IS over generous, unless you are constantly training new boys and girls, which of course is how the military operate.
I could see this figure comfortably reduced if experiance is retained on the SAR flights. The problem arises in training at the outset and retention therafter. ;)

[[email protected]]

The minimum quarterly training for a CR pilot comes to 23 hours - so for 10 pilots that is 230 hours per quarter or 78 hours per month. That is just for pilots and doesn't include sim training (another 18 hours per pilot per year).

Whilst a fair amount of rear-crew training can be conducted on the back of the pilot's training, unless you run constituted crews (which is too inflexible) there will always be occasions when at least half of the crew don't get any stats during a training sortie - usually because they are already stats complete.

Now a certain amount of training will be covered on SARops but we still find some people struggling to complete their mandatory training even with 4 hours a day.

[Al-bert]

but Crab,
the RAF is constantly posting people and training up new guys, front and rear crew. Four hours training per shift is plain ridiculous for stable (geographically speaking) experienced crews. How much night drums can a body take, and who says constituted crews are too inflexible? Works in FI (we used to do four months - remember?) :8

[NRDK]

Really Crab, with most of the civil crews having between 2500-5000 hours of SAR experience over and above their other flying. They have more than enough hands on to crack training with an allocation over 4.5 crew of some 50 hours. What the hell are you going to use 4 hrs for? 20-30 hours per month training and ops, ticks their comfort zone for feeling current enough to operate safely without flogging the good tax payers £'s No wonder you are looking forward to the Civ SAR option soon. The cost of running Seakings for that sort of monthly training is prohibitive

They will just do more at night with NVG requirement, less day training, which lets face it I easy anyway. Come to think of it the night flying without goggles will be gone too, double bonus!

With an average of about 8 shifts a month that is a good 2-3 hours per shift, fair due if you are spending 30-45 minutes bimbling to and from training each way like the Chivenor crews do into Wales then you will need more time. Otherwise just go to Baggy Point and crack on with he nearest deck whilst there.:ok:

[Al-bert]

NRDK - couldn't agree more! NVG not a black art either (well sometimes, esp in FI!). Did an awful lot of night mountains (and SHNI) pre NVG, goggles just make it a whole lot easier. Still have to allow a few hours for bimbling and waving though - and what about Santa deliveries? I once had three santas on board at once, obviously two were not real! :oh:;)

[[email protected]]

That is exactly the attitude to training - currency vs competency - that will end up biting you in the a*se one day. Professional aircrew don't have that attitude;)

[NRDK]

Crab,

Really? the last 20+ years of Civilians doing a THIRD of UK SAR has survived quite well thanks to the professional attitude, experience and training applied. It has not always been incident free but as you know, SAR is not without risk and every 'Service' provider can attest to that.

Hence the reason you are waving goodbye to the other Two Thirds, still you can be my co-pilot any day......WTF have the kids put in my fathers day cuppa tea! I'll roster you with another ex-crab as your Captain, better still ex Navy.:8

Al-Bert
True..bimbling and wave-ex's are essential and long may that be the case, after scraping someone plastered all the deck and doing your best for them and their family it is important to de-stress and wind down....I'm all for ice creams etc.

[Al-bert]

Things must have changed in the attitude to currency vs competancy since I retired CRAB! I saw a lot of the 'ticks on the board' generation, who just couldn't wait to get on with their ISS, Open Uni or whatever other career enhancing studies preoccupied them. A four hour training sortie that went from day into night and covered everything from day mountains to night drums was hardly quality training. As the RAF shrunk SAR became more of a career stepping stone for many who would never have entered the backwater that SAR had been when it was all commanded by a Wing Co in a green shed at Finningley! Flights reduced from nine to six, buildings got bigger and shinier, we gained a Group Captain, three Wing Co's and seven Squadron Leaders, while at the same time aircraft serviceability grew worse and fewer people got rescued. People had to really want to go SAR back in the day and they took a pride in their job that I have certainly witnessed the lack of in a number of pilots that I have served alongside. Yes, it was only amongst the pilots, many of whom would have preferred a posting to SH or FJ's and saw SAR as a temporary inconvenience.
The whole lot should have been civilianised round about 1988! :cool:

[jimf671]

Come to think of it the night flying without goggles will be gone too, double bonus!

I hope not. An overcast night in mid-winter, 20 miles and three glens from the nearest street-light, cloud-base 900m, 57N and <1 mlux is when you are needed most. Long-live the old-fashioned way. (http://www.kintailmrt.org.uk/image/ops/1989/winching1.jpg)

[Al-bert]

http://www.kintailmrt.org.uk/image/ops/1989/winching1.jpg

that's not the old fashioned way! It's a Seaking with latest technology lights. All we had when I were a lad were carbide lamps and we thowt us sen lucky! :}

[[email protected]]

still you can be my co-pilot any day. you never know - you might just learn something;)

[NRDK]

I'm sure I will, always learning something new. Day I stop learning is day I'll stop flying. :ok:

[[email protected]]

That's why you have to keep doing lots of training:ok:

[Tallsar]

Too much repetitive training can have limited value after a while. If not focused on those who really benefit, punching holes in the sky is a waste of money, puts unneccessary demands on engineering and logistics, and frankly is abusing the Queen's generosity given from what you said earlier that the RAF formal allocation is now 7.8 hours per month per pilot.
After a point, most people improve their knowledge and abilities by the challenge and experience of SARops of any sort. :eek: One of the upsides of moving to 10 bases is that the increased op tempo at all will now provide more SARops per base (particularly those that have lived on the quieter side of life) and assist that "learn by experience" process. :)

[[email protected]]

That's where the training teams, standards and upper management come in so that 'burning holes in the sky' is not the default setting.

SAREXs, cat checks, QHI checks and opevals can all give challenging scenarios to expand crews' experience and comfort zones so they are not 'learning on the job' but getting the benefit of other people's knowledge.

The hope is that it encourages crews to challenge themselves and each other on their own training rather than taking the 'easy option' of role trip 1 alpha. It seems to work from what I see on my Sqn but you will always get some lazy ones that need a kick up the jacksie!

Those that think they don't need the training are often the same ones who need it most but are happy operating inside their own comfort zone where they can look good.

[Al-bert]

Maybe it was better when there was less 'upper management' and more rigorous selection in the first place? :E

[[email protected]]

Maybe things have just got a bit more professional since you were doing it:E

[Al-bert]

then again, maybe not! :rolleyes: Still, civvy soon, chin up, or should that be Chinook, where your undoubted superior professionalism will find good company :ok:

[Support Monkey]

Heard that LM haven't submitted a bid. And then there were 4 (Bond, Bristow, CHC and NHV)...........

Who's next on the down select?

[jonwilson]

The Stornoway Civvy cab may have just picked up 2 RAF tornado crew from the drink. I hope they are okay. News is that 2 Tornado's crashed and therefore I hope the outcome of the other crew is also good.

Some news reports say it was a RAF cab and some say it was the Stornoway Cab. I do hope those civvy boys were up to the job if they did do it.

I say another because there was a similar accident a while back.

[sonas]

Jon wilson


Don't think it matters at this time who done what, all we want is a good outcome.:sad:

[Thomas coupling]

S92
EC175
and AW189

Let the games begin.


[Jon wilson - don't be a dick**ad all your life. Civvies not up to it??? Where did that come from? Why didn't you simply keep your comments confined to the very real tragedy of the mid air in Scotland?] :*

[jimf671]

There are aircraft AIS traces to the scene this afternoon from both Lossie and Stornoway.

[Tallsar]

As you would expect.... The ARCC would be expected to launch 2 SAR cabs for such an incident, especially with 2 aircraft involved.

Looks like hope has faded for some... RIP Brave Bombers. It may happen less often these days, but its a great loss whenever this occurs. :sad: Thinking of you and your loved ones.

[4thright]

TC - What are you getting at? Do you know something on the inside?

JW - Outrageous comment in the circumstances. :mad:You obviously really know sh*t about the professional SAR capabilities of the CHC Interim aircrew and their very capable modern SAR helicopters be they S-92s or AW139s. Perhaps you have been beamed up through a worm hole from the 1970s?

So sad for those that failed to make it back to the pub - heroes all

[SARowl]

S92
EC175
and AW189

Let the games begin.



Are you sure about the AW189 as it's not certified yet, therefore not eligible?

[NRDK]

Neither the 175 or 189 are certified yet so go figure? Respective bidders have no option for lot 2 in a lighter type, so perhaps they should throw in a larger certified type....but the DFT won't pay for that so the certification bit will be over-looked.

RAF CV's are flooding in now, sitting under the RN ones in HR.

[Wiretensioner]

Some news reports say it was a RAF cab and some say it was the Stornoway Cab. I do hope those civvy boys were up to the job if they did do it.

I say another because there was a similar accident a while back.

Utterly unwarranted remark if you are refering to last years Tornado crash. Oh and by the way it was an ex-RAF winchman in the back of the Stornoway aircraft on that occasion.

Wiretensioner
Ex RAF and Coastgaurd SAR!

[Hilife]

S92
EC175
and AW189

Let the games begin.

As a result of painful lessons learnt by both the MCA and SAR-H IPT during the early years’ of Interim SAR, I’d suggest the DfT will be very risk averse to new platforms and OEM promises, what with unproven capabilities, performance and availability, not to mention certification issues. As such, selection of a currently uncertified and unproven helicopter for UKSAR would require a huge leap of faith by the DfT and Ministers alike.

“Hope is a good breakfast, but a bad supper.” - Francis Bacon

For the follow on contracts to the DfT’s current UKSAR competition, I see credible options for both categories being vastly different, but for now, I personally don’t see any realistic competition to the current platforms. The question is who, not what?

But then again, what do I know?

[[email protected]]

Lossiemouth generated a second aircraft and crew very quickly so, although the Stornoway cab was diverted from another job to attend, the winching was conducted by the RAF aircraft.

Very sad day, RIP and condolences

[leopold bloom]

AgustaWestland Exhibits AW189 SAR at FIA 2012 | AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/agustawestland-exhibits-aw189-sar-fia-2012)

http://www.agustawestland.com/sites/default/files/AgustaWestland/AW966web.jpg

[jimf671]

The AW189 brochure has been around for a while with a SAR spec aircraft illustrated. This includes a view of the cabin arranged for: four survivors, two of whom are in stretchers.

[Gene Genie]

I don't believe that AW submitted a PQQ or are part of any remaining consortium in the bid. Also, I heard that it won't be certified until around 2015, so not a good bet for this process.

All just rumours though..

GG

[Bremen]

Not a rumour.
189 and 175 still both very much in the race.




Eurocopter is proposing to establish the UK as a ‘centre of excellence’ for the SAR variant of the EC175, should the aircraft be chosen for the country’s latest SAR tender.

A decision on the Long SAR project is expected early next year, which will see SAR services provided by contracted civilian crews under decade-long contracts across three lots.

Speaking to reporters at the Farnborough International Airshow, Eurocopter UK CEO Markus Steinke, noted that all the competitors – including future EC175 operators Bristow, Bond and NHV – had offered the EC175 as an option as part of their bid.

Steinke argued that given the early state of the EC175’s adoption, the UK would be able to shape the ‘basic evolution’ of the SAR variant of the aircraft should it be selected.

‘The UK SAR solution will be the trendsetter for the worldwide application of the aircraft in the SAR role. From the UK, we will also be able to serve the worldwide SAR needs,’ Steinke said.

He said such a ‘centre of excellence’ would include the customisation of the aircraft, training, simulation and development of specialist technicians within the UK.

Eurocopter envisions success in the SAR project as a way of increasing their footprint in the UK beyond the current 1600 employees and brought the EC175 to the air show for its first appearance outside France to help raise the profile of its bid.

The manufacturer claims the aircraft’s performance would give a comfortable 250nm radius of action, allowing it to carry out all but the longest range missions. Such flights could be made by the EC225, which may partner the EC175 in any Long SAR contract.

The company faces strong competition, however, in the form of the AgustaWestland AW189, which has also been offered as an option by all four competitors for Long SAR.

AgustaWestland used Farnborough to showcase the commonality of its new family of aircraft, with the AW159, AW169 and AW189 playing a prominent role.

CEO Bruno Spagnolini also confirmed that full final assembly of SAR-configured AW189s will be established in the UK should the aircraft be selected for the Long SAR requirement.*

[leopold bloom]

Call me a cynic but the AW Press Release looks like a blatant threat; "Should the AW189 be selected for the UK SAR-H requirement, all SAR-configured AW189s will be assembled at AgustaWestland’s Yeovil factory". The implication being that if it is not selected then it won't be built at Yeovil.
Still that all fits with the the Coalition Government's latest Stalinist and contradictory pronouncement on "picking winners" in British Industry.

On the other hand the 189 does provide sufficient room for 2 stretchers on the cabin floor with some space to attend the casualties, not something you could do in the 175.

At least the sun shone yesterday for a few hours, nice display by the 175 but wouldn't it have made more sense to incorporate a winching demo rather than just throwing it around the skies?

The Boondoggle continues.:ugh:

[4thright]

LB - I think from what I have heard (rumour control!) that AW always intended to do a lot of 189 stuff at Yeovil, but they can put a commercial case for moving full production to Yeovil if its kicked off and supported by a big UK order. I think about a 3rd of the bits are made in the UK anyway, as well as a lot of the design work. I think EC might challenge your view on what can fit in the cabin too.

Bremen - a German name from ireland. :confused: There is something Irish about your comments too. I would be very surpised if any of the Bidders have submitted both medium sized types (175 and 189) as part of the same solution - that simply doesn't make sense. As for your report that the EC CEO has said all bidders have put 175 in their bids? Where on earth did that come from?:mad::(:suspect: Another non-sequitor perhaps - your not a journo are you?:rolleyes:

[4thright]

Thanks for the reply Bremen

the "Irish" comment comes from a well worn expression about unintelligable and inaccurate statements....

If this is Rotorhub copy, then they need to get a better reporter and editor. Both companies claiming to have had their aircraft submitted by all 4 bidders? Somehow, I don't think so. In fact its complete rubbish. Its clear that both companies are using the opportunity to push their products. Not surprising, but I suspect many both at Bidder level and within the Department for Transport will find this a bit "off piste" and embarrasing given they are in the middle of assessing the Bidder's submissions.

shame the last competiton failed as many will rue the day that an all S-92 service has been excluded :ugh:

[Bremen]

4
Well explained "Irish" comment. Fully understand.
The single fleet 92 would have been hard to beat. Eurocopter and agusta doing a bit of last minute grandstanding before final tender stage of long sar.
Lets wait and see who bids and with what.
B

[chopper2004]

whats the story with the EC175? WHo are ECF teaming up with? Nice to see scale model on display at EADS chalet the other day

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_3429.jpg

[pasptoo]

looks a bit top heavy and very cramped inside - good luck with that one ! :E



Yes, I'm sure the "real" one will be bigger :rolleyes:

[Hedski]

How's it's TR authority???

[Fareastdriver]

Seems a a bit of a waste of time, effort and weight to have the wheels retract to the outside of the fuslage. The aerodynamic drag, wheels up or down, will be the same compounded by the nosewheel staying down.

[4thright]

Hey come on! If its French or Italian design its got to look good first...dangly rubber just doesn't fit the aesthetic dear boy! Is that an upturned nose I see on the 175 too? What's that all about, and how do you get a nice SAR radar in there?
As for the Milano Boys - I find it strange that the 169, 189 and 139 seem to have different oleos etc. What happened to commonality to maximise production efficiency and minimise cost? Oh and the drag factor would be the same!:E

[[email protected]]

And have they addressed any of the 139's shortcomings in the SAR role - small cabin, high nose up hover attitude, poor ground clearance etc?

Or is this just another helicopter designed to look good and go fast that will be bastardised into a SAR role rather than actually designed for the job?

[ericferret]

How many helicopters have been designed for the SAR role and haven't been "bastardised" for the job.?

If you did build one purely for SAR how much would it cost and how many would you sell?

[Aser]

but Crab, look at that 360º radar! ;)
http://www.eurocopterusa.com/images/news/features/2010/EC175-walkaround-7-lg.jpg

[NRDK]

Waste of money, just where do you think this plastic fantastic:ugh: is going to land as a SAR cab especially as it is a proposed machine for most of the Mountain serving SAR bases?

Have written to the Yeovil MP and the PM congratulating them on all the BRITISH jobs created as the AW189 would serve as a great SAR machine. The gain to the tax payer as it returns money back into this Countries accounts is a great spin. Not to mention that 175 is a carbuncle of the helicopter.

[detgnome]

And it's French.

[[email protected]]

Eric ferret - the problem is that no one has tried, despite the push for SAR aircraft around the world. It is not rocket science, you just need to start from the concept of a rear crew work place and a stable hover platform - then you add the bells and whistles. A Wessex with modern blades and engines would still give you 140 Kts and a brilliant winching platform - add decent avionics and glass cockpit and you are most of the way there - a modern version of the Sea King would be pretty splendid!

Sadly the model that is currently fashionable (apart from the S-92 which would be great if the MRGB was redesigned) is one of corporate cockpit and cabin design which is 'reimagined' as a SAR aircraft and it doesn't work!

[Saint Evil]

I had a go at redesigning the cabin for SAR and I have to say it was looking like a hood set up by the time I had finished.

Okay, still a bit low, but certainly capable of meeting the smaller helo requirements.

Add to the fact that it will be easy to maintain, swift etc....could be a good SAR Helo.

[MightyGem]

And have they addressed any of the 139's shortcomings in the SAR role - small cabin, high nose up hover attitude, poor ground clearance etc?
Or is this just another helicopter designed to look good and go fast that will be bastardised into a SAR role rather than actually designed for the job?
About the AW 139.

but Crab, look at that 360º radar!
Which is on an EC 175.
:D

[Hilife]

Which is on an EC 175. :D

By this, are we to take it that you refer to a radome shaped projection installed on a plastic mock-up of an uncertified platform (primarily designed for the O&G market), on display in an OEM's booth at an airshow? :hmm:

[Thomas coupling]

When is everyone going to wake up to the fact that the 'customer'; the MCA in this instance (like the MoD in all other instances) do not really have too much sway over the way these contracts run. Yes they perofrm due diligence w.r.t. finance and legalities; also other aspects of the procurement process......but the juicy bit, the pointy endy bit, the product end is always and will always be decidied by commerce. It is the contractor that will hold the customers hand and lead them into temptation, coax them into buying 'essential' this and future proof that. The customer has no way of outwitting the contractor in this regard as they have no SME in this area. This is why one ends up with a product that is modular/common/has synergies with other areas - it keeps costs down while enhancing profits.
The 92 to a lesser extent and particularly the 175 and 189 are all examples of government contracts in action.

Who in their right mind would either pay for a ground up designed SAR cab, or design a bespoke SAR cab. There isn't the demand. Far better to build a mainframe and then reshape it as and when the marketplace demands.
Cheap as chips.

Also don't forget - the government like these new technologies, it brings in new jobs, the new airframe is licenced in this country or parts of it are british built, etc etc and more people are employed. So yes the product costs more initially but down the line more people get jobs.
Swings and roundabaouts.
EG: If GB bought F18's instead of the new JSF, how many new jobs would it get out of the deal? NIL. Spend 10 times as much on a new fighter and you need all those new trades to service and maintain it, train with it blah, blah. Loads of new jobs. Unemployment drops, everyone is happy.

Oh, I nearly forgot - Long SAR won't have ANY military in it. No mil equals MASSIVE long term savings for the government. The old SAR mil pilots get 'absorbed' by the rest of the mil, so no job losses there and civvy street gets a huge surge of 'new' jobs. Unemployment goes down, government happy, government stay in power and repeat said process every few years.

[louisnewmark]

No mil equals MASSIVE long term savings for the government.


...and no joint customer without any formal interest in UK SAR, and no 'essential customer requirement' that has no benefit for the SAR service, and no last-minute fundamental (re)moving of goalposts, and...

:)

[llamaman]

Interesting that Crab proposes a 140kt Wessex or Sea King but still wants a level winching platform. Not possible I'm afraid; basic P of F applied to any tail-rotor equipped traditional helicopter should tell you that. The reason current modern SAR platforms hover nose-up is that they are 'kin quick in a straight line compared to the (level-hovering) models of the past. Surely,the benefits of getting to/from the scene ASAP outweigh hovering nose-up during the recovery?
TC is right in that there is no commercial gain in designing a bespoke SAR cab; there a have been very few aircraft (fixed or rotary-wing) designed that do not involve some form of compromise. An interesting debate for another thread maybe?

[[email protected]]

Level is clearly a relative term here, the Sea King doesn't hover level, it is usually about 4 to 5 degrees nose up - but compare that with 8 to 10 degrees nose up of the 139!

However, the Sea King(or similarly shaped helo) could be capable of 140 kts plus with the right upgrades.

The S-92 is the closest thing to a bespoke SAR helo at the moment although much of the R and D appears to have been absorbed into the Canadian Cyclone contract. That seems to have a pretty good mix of straight line speed and sensible cabin size so it is not impossible.

[llamaman]

Crab

I think 140kt plus for an upgraded SK is somewhat optimistic despite what Mr. Carson might say! Even if it were possible, the long term implications of fatigue on an already ageing and worn airframe would preclude it being a sensible option. I think it's (nearly) time to let the old girl go and embrace some more modern technology. Aircraft replacement is an emotive subject and, very rarely, is the replacement embraced. That said, I'm pretty sure that whatever type (or types!) appear on our shores in the near future will be a step forward in terms of performance/capability.

[Shenanigan]

Wouldn't seem that hard. Uh-60's go 155Kts and it's 35 years old and the new ones have auto hover. At the end of the day I'm not sure what a SAR aircraft needs apart from any other cargo aircraft other than a winch and some autopilot functions which is pretty basic stuff really that any production aircraft can do.

[[email protected]]

llamaman - the VNE for the S61 is 157 kts! Yes fatigue would be an issue but most of that comes from vibration because the Sea King has no vibration absorbers unlike the carson head which has bifilars.

Those that flew the aircraft in that configuration in the US during tests said it was v smooth at 140 kts.

Shenanigans - you are right but the helicopters that are often put forward for SAR are not 'cargo' helicopters they are corporate transport.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I had the opportunity to fly the AS 61N1 Silver in 1982 and we were scooting along at 144 knots but the collective was under my armpit, the Tq was 86% (max Cont) and the thought of that horrible gearbox would be too much to bear. The CT 58's were sucking up so much fuel you could watch the gauges fall before your very eyes.

G.

[jimf671]

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/phase-1-stage-2-sar.pdf

"The companies shortlisted to participate in competitive dialogue are:
1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd
3. CHC Scotia Ltd
Each of these companies has submitted bids for each of the three Lots."

[4thright]

That's a dissapointment. I was hoping NHV might get through for Lot 2 instead of all the usual bunch. This "competition" is looking less like one as each stage seems to go by.:ugh:Didn't the 139 look good last night? Lot 2 SAR by Royal Appointment - well that will suit me!;)

[SARowl]

An excellent aircraft for VMC transportation of Royals and business men - pity it's such a c**p SAR aircraft...

[IFR Piglet]

A relevant FT article FYI.


Groups vie for search and rescue contract - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c9dff9a-dbc8-11e1-8d78-00144feab49a.html#axzz23PVfGpqd)


Pig

[No Vote Joe]

Sorry, but I don't know how to quote! However, back in July, Thomas Coupling commented

"......but the juicy bit, the pointy endy bit, the product end is always and will always be decidied by commerce. It is the contractor that will hold the customers hand and lead them into temptation, coax them into buying 'essential' this and future proof that. The customer has no way of outwitting the contractor in this regard as they have no SME in this area. This is why one ends up with a product that is modular/common/has synergies with other areas"

Actually, the MCA and DfT have recruited a team of SME's from the RAF and RN who are current operators. So they may not be as green as they are cabbage looking!

[NRDK]

Actually, the MCA and DfT have recruited a team of SME's from the RAF and RN who are current operators. So they may not be as green as they are cabbage looking!

Actually No Vote Joe, the boys straight out of the RAF/RN have no 'commercial world' experience...that is the problem that leads to the issues that are being alluded to. Lack of understanding = the end product for the coal face will not be the optimum option that can be afforded and provided. Not disrespect to their SAR experience, just it is military based i.e not real world.

To keep their fat DFT salaries they will be 'yes' men, in the end it all comes down to money.

[No Vote Joe]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Mil SAR and Civ SAR were different? Surely picking up some poor chap from the bottom of a cliff is virtually the same whoever does the rescue?

Several of the gents involved are some of the most experienced folks the military have. No, they have little experience of contract law and high finance. However, they do realise when Company A states it can do a job with Aircraft B, and it will be so much cheaper, that in reality the aircraft is not suitable, practically it cannot do the task required and is therefore not Fit for Purpose and will cost shed loads more in the long run, or produce a lower level of service than currently provided.

Or is that too simplistic?

ps Still no idea how to quote!!

[jimf671]

... Surely picking up some poor chap from the bottom of a cliff is virtually the same whoever does the rescue? ...

Well no, actually. If the poor chap is below the High Water Mark then, by statute, the Co-ordinating Authority is different from if he were above it and may be the same organisation that it writing the cheques for the aircraft. In a real-world situation, this affects relationships between the organisations involved, reporting and recording, aircraft selection, training objectives, budgets, and, inevitably, to some extent, results on the ground. Only extreme care in the design of the contract process, open-ness, inclusiveness w.r.t. all SAR organisations, and a good grasp of commercial reality, will ensure the best outcome for all classes of SAR operation.

[Thomas coupling]

No vote joe - you are right to probe this corner of the universe, but still a little green behind the proverbial. Sqdn Ldr bloggs or Lt Cdr sproggins who leaves to join such outfits is better than nothing, undoubtedly, but when it comes to the juicy bit where they select the "right" aircraft, it's down to the band of lobbying contractors who have been exposed to all this time and time again. Atleast the winning team will have several in their team who have masses of commercial/legal/technical/strategic experience based on what the customer wants but biased to what the supplier needs to sell.
At the end of the day, the customer doesn't really know what they want (without being derogatory), they rely on the supplier 'advising them what is going on outside in the real world, what is good, what is bad, what is coming, what is lapsed, what the enemy have, what the politicians need. A most complex game led by some very charismatic and enabling individuals, who eventually 'hook' the client with the best interests of all concerned....you understand:rolleyes:

[No Vote Joe]

JimF : Are you inferring that if a chap is picked up in Bridlington Bay then it will be paid for by a different body than if he were on the top of Flamborough Head, and hence different pressure/lobbying will be applied to these organisations?

I appreciate the Police control overland rescue and the MCA maritime rescue, but I thought it was all coming under a DfT umbrella?

[No Vote Joe]

TC: Surely the DfT does know what it wants - no less of a service or capability than is provided by the Mil/Civ mix at the moment?

So if a company claims it can be done by a certain airframe, and the DfT's co opted military SMEs say "Be wary, we don't think it can" or "It may be able to technically, but it's very impractical", then the DfT should have some ammunition to fire back at the silver tongued lounge lizards and put the onus on them to prove it?

Or am I still green?

[NRDK]

Didn't say they couldn't do the SAR job.....said they don't know the outside commercial world and as such may lumber the Nation with some Froggy plastic fantastic promise after a fine trip across the channel lashed up with shiny trinkets and lunch at some EC type place. Not to mention, over burden the commercial operator with the sort of over the top MOD dream plan, that has cost the tax payer so much and drained the coffers.;)

[No Vote Joe]

Ah, I get it now. So when you say "with the sort of over the top MOD dream plan" and the DfT say "No loss of capability, No lesser service than now", it actually means we'll get what we can afford, we'll get what we pay for, and the deficiencies will be spun away and suddenly become enhancements!

Sounds like the Mil SMEs that have been working hard for this project are really wasting their time :(

[Thomas coupling]

Methinks you might be one of them too:suspect:
They are very low down in the pecking order for such a contract as this as to be almost imperceptable with the naked eye:ouch:
Contracts like this incorporate numerous strategic inputs: have the successful incumbents got a good track record in this line of work? Will they deliver? Can they guarantee spares? Are they robust enough in the eyes of the CAA/EASA?
Is the airframe futureproof? Will there be work for the british unemployed?
Is the deal for 20 x EcSH1392's a good long term deal? Can the public pay for it on favourable lease terms? On and on and on...None of which can be answered by several hairy ex pussers or crabs who know nothing else but to drive them!
Look at the previous lesson to show you what I mean:
Would the average SME recommend CHC after the SARH debacle. Surely their "advice" to the DfT/MCA would be: "Don't trust these guys". Yet...who is on the short list for a second bite at the cherry??? And who will NOT be persecuted in any shape or form for what happened last time: CHC.
It's not what you know old boy...it's WHO YOU KNOW and how they develop that relationship (short of corruption).

Look around you - show me a MoD/McA/DfT/government contract that's gone smoothly and I'll show you a contract where the SME's have been listened to!!!
Enjoy your SME'ing............................and welcome to the tribe:suspect:

[Manchester]

"Contracts like this incorporate numerous strategic inputs"

Damn right they do; this is someone else (the government) spending my money. If all NHS contracts were decided by a panel of nurses, and all policing contracts were let by plods, and squaddies decided how many regiments there would be, and motorists who drove the most miles in a year made the decisions on where new motorways would be built, who would look after my interests as a taxpayer? No government-funded services should be perfect, they should all be adequate and cost-effective, and insiders don’t vote for either.

[No Vote Joe]

"Methinks you might be one of them too"

Not me, but I know a man who can!! :ok:

[[email protected]]

The SMEs have a very limited remit - they have to confirm that the claims made by the contractor about the aircraft's performance and equipment are backed up with appropriate factual documentation (the RFM generally) and that said factual information is included in the bid.

I think there is only one aircraft type actually in the running as it has already proved itself at 2 MCA flts (and I'm not talking about the 139;)) and all the bidders have offered it.

At the point where we have to concern ourselves where the casualty is and who will pay before rescuing him will be the point at which UKSAR ceases to be the world-leading organisation it has been for so many years and the point where all the concerns about privatising SAR come true - let us hope it never gets to that!

[jimf671]

Are you inferring that if a chap is picked up in Bridlington Bay then it will be paid for by a different body than if he were on the top of Flamborough Head, and hence different pressure/lobbying will be applied to these organisations?

Only different Co-ordinating Authority and thus statutory responsibility. This certainly means different reporting and recording. That in turn means different relationships and ways of managing those relationships.


I appreciate the Police control overland rescue and the MCA maritime rescue, but I thought it was all coming under a DfT umbrella?

I can see no change ahead in the statutory position that the Police are the Co-ordinating Authority above the High Water Mark.

As far as I can tell, the Future Coastguard programme has considered a 2 MOC (Maritime Operations Centre) solution and has moved on to a single MOC solution. At the same time, the DfT documents for the SAR Helicopter Service contract process are written as though the ARCC does not exist and persons not distant from the situation increasingly talk sadly of ARCC closing and being absorbed into the MOC.

Many will remember the previous regime of 2 ARCC, north and south. Many will also have a sound grasp of the principal of redundancy in important systems. Rather than grasping the benefits of placing important centres for emergency response in smaller communities full of self-reliant people, and creating redundancy with two main centres, the current path appears to favour pulling everything into a single site between sprawling conurbations near Coastguard HQ. If somebody said to me that we should have combined (Air-Maritime) operations centres in say Peterhead and Falmouth then I'd consider that to be more strategically worthwhile, though for those who think strategic is about gongs and budgets it will make no sense whatsoever.

The police are nowhere in all this. It's mainly their problem (50 to 70% of jobs are Land SAR), but unification in Scotland, NPAS and Olympics and relations with News International in England, along with a raft of lesser self-indulgences, mean that they have taken their eye off the ball. They will wake up one day and discover that they are on somebody's front page for all the wrong reasons. A Sheriff or Coroner will have pointed out the error of their ways, and while they were sleeping, someone stole all the tools they need to fix it. All the MOU in the world won't dig them out of the hole they are making for themselves.

[jimf671]

Looks like there may be 2 ministerial changes at Transport. The old team were all SE-rail-season-ticket-clones aligned to the DfT's role as the successor to British Rail.

Is it too late to influence SAR?

The worst that could happen now is more rail obsessives, followed by a set of Heathrow obsessives. Please Prime Minister, can we have some people who understand real life across the whole country?

David Laws? Whoa! No, not looking likely right now.

[leopold bloom]

Defence specialist sets course for a future out of uniform | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/industrials/article3554324.ece)

[Spanish Waltzer]

Leopold can you paste the detail for those of us too tight to subscribe to the website?:ok:

[leopold bloom]

Here it is:
AgustaWestland is in talks with the Department of Business for financial support that would see the British defence division of the Anglo-Italian aerospace group transformed into one of the world’s foremost civil helicopter design and manufacturing centres.
It is understood that the Yeovil-based contractor is close to a deal worth tens of millions of pounds from the Regional Growth Fund.
That money would help to set up a production line for the AW189, which AgustaWestland hopes will be chosen by the Department for Transport for Britain’s search and rescue fleet to replace the Sea King — and then become a significant export product to the global oil and gas industry.
The funding will also help Yeovil to become a centre for state-of-the-art fly-by-wire helicopter avionics and for the sprawling south Somerset facility to become the global centre for the development of its AW609 “tilt-rotor” aircraft, which can take off and land like a helicopter but fly faster and further as a fixed-wing aeroplane.
Such technologies in time would be likely to make Yeovil a centre for the future development of helicopter drones, unmanned air vehicles that the Ministry of Defence will be ordering in the next decade.
Such developments would not only sustain 3,500 jobs at Yeovil but also potentially create a further 1,500 directly employed or in the supply chain, including at AgustaWestland’s new hub in Newquay.
“The next six months could change things dramatically for us,” Graham Cole, AgustaWestland’s UK chairman, said. “They are absolutely critical.”
AgustaWestland in the UK is having to migrate its traditional defence business — Merlin, Sea King, Apache and Lynx helicopters — because it has been told by the MoD that it will not be ordering any helicopters for the next ten years. AgustaWestland will have delivered its final order for 62 Wildcats to the UK Armed Forces by 2016.
The mountain and sea search and rescue order for up to 24 helicopters — the Department for Transport’s decision is expected in the next six months — will pitch the AW189 against America’s Sikorsky. For AgustaWestland, however, the contract is seen as a springboard for a potentially huge export market.
The separate decision on financial support from the Regional Growth Fund is expected by the end of this month. Support from the fund would offer some historical irony. The chairman of the body overseeing the regional growth initiative is Lord Heseltine, who caused a schism in the Conservative Party over the future of Westland in the Eighties.
The developments at AgustaWestland, which is owned by Finmeccanica, of Italy, are being watched amid the biggest shake-up of the British defence and aerospace industry in years — BAE Systems is attempting to merge with EADS, the owner of Eurocopter, a competitor to AgustaWestland.
Publicly, AgustaWestland is declining to comment on the merger. Privately, it was irked by comments made by Liam Fox, the former defence secretary, who asserted last week that AgustaWestland “has always been at the margins for Finmeccanica” and that it should consider whether it, too, joins a merged EADS-BAE. A company spokesman said: “AgustaWestland is the jewel in the crown of Finmeccanica. It is absolutely not at the margins.”
Joe Conway, trade union convenor for Unite at AgustaWestland, told The Times that new orders and funding would be “make or break” for Yeovil. “It will be the difference between this place being a global centre in helicopters or becoming just an overhaul and repair business,” he said.

[shetlander]

Ive heard the first of Bristow's new SAR S-92's has rolled off the production line and is now undergoing Flight tests. :cool:

[jimf671]

http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file20761.pdf :ok:

[[email protected]]

On the face of it, the TUPE regulations look like they should apply to military personnel at the existing SAR bases as well as the civilians at the 4 CG bases.

[Rescue1]

Nice one Crab you put a smile on my face on this cold wet Monday Morning :D

[NRDK]

Ha ha, I also LMAO at that one. Sounds like he is going over to the dark side...civilian? Hope he takes his boarding school allowance and golden military pension scheme.:D

[Thomas coupling]

TUPE is a two way street remember. It might afford you a shot at the 'new' position but you'd lose your private school allowances for starters. You'd probably be taken on at your current salaries too :=

[[email protected]]

True and since no employer would take on the golden military pension it is very very unlikely to occur, however - don't ask don't get.

If we got taken on at our present salaries it would still be better than what is likely to be offered given the minimum experience requirements for co-pilots, winch ops and winchmen: 750 hours (no twin time required) for co-pilots; 1 year SAR experience for winch ops and 3 months (yes 3 months) SAR experience for winchmen!!!

It certainly won't be a seamless transition with those pitiful levels of experience but it will be a cheap one.

One can only wonder how a minimum experience crew would cope with the sort of job that a Valley crew had last weekend - NVG hover in a deep gorge with all 245 feet of cable out winching through the tree canopy - either stuff like that just won't get done or crews will get injured trying because they don't have the experience or training.

DfT need to put pressure on the contractor to take a large proportion of those mil crews that want to come across in the locations they are currently based. That way you get local knowledge and lots of experience and ability.

[NRDK]

Crab...none of the current Civ crews would disagree with you on those pitiful experience levels. Driven by management bean counters and those weak minded Government types(easily swayed by the wave of the 'force hand'), in an attempt to allow low time experience an hence 'cheaper' crew members.:ugh:

Pensions... don't ask, you won't get anything like that.

With the amount of lights on the modern SAR cabs, having to hover on the goggles is not an issue. Good transit aid though.

[Manchester]

Quote: 1 year SAR experience for winch ops and 3 months (yes 3 months) SAR experience for winchmen!!!

Enlighten me. How much SAR experience to military winch ops and winchmen have when they first go on operations?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

How much SAR experience to [sic] military winch ops and winchmen have when they
first go on operations?


Good point - except that a brand new RadOp or Winchman will be crewed with a much more experienced Winchman or RadOp while the new guy is Limited Combat Ready (RAF practice - no doubt the RN do something similar). And with the generous amount of training available, the new guys gain experience very quickly!

[Manchester]

... and obviously civilian operators will try to crew all the inexperienced guys together and give them less than average training. Come on.

[[email protected]]

The difference is that a first tourist winchman or winch op will have completed at least 3 months at SARTU and then another 9 months on the OCU before completing squadron acceptance and then going on shift.

Additionally, our percentage of 1st tourists is about 10 per cent of the front line since the OCU only puts out a maximum of 2 courses per year. Many of our recent 1st tourists are ex SH with lots of helicopter experience. The DfT matrix doesn't specify any previous helicopter experience requirements for the winch ops or winchmen.

The training allowance is to be 50 hours per month for the whole flight - we would give 30 to 40 hours just to the new boy out of the 120 hours per month we are allocated.

Someone in DfT doesn't understand how important the co-pilot is on a SAROP if they are willing to accept no twin time and no SAR time - that is ridiculous.

The best option is still to take the experienced mil crews and give them a type rating.

NRDK - sometimes the only option is an NVG hover - no matter how good your lights are (and ours are pretty good) - it is sweeping statements like yours that show lack of understanding of modern night SAROps. If you saw the tight valley, surrounded by big wires that they had to operate in you might think better of dismissing NVG as a 'good transit aid'.

And btw it was an LCR radop on that job.

[Manchester]

The difference is that a first tourist winchman or winch op will have completed at least 3 months at SARTU and then another 9 months on the OCU

So one year then - identical to the contract for Winch Ops. All we're arguing about is the winchman. What is his prime skill - burning holes in the sky or paramedic?

Additionally, our percentage of 1st tourists is about 10 per cent.

Yep. That's much the same in civil SAR. Except a "tour" is about 20 years.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Manchester - your lack of understanding of the role of the winchman is stunning, and also very worrying. The are an integral part of the crew, aid in navigation, clearances (he is the PRIMARY safety guy going into CA's), as well as his primary role. That you display such a blinkered and naiive view is frightening, and another reason why those in the military who do this most demanding job day in and day out need to be worried. If people with your uninformed and incorrect view are in a position to dictate policy or recruitment requirements, then lives will be lost.

I do not expect a reasoned reply, but would be absolutely delighted if you could prove me wrong. By the way, I am not a winchman, but have had my life and my aircraft saved by them on many occasions. I am so glad I don't live in your world.

baldeep (7000+ hrs, 1000+ rescues)

[Manchester]

... and did you have 7000 hours before you were allowed to go operational , or did you have decent training, no experience and get crewed with experienced people who taught you on the job?

The key question is what is the minimum experience for a winchman? Crab and I agree that 1 year is fair for winch ops. My contention is that 3 months is adequate for a winchman given decent training, a "mentor" crew and a highly experienced crewroom.

Neither of us can prove the other wrong. All we can do is to apply experience and make a best guess. I've given you mine, now show me yours!

[Vie sans frontieres]

Manchester

This has been done to death before. I think most experienced operators accept that if you put a winchman on shift with just three months experience, you might get away with it for a while but you could also find yourselves in an awful pickle.

[[email protected]]

Especially if you don't give them the lion's share of the training allocation. Sadly there are some that think winchmen just need to be brave not trained and don't even do night wets for example.

[Spanish Waltzer]

DfT need to put pressure on the contractor to take a large proportion of those mil crews that want to come across in the locations they are currently based. That way you get local knowledge and lots of experience and ability.

I guess there is little doubt that the winning contractor will wish to reduce risk by recruiting a number of current mil SAR crews.

I wonder however whether the contractor, with his shiny new toys, would prefer to place a captain with lots of type experience and perhaps previous SAR or mil experience over a transferred mil SAR captain with lots of local experience but limited if any experience on a modern glass cockpit aircraft?

I guess one solution could have type experienced captains crewed with ex mil SAR experienced co's. not sure whether crab and his colleagues would stomach being crewed that way though....

[NRDK]

Crab..since when has Old time SAR ops been different from Modern SAR ops?
Pre NVGers got in those valleys too, unless there are some modern Valleys out there now? Yes those wires are a bitch and yes goggles would have made a fly away an option! The new contract will bring the goggles into the Civ cockpit at last and not before time.

Experience..well hopefully the respective base Chief Pilots and managers responsible will have a large say in the CV floated by for consideration. It has been the case up to now (mostly). That should enable the selection of the 'suitable'...'will make a good person to spend endless hours with in the crew room for years to come and a few scary moments in the cockpit enjoyable'. None of the SAR bases (Civ/Mil) want low/high time charisma vacuums.

The only option for staffing the future is to take on as many current SAR crews as possible that we know, followed by experienced Offshore pilots who are 'good eggs' and fancy a change, naturally as a co-pilot first.

[Rescue1]

Quote
"I guess one solution could have type experienced captains crewed with ex mil SAR experienced co's. not sure whether crab and his colleagues would stomach being crewed that way though..."

I don't think Crab will ever experience this problem, As I can't see him ever getting a SAR Job outside the Military with all the "slagging off" he's given the civ crews over the last 6 years.

We are just not good enough for him,

which is a shame because I hear he's a good egg in the crewroom even makes the Coffee.;)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Well I for one have enjoyed the banter with Cr@b over the years and it's difficult to contemplate life without a good well-informed (if highly opinionated) slagging-off.

Irritating at times but you were never in doubt where he was coming from and when all is said and done it's a proud man that defends his corner so well and we can all respect his commitment.

Like all professionals who speak as they find I'm sure if you give him a chance in the new set-up he will come round to at least recognising that there is room in this world for another point of view.


G. :ok:

[[email protected]]

Spanish - converting to a glass cockpit is hardly difficult, it took a couple of hours in a 139 to learn where to look for the information as it is displayed differently - after that it is a helicopter when all is said and done. After that it is just systems management which again is not rocket science although those coming from a steam driven simplex autopilot may struggle initially with the flexibility of a modern system.

As for mil in the co-pilot's seat, I think in terms of mission management that is where you need your experience on type dealing with the nav kit, radar, flir and comms and leave the handling to the guy/girl less experienced on type. I refer to my earlier comment about the low hours/no SAR/no multi engine requirement for the co pilots - they often have the highest workload on a SAROp.

NRDK - I did the pre-NVG SAR thing as well and the difficulty of rescues that can be attempted and the relative safety with which they can be completed are greatly enhanced with the advent of NVG/FLIR ops. And I am often the one accused of not moving on and embracing new techniques!!!

[jimf671]

When considering the matter of experience in the change to civilian contractor SAR, I think it's worth examining the period of transition in more depth. Although a quick look at the project programme might suggest a total transition period of 2 years and 3 months, there are other factors to consider.

- The transition started long before April 2015. Civilian SAR on a coastguard contract started in 1971. S-61 started in 1983 and mountain flying was routinely done from about 1990.
- In 2017, civilian crews will have been flying S-92 on maritime, coastal and land SAR missions in the UK SRR for 10 years. Some of what is learnt there will transfer to other modern types.
- Much is yet to be confirmed but next July may bring us more than many expected.
- It's not all about the contract. The regulator has a say in this too. The bidders' training plans are a vital part of both their bids and their AOC applications.
- Everyone takes time with new kit and this is as much about new kit as it is about civilians and contracts. As I understand it, each changeover is on an initial plan of three months. In the past, there has been appropriate flexibility in this matter.
- 12 bases become 10 bases.
- The world is watching. Some of them want a piece of the action too.

[Thomas coupling]

For once Crab, you should be grateful that the CAA will dictate the rules and regs - so inexperienced crews/low hours/"inferior" equipment....won't detrimentally affect the finished product. It WILL be fit for purpose (or no SARAOC).
They are the 'enemy' in the commercial world (tongue in cheek) in terms of smooth operational flow, but deep down inside - everyone wouldn't want it any other way. They have kept the Industry SAFE for the public. The UK has an exemplary record on safety and it's down to the "Authority" really - keeping commercial upstarts in line. Job well done methinks.
The Mil however (in particular the SARF) are only now (last year or so) coming to terms with 'MAA' (the mil equivalent of the CAA on paper (unfortunately not in practice)). And as you know this necessary evil will bring clarity, transparency and enhancements to safety, maintenance and ops, the likes of which you have never known. Welcome to civvy street old boy!
The future of SAR really is in good hands. Enjoy it when you bring your enthusiasm and loyalty across ;)

[[email protected]]

Hmmm...the CAA also allow all sorts of relatively dodgy 'SAR' operations outwith the UK to operate - I have yet to be convinced that the CAA have someone in the regulatory framework who has current UK SAR (including NVG) experience.

The DfT have allowed a very low spec for co-pilots which doesn't fill me with confidence - who advised them on that? the CAA perhaps?

I can't imagine that anything other than the S92 will fit the bill for the contract - it is a safe bet and already proven in role - the danger is that lots of non-SAR S92 drivers will cross over because they are already type-rated and with the company - then you just have to convince the CAA that SAR is just hovering really and away you go - SAR on the cheap with a few experienced captains and co-pilots with no twin time or SAR time.

Can't wait for tricky jobs at the back of Ben Nevis, Gloucester floods, the zigzag steps on the Pyg track on Snowdon - fantastic.

[Thomas coupling]

Oh Crab - and that's where you'd be wrong - big time. 3 of my former colleagues are FOI's with SAR experience up to their eyebrows. Thankfully (and this'll give you ammo) they are all ex RN - phew.
A reminder that the CAA are not allowed to advise - only regulate.;)

[[email protected]]

Navy SAR!!!!!! Oh well that will mean no PLB homings, no night wets, no procedural IF, no windfarm exercises etc etc.

In fact they probably think that 50 hours per month per flight is too much training since, in the words of a few ex RN SAR posters here, 'anyone can do SAR:E

Since the Navy only adopted NVG on SAR (after being taught by the crabs) in the fairly recent past, unless your FOI chums are recent departees from the front-line they won't have done that either.

[SARowl]

You go for it Crab@. Give the RN a good kicking while you can, because you'll soon be exCrab@...

[NRDK]

Not only excrab@... there will be no more RAF SAR to crow about:}

2017 can't happen quick enough, come on the S92 and AW189.

Shame the world is due to end at the completion of 2012! Now that will be a day to avoid duty...the call outs will be mega:ok:

[jimf671]

SAR callouts at the end of the world? Definitely a separate thread!

[jimf671]

Now we know why Crab didnt get one of the plum SME jobs in London with the posh hotel andall the trimmings. He just doesnt understand enough about what is going on. TC is correct to point out that there is SAR experience at the CAA. However, some of it is more relevant than RN or RAF.

[[email protected]]

I thought that might generate a reaction or two:E The RN paranoia about the crabs is most amusing;)

[Thomas coupling]

Crab,
you mustn't attempt to change history. The RN invented SAR from helos. They have kept it firmly grounded in that it is trully a secondary role, something that needs to be kept on the back burner once they realised there was no mystery to it. Remember - the RN spend 90% of their time flying over inhospitable terrain where ther option to land as an escape route during SAR missions is not available. They invented NVG way back in 1982 doing insertions in through the back door in the Falklands when you were only 25 (:D).
I don't recall any serious incidents of late where RN SAR cabs,have dented their aircraft - must have been the RAF then that made the news. :D.
Don't recall any RN cabs landing for ice creams :D.
Remember the motto: KISS. And this applies to SAR. The RN applies it and the civvies apply it. The CAA are all over the SAROC - it will work and without all the pomp and circumstance that the RAF attach to it :D:D:D. I thank you.

[jimf671]

To be fair TC, it is much harder to get away with anything when you're YELLOW. :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

So the RN invented helo SAR and NVG - wow! you guys really do believe your own press:)

Keep it simple - do no training and write yourselves up for medals every time you get away with something slightly tricky - that's more like it:)

[Spanish Waltzer]

From the RAFs very own website....

In the years just after World War Two into the early 1950s very little was thought about helicopters within the RAF. The RAF was mostly concerned with the operation of the relatively new jet aircraft, the Venom, Vampire and Meteor, which, because of their difficulty of operation and unsophisticated technology, saw a significant number of aircraft losses. Unfortunately these also led to loss of aircrew, whose operating area was no longer restricted to the English Channel area where current Air Sea Rescue forces existed. It soon became clear that an UK-wide SAR service was needed. Moreover, agreement was already in place, from 1947, for the Air Ministry to assume responsibility for operation and administration of all search and rescue arrangements for both military and civil aviation.

In the meantime the Royal Navy was evaluating the helicopter as a possible successor to the Sea Otter and as a much more economical replacement for the escort destroyer, which always followed an aircraft carrier during flying operations in case of accident. The Royal Navy was sufficiently confident to order 60 "Dragonfly" helicopters made by Westland Helicopters Ltd, a development of the Sikorsky R-5. The first of these were delivered in 1947 to 705 Squadron, HMS Siskin, Naval Air Base, Gosport, Hampshire. On the night of 31 January / 1 February 1953 extraordinary weather conditions in north west Europe resulted in devastating floods in Holland and along the east coast of England. The full operational strength of 705 Squadron was deployed to Holland to assist with the rescue of people from rooftops, flooded fields, boats and dykes and to ferry medical personnel, supplies and food to remote areas. Approximately 800 people were lifted to safety.

The RAF's interest in Maritime helicopters at this time was centred in the Air/Sea Warfare Development Unit that had evaluated the Hoverfly 1 and 2. However it discarded them when it became apparent that they had no useful function in operational maritime rescue or anti-submarine operations. It was not until the Air Sea Warfare Development Unit moved to RAF St Mawgan in December 1951 and the arrival of the new Sycamore helicopter in February 1952 that the development of maritime helicopter operations was given the impetus that led to the formation of the Helicopter SAR Force that we know today. SAR equipment at the end of 1952 comprised a rope ladder and safety lines. During a deployment of a Sycamore to RAF Linton-on-Ouse, for daily SAR cover at Patrington for Exercise Ardent, it became evident that a winch was essential for sea rescue operations. The first winch arrived in 1953 and was allocated to the newly forming 275 Squadron.

I know i know I'm just feeding the fish:ok:

[ericferret]

An explanation for why Gazelle XW900 crashed in Germany in 1976. Obviously NVG hadn't been invented and Rick Browne and Nick Cook must have been wearing Smartie tubes stuck to their helmets.

Case closed

Maybe this is a Spartacus issue.

We invented NVG, no we invented NVG e.t.c e.t.c e.t.c

[Thomas coupling]

Spanish: thank you for that confirmation. Crab take note :D

Eric: I refer the good gentleman to:UKSF Gear - Night Vision (http://www.eliteukforces.info/uksf-gear/night-vision/)
Crab take note :D

[I think with that Gazelle you were speaking of (from 660 Sqdn AH1), what with them being Army wallah's they most probably were flying around with Smartie tubes - having been told by the RN that they were sneaky beaky hi tech spec:ugh:

[[email protected]]

I think the Americans were a long way ahead of the RN when it came to helo SAR and, as Eric said, the RN weren't the first to use NVG in the brit mil - they might have been the first to use them on operations which is quite a different thing and lots of things were strapped onto aircraft without much thought in the FI.

Having used Gen 3/4 tubes in the FI (unlike most RN pilots) the nights are very, very dark and gen 1 tubes (of the sort they would have had in 1982) would have been of little use and probably lulled crews into a false sense of security.

Strange though that having 'invented' NVG in 1982, it took another 25 years to introduce them to RN SAR - is this because the RN SAR weren't as good as the junglies or just because SAR is seen as a backwater rest tour so no special equipment or training is required?

Not much of an advert for a new professional SAR service in UK aiming for a seamless transition with no loss of capability - depends on whose capability you are comparing the new service with I suppose;)

[Thomas coupling]

Oooh - scrapping the barrel methinks in para 1. Aren't we all talking about the use of NVD in SAR (read: operations) no-one cares who invented it (AEG, Germans). Come on you can do better defending than that :rolleyes:
The man who first flew the goggles into Chile in 82 was Nige North at the time - off to drop some unexpected guests thru the backdoor. He would take umbrage at them not being effective, methinks.:=

Atleast when the RAF use NVD in the Falklands, they are land based more or less and only infrequently do they drift far offshore - I watch the stats.

Remember the RN constantly fly to their 'home' which is a dark thing floating on dark stuff in the dark. And the dark thing is also moving too. A tad more challenging than flying to and from a ruddy big island. Ooops, nearly forgot - the RAF aren't allowed to land or take off from ships on NVD are they? Why's that then?

RN didn't need NVD because of their environment - overwater ops. It's only because of its maturity over the years that they adopted them much later.

As long as the essence of civvy ops retains its grass roots (firmly ensconced in RN overwater experience with a soupcon of overland RAF experience), they will do very well in the future thank you very much:p

Existing civvy ops - QED.

[Shell Management]

Crab

The Americans still use baskets!!!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

From the RAFs very own website....


That website is well known to be utter tripe!


The man who first flew the goggles into Chile in 82 was Nige North at the time


Who is he now?;)

[[email protected]]

Ooops, nearly forgot - the RAF aren't allowed to land or take off from ships on NVD are they? Why's that then? Nope and neither are RN SAR! That is because of the boat drivers not the aircrew - the Mk 4s are the only ones cleared for NVD DLs.

Unfortunately that attitude to not needing NVD overwater was probably a contributing factor to the very sad mid air in the gulf. Both crews would have seen each other had they been wearing goggles.

The soupcon of overland experience means you don't watch the stats, most SAROps in the UKFIR are overland;) Therefore a strong base of RAF overland capability with a soupcon of RN over-water experience (which the crabs do at least as well because we train more) has got to be the template for future UKSAR:E Strangely, given your strong opinion of the RN SAR, the majority shareholder in UK SAR is the RAF, followed by the MCA and then, in last position.......

And don't start mentioning Prestwick as the busiest SAR flt as a defence - you know as well as I do that their stats are based on medevacs every night during the winter months which, whilst being exciting due to poor weather are not really SAR jobs, more Air Ambulance tasks.


PS you mean scraping the bottom of the barrel not scrapping surely, and you went down through that earlier:E

[NRDK]

Well.... if its a CIVVIE future with endless crew room banter and getting on with the ex MOD oppo, then I'm afraid the CV list is as follows:
:ok: Ex RN whatever their non crab inferior skills.
:) Civvie willing to listen, learn and have demonstrated a life long career drive to aviate (not been handed a golden RAF bus pass @18);)
:8 Low time South Africans, Polish, Bulgarian and other EU migrant bus drivers.
:}Crab SH pilots
:\Army Pilots
:yuk:RAF SAR pilots
:{CRAB@

Actually Crab I might move you up above the Army if Wales Jnr applies, after seeing the vid he would win the willy waving contest and the Wafu's don't like to be out done you know.:ok:

[[email protected]]

NRDK - you appear to have your roots showing:)

If you rate bravado over professionalism then good luck to your future SAR setup.

Surprisingly, many crabs are good fun in the bar and the crewroom (even I have been described as a good egg on this thread!!!)

So in the end it is up to those in power to decide the future of UKSAR - an old RN boys club or something which melds mil and civ in a forward looking outfit with high standards who will provide the service the UK has come to love and expect.

[jimf671]

The future of UK SAR. I can see it now. Down the Legion, the crabs are in one corner and pusser's pirates in the other, sniping at each other endlessly, hoping there'll be some reservists in shortly who still have proper jobs and can buy a round. Meanwhile, overhead, there is the throb of an S-92 as its Polish, Irish or Swiss pilot heads it for the hill on another rescue.

Akcja TOPR pod prze

Longline rescue of alpinists - by Air Zermatt - YouTube

Deadly accident on the Matterhorn - YouTube

GOPR x LPR - YouTube

:ok:

[[email protected]]

Hats off to them in the big mountains but have you got any footage of them doing it at night or in poor weather?

[SARWannabe]

No footage at night that i've seen, but the documentary "Die Bergretter - Unterwegs mit der Air Zermatt" is well worth a watch, although foreign. I saw it a few years ago but don't have any links - I guess for a private operator the chances of having camera team in place are slim, and of little importance when dealing with something like this.

Air Glaciers, Air Zermatt et al response to coach crash (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/479965-air-glaciers-air-zermatt-et-al-response-coach-crash.html)

Air Zermatt were supposedly the first to do night rescues in the mountains many years ago (certainly in the region) in Alouettes and Lamas - no autopilot/autohover/winch-man-steering/nvg. Amazing. They've just taken delivery of their first bell 429, apparently to enhance their night ops.

[dieseldo]

By and large in most sane operations the ex service stuff is just a bit of banter for crewroom use only.

You do get the odd one (odd in more than one sense of the word) who still thinks he's in uniform. Most are more than happy to move on.

I only came across one operation where there was genuine nasty side to the ex service relationship.

I happened to walk into the the office behind the chief engineer and his deputy both ex crabs and was quite horrified to hear what was going on.

They were sorting out c.v's for a vacancy and the conversation went
ex army no, ex navy no e.t.c.

There was genuine animosity towards ex navy/army, which extended to training not being provided and a very nasty atmosphere.
You weren't in their little clique and they let you know it.

Thankfully a one off for me.
I find the ex service mix is all part of fun with each group including the civvies bringing their own expertise and quirky humour to the job.

[Ian Corrigible]

The Americans still use baskets!!!
Hell, we'll jump into a Bambi Bucket if it's all that's available.

Firefighter extracted in helicopter’s bucket as wildfire approached (http://wildfiretoday.com/2012/10/01/firefighter-extracted-in-helicopters-bucket-as-wildfire-approached)

I/C

[NRDK]

Thought you had a sense of humour:D

But,that said.. most qualified service/civ pilots with ATPL level qualifications would be able to get on with the job. Are they going to be a 'good egg' in the SAR world (crewroom & cockpit) is actually Very important.:ok:

[jimf671]

Hats off to them in the big mountains but have you got any footage of them doing it at night or in poor weather?

I do have some footage of a job at night at 4000m that was partially NVG. Single pilot, EC145, 11 x HHO. However, there is currently no evidence of it being in the public domain and I don't know if I am allowed to share it. 147Mb too, so a bit unweildy.

[LZ4]

What is the RoA of CHC's S-92s (Stornoway, Sumburgh, Shannon) with the aux fuel tanks ? Still air, 20 minute loiter on scene, MLA, 10% reserve.



Regards,
LZ4.

[[email protected]]

Around 300 nm I believe.

[LZ4]

Can full fuel be uplifted with the weight of the full SAR role kit?



LZ4.

[Lioncopter]

Yes... and still have some spare capacity.....

[[email protected]]

So the Irish CG won't need UK mil SAR to do jobs more than 160nm West of Ireland any more:ok:

[Lioncopter]

To be fair crab.... It should be Uk not uk Mil.... As coastguard aircraft have been down west of Ireland a few times too.... But I believe they should have the same rage as we have now as they are getting our aircraft.

[[email protected]]

Lion - yes, fair point:ok:

[LZ4]

Yes... and still have some spare capacity..... Is the actual operating weight close to Sikorsky's brochure figure of 18258 lbs in that case?


LZ4.

[Support Monkey]

A copy of Richard Drax's complete report to the Transport Select Committee

Save the Portland Helicopter | Richard Drax (http://www.richarddrax.com/content/save-portland-helicopter)

In light of the DfT's recent troubles, this isn't going to help!

[Vie sans frontieres]

The proposal is that cover for the Portland area will now be provided by 'alternate' helicopters at Lee on Solent, and Culdrose in Cornwall. Flying time from Lee on Solent is about 20 minutes and Culdrose, 40 minutes.

Sounds like pretty good coverage compared to many parts of the UK.

[[email protected]]

Interesting that the report completely ignores the proximity of Chivenor in its calculations - much closer than Culdrose - and the fact that Brixham is actually in the Chivenor patch.

The only reason Chiv doesn't do more jobs in S Devon is that the CG are very protective of their 'own' asset and will always call Portland first.

I think their use of '25% of the callouts are in the Solent Portland area' is disingenuous and I suspect it is a statistic only valid when considering the 4 CG flights rather than the full 12 UK SAR flights. I also expect that the lions share of South Coast callouts goes to Solent rather than Portland.

However, I do sympathise since it is the same flawed logic that was used to try and justify closing Chivenor and assumed that Culdrose and Valley could provide equal cover from a long way away.

Never mind, it looks as if we will be getting the 189 now AW has played its 'jobs in the SW' card and another SAR helicopter with a totally inadequate cabin will be foisted on UK SAR crews because it is cheaper.

[Rescue1]

Never mind, it looks as if we will be getting the 189 now AW has played its 'jobs in the SW' card and another SAR helicopter with a totally inadequate cabin will be foisted on UK SAR crews because it is cheaper.

Dream on Mr Crab M8 I don't think its something that you should worry to much about ;) because I don't think you will feature in their** plans when they start looking through CV's. ;)


** thankyou Fareastdriver for pointing out my spelling mistake :ok:

[Fareastdriver]

At least Crab is smart enough to spell their properly.

[[email protected]]

Another valuable and useful post rescue1 - well done:ugh:

[Rescue1]

Thanks Crab Pot Kettle and all that :=

[NRDK]

Sorry Doc, not ALL scrambles are via ARCC. The MCA directly task their assets with some requested taskings through Kinloss.

Rescue1- give Crab a break, even though he is a Civie/RN basher, he knows the writing is on the wall and is patiently waiting in the line(albeit near the back;) ) to get his hands on an AW189:ok:

[[email protected]]

Doc I know that Portland are regularly tasked directly by Portland CG, which is one reason Chiv gets so few jobs in S Devon which is, as far as the ARCCK are concerned, Chivenors patch. There will always be overlap of SAR boundaries and Portland are often tasked to Burnham or Weston if Chiv is on another job or the wind favours Portland.

Just last night I did a job in Culdrose's patch because we were airborne when the job came in so the response time was quicker - that is how the ARCCK works but only if they get told about the job first - if a CG launches their own helo first and then tells the ARCCK, then it is not a surprise that Portland get more jobs.

It is difficult to know just how the jobs share goes with the CG flts because we don't have visibility of their call outs.

As for 189 - this is a rumour network after all:) There still won't be enough room in the cabin for an ECMO incubator though:ugh:

[Hedski]

Potkettle.com there Crabbington. ARCCK regularly task RAF assets into other unit's 'patches' despite them not being the best option. Why? Only the controllers know the answer but I did speak to one a few months back who was completely misinformed about the speed, range and capability of the MCA assets and he was on duty at the time.... :ugh:
When I informed him that on a still wind day a certain north western based S92 would be quickest to the Ben he was fairly surprised.:eek:

[[email protected]]

I'm not saying the ARCCK controllers are error free - sometimes it is a function of not having aircrew with SAR experience in there any more.

However, they don't deliberately task RAF assets into MCA patches just to pi** you off, there will generally be a good reason, whether it is to do with weather, availability of MRT or doctors, likelihood of the job extending into night (esp in the mountains) or a whole host of other reasons.

It might be just to preserve your asset in your area or, as I mentioned in the previous post, because the RAF asset is already airborne and will have a faster reaction time (despite your superior speed of flight).

We all love to poach each other's jobs but get the ARCCK to update their information if you think it is wrong.

[Thomas coupling]

I beleive that is why the ARCC isn't going anywhere soon. It might even combine forces with the MCA at Fareham in the new future. The ARCC is unique in Europe, probably the world. Long may it last.

[4thright]

Ha Ha Crab...Is it you or the AW189 that is "totally unacceptable". You should be congratulated on your simplistic wind up efforts. I cannot imagine such a sweeping assertion is really what you believe.

The present AW139 does more than an adequate job in most circumstances for UK SAR, although no one is likely to agree that the cabin is the perfect size! But then what do I know... never operated the thing!;) The 189, if in fact it is being offered, seems to me to be an excellent aircraft to be useful in the majority of UK SAR rescues.

If I understand it right, half the new service will have an S92 sized aircraft, so on the few occasions such a sized aircraft is essential, then there will be more than enough to go round.

As for your incubator thingy, I am wondering how often that gets carried, and whether the taxpayer should be asked to spend millions more for such circumstances. A better approach might be the NHS providing suitable sized incubators at a sensible price rather than wasting millions on much larger aircraft than is needed for most call outs.

[shetlander]

I beleive that is why the ARCC isn't going anywhere soon. It might even combine forces with the MCA at Fareham in the new future. The ARCC is unique in Europe, probably the world. Long may it last.

I wouldn't be to sure about that. The ARCC will become the responsibility of the MCA and will (all going well) move the the new MOC building. From what I have been told this is likely to happen in 2015.

As for previous comments on Portland MRCC tasking their own helicopter, yes the may scramble their own helicopter but this is always followed by a call to Kinloss and 10 times out of 10 the ARCC will agree that the 139 is the best asset to use and that they are to continue to proceed.

The above rule can be applied to the likes of Stornoway and Shetland.

[[email protected]]

As for previous comments on Portland MRCC tasking their own helicopter, yes the may scramble their own helicopter but this is always followed by a call to Kinloss and 10 times out of 10 the ARCC will agree that the 139 is the best asset to use and that they are to continue to proceed. of course they will since by the time the call to ARCCK is made the aircraft is already tasked giving it an advantage when the difference is small between any 2 adjacent flights.

4th right - your ignorance of the incubator thingy tells me all I need to know about your SAR knowledge and how under-qualified you are to make comment on the suitability of a cabin for UK SAR. If all you have experienced is winching one or 2 people out of the water or off a deck then I am sure you will view the 139 as suitable - how many inland/ mountain jobs has the 139 completed?

The 139 doesn't carry MRT, MIRG, 2 stretchers plus a doctor, hovers 8 degrees nose up and has all the SAR kit stuffed down the tail because there isn't room in the cabin and is awful on sloping ground due to poor clearances. What will change with the 189? Yes they both go fast but for the most part that isn't what SAR is about.

[3D CAM]

Yes they both go fast but for the most part that isn't what SAR is about.

But it will be if the current plans go ahead!:ugh: Lee on a job, Culdrose training near the Scillies, Chivenor U/S,(sorry Swansea:rolleyes:) when a tasking in the middle of Lyme Bay comes in.:oh:
We did this to death years ago!!!!

3D

[SARowl]

The 139 doesn't carry MRT, MIRG, 2 stretchers plus a doctor, hovers 8 degrees nose up and has all the SAR kit stuffed down the tail because there isn't room in the cabin and is awful on sloping ground due to poor clearances. What will change with the 189? Yes they both go fast but for the most part that isn't what SAR is about.

For once I agree with Crab. The AW139 is inadequate for the job but has been made to work by the persistence and determination displayed by the Lee and Portland crews. The AW189 is a sop from the treasury and MCA because they know the S92 is better suited to the task.

On the matter of Portland being closed, remember that Lee covers their patch from 21:00 to 09:00.

[dangermouse]

same as a S92 isnt a Blackhawk

you can't extrapolate from one to the other

DM

[Vie sans frontieres]

But it will be if the current plans go ahead!:ugh: Lee on a job, Culdrose training near the Scillies, Chivenor U/S,(sorry Swansea:rolleyes:) when a tasking in the middle of Lyme Bay comes in.:oh:


Lee on a job, Wattisham U/S, Leconfield training in the Lake District when a tasking comes in anywhere in the east of England south of the Humber / southern half of the North Sea. How many square miles is that compared to Lyme Bay?

Sometimes coverage is less than would normally be desirable. Why so parochial and protective over one tiny little patch? The English Channel is extremely well served for rescue helicopters compared to other parts of the UK. Losing one of its flights is unlikely to make that much difference.

[[email protected]]

DM, perhaps you would like to detail how much bigger the cabin in a 189 is than a 139 then!

What is so disappointing is that AW had the opportunity of creating the de facto SAR helicopter but they couldn't understand the concept that the important working area in a SAR helo is the cabin, not the cockpit. If they had just increased the height of the cabin from 1.4m to 2m and left all the other structures pretty much the same, everyone would have been fawning over it and bought it worldwide.

[Flounder]

Helicopter companies can't invest all their resources into creating a de facto SAR helicopter. EC, AW & SIK all need to promote their model as the helicopter for all seasons, roles, environments etc. There will never be a perfect SAR helicopter as compromises to fulfil varied roles are part of the design process.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

VSF,

All valid points - no doubt 20 years ago people were saying "You can't close Leuchars, what if Lossie are on a job, Prestwick are U/S and Boulmer are training in the Lakes?" yet we seem to manage.


The ARCC is unique in Europe, probably the world. Long may it last.


Hmmm. How will they get any staff with direct experience of SAR once the RAF has no SAR aircrew? MR guys are great but there needs to be someone 'air-minded' there as well. The proportion of ARCC personnel with relevant experience has already been something of a problem in recent years, and it's hardly likely to get any better beyond 2015.

[Support Monkey]

Anyone heard any news on whether there has/will be a down select today?

Return of Revised Proposals (Phase 3)

15 October 2012

Issue ISFT

23 November 2012

Return of final tenders (Phase 4)

14 December 2012

Notification of intention to award contract (Phase 5)

7 March 2013

Sign contract

19 March 2013


Extracted from the DfT ITPD
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/part-1-instructions-to-bidders.pdf

[Thomas coupling]

Good point Crab. AW of all people have so much insider inforamtion and data on SAR capabilities and limitations, they could easily design one from scratch that would seel by the bucketfull - the world over. They did it with the 139, why not a bigger dedicated brother (say a 199?).
Now that they have received a hand out of £46 million to keep Vl open longer you'd think they also have the ear of the government too.

Corect me if this has changed, but I believe the Long SAR proposals are about 6 weeks behind, currently.............I would imagine we may hear after Christmas? Anyone?

[Harry the Hun]

Helicopter companies can't invest all their resources into creating a de facto SAR helicopter. EC, AW & SIK all need to promote their model as the helicopter for all seasons, roles, environments etc. There will never be a perfect SAR helicopter as compromises to fulfil varied roles are part of the design process.

Well, Sikorsky did exactly that 60 years ago with the Sea King, didn't they? Best SAR Helicopter for decades.

[chopper2004]

Hmmm, is there any successful civil formerly mil SAR model in use worldwide we could look at / study? I had thought of the RAAF SAR which has been contracted out with S-76 and operated by CHC (with RAAF titles but not roundel) since the rotary wing assets went to the Army and the only SAR a/c in use by the RAAF were UH-1H Hueys IIRC.

The 76 is good in use with INAER - under contract to various SAR agencies in Spain and has served its time with Norrlandsflyg till Aw139 ENTRY . Unfortunately for Hong Kong GFS and its predecessor Auxillaries - the 76 was the wrong ship which is why the EC225 was picked so I am led to believe.

I agree with Harry, that the S-61 in its mil Sea King / Jolly Green / R and civil N has and is the best SAR platform.

Cheers

[3D CAM]

Why so parochial and protective over one tiny little patch?

Because that is where I choose to live!
Also....I believe that chopping Boulmer is wrong! In my opinion, we should be enhancing our world beating SAR capabilities, not cutting them!!
3D
Just had a brilliant idea... Make every alternate base around the U.K. 12Hr. That would save even more money!:rolleyes:
Sorry.. too much food with my evening wine!

[Vie sans frontieres]

Because that is where I choose to live!

Can't fault your honesty. However, your argument's in tatters.

[Geoffersincornwall]

....... when the MILSAR in the UK is long dead and buried?

It has been said that in the context of medical care each generation from time immemorial has been more than satisfied with the quality of medical care delivered by that generation of medicos. That is medicine! Strange to contemplate being happy about being blead but it was so and folk were happy to be on the receiving end of what we now know are crank cures. In times past that was the way it was!

The same might be said about SAR (of all shades) after all, can anyone recall a time in our history when there was a public outcry at the failure of our SAR assets to deliver a service that fell short of expectations? (And I don't mean a public outcry in the shape of a rant by CRAB, but a genuine, plastered over all the newspapers, public campaign to 'right wrongs').

The prophets of doom may complain about the profits of gloom - but I seriously doubt that the streets of Britain will see marches to complain about crews that don't deliver the goods. On the contrary we have a proud history of stepping up to the plate and getting the job done by individual dedication, skill and adaptability. Would we all love to work with the SAR equivalent of the Spitfire? Of course, but we didn't do so bad with Hurricanes and Mosquitoes to mention just a couple of 'make-do' types (tongue in cheek before I get lynched by Hurri-fans). But you get my drift. Nobody, in 25 years time is going to look back on the next ten years and say "they failed, they let us down, they could not do the job."

G.

[jimf671]

... sometimes it is a function of not having aircrew with SAR experience in there any more. ...

Not everything is about aircrew. Not all SAR is about helicopters.


... However, they don't deliberately task RAF assets into MCA patches just to pi** you off, there will generally be a good reason, ...

Like being able to see in the dark or being able to hear what's going on?

[Flounder]

Well, Sikorsky did exactly that 60 years ago with the Sea King

Ah, 60 years ago. That must have been a wonderful time, maybe we could just keep using Sea Kings ad infinitum? Nothing will ever be as good.

I think the "60 years ago" part is the key issue. I should perhaps have said no modern helicopter company. It's never going to happen as the O&G, charter, (passenger config aircraft generally) etc. market beats SAR everyday.

Just compare S92 in SAR usage to others? Same with AW139 and eventually AW189. SAR is not a big enough deal for a company to invest in the perfect solution.

[onesquaremetre]

but I seriously doubt that the streets of Britain will see marches to complain about crews that don't deliver the goods

Unless civilian SAR crews go on strike - something military crews aren't likely to do.

[[email protected]]

Not everything is about aircrew. Not all SAR is about helicopters. The A in ARCCK is for Aeronautical! So in this context it is all about helicopters since we don't have any other airborne assets - and who knows best how to operate helicopters? oh yes...aircrew:ugh:

Geoffers - would you like to go back to the NHS and ambulance services of the 60s? I am often the one accused of living in the past! Progress and an increase in capability is often hard won and the harsh fact that many won't acknowledge is that the RAF have taken the professionalism and true (rather than assumed) capability to a level that should not be allowed to slip.

Contractorisation is a fact of life with SAR, I fully accept that but not if it is simply an excuse to make money out of providing a lesser capability which won't get questioned because so few of either the politicians or the public actually understand what they are talking about with SAR.

It would only take one inquest into a major SAROP where people died to show limitations of capability and highlight if corners had been cut to get the service established within budget.

The 139 is selling like hot cakes but it is what they have available rather than the best tool for the job - a 139 with a bigger cabin would sell just as well but be far more useful.

[jimf671]

Yes Crab. A for aero. SARF, MRS, Nimrod & signallers are well represented which is appropriate diversity. What do you think you'd get from the weakest link ... eh ... I mean the Coastguard?

[jimf671]

The original version of the Tech Requirement Matrix is on the DfT site. Worth a look.

Certainly kicks the Sea King out. 139 too I'd say.

[[email protected]]

Jim - the boys and girls do an excellent job in the ARCCK - I was just highlighting that they are not perfect (which I am sure they would admit) and that some mistakes can be put down to lack of exposure to front-line SAR duties.

The MCA don't pay their boys and girls very much and, whilst most of them are hardworking and diligent, there is a lot of variation across the country from quite outstanding to the very dire when it comes to controlling airborne assets.

[SARowl]

a 139 with a bigger cabin would sell just as well but be far more useful.

and call it the AW189?

[Geoffersincornwall]

CRAB - are you suggesting that we should equate the equipment, protocols and procedures that will be in use during the next decade are on a par with those in use in the '60s? You may find a few colleagues who disagree with that assertion.

The essence of my post is that we have a tradition of getting the best out of whatever equipment we are given and I doubt that any perceived lack of capability on your part will be sufficient to bring about any mass protests in Parliament Square. The job will be done, low cabin ceilings or no low cabin ceilings! I think our lads and lasses are made of sterner stuff.


G.

[Thomas coupling]

Geoffers: You have hit the nail on the head - absolutely.

The public couldn't care less what goes on with this SAR contract, it probably barely registers on the richter scale for joe average. All this bickering is in house barrack room bickering about who has the biggest willy.
Now - the government AND INDUSTRY know this, which is why "close enough will do" - will......do! Whether the AW189 with extended fuel tanks and icing clearance can carry 9 pax standing upright in the back - just flew way way way over the heads of the bloke standing next to you in the pub.(pun not intended)

This is why - all one CAN hope for is that INTERNALLY, the operatives do the best they can with the equipment on hand...and safely.
It's happening to the national police air support units - does anyone here really know what is going on during nationalisation? Do they CARE?

You can sell anything to joe/joanne public as previous governments have shown...what matters is how it's managed when the wheel falls off. [And governments have a solution for this..........they move on before it falls off:E]

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - on one hand you have said that no-one from the past complained about being rescued or doctored because the technology was of the time and on the other you don't think capability that exists at the moment should be protected and then enhanced in the future.

I completely agree that no-one really cares outside those of us in SAR - the same as no-one really cares about your concerns over pilot quality that you have alluded to on other threads - as long as the job gets done (however badly) the bean counters go away happy and the contract boxes keep getting ticked.

This just isn't sustainable because unless those of us in the know make our concerns loud and clear, the erosion of skill end expertise will continue until it gets so bad that a catastrophe occurs. Then everyone throws their hands in the air wondering how this has happened and the recovery of the capability becomes very expensive.

Internally everyone will do their best but why should they be hamstrung with equipment that is not fit for purpose?

I know you and TC are both ex-RN which may go some way to explain your lack of concern for the working conditions of the rearcrew but DfT will look very stupid when there are a spate of back and knee injuries to SAR rearcrew due to the low cabin ceiling and SAR flts are off state - it is much like the pickle we find ourselves in now because upper management ignored all the warnings they were given about SAR rearcrew manning for many years.

[[email protected]]

SAR Owl - yes if they had just made the cabin 2m tall instead of 1.4m.

[Geoffersincornwall]

... you are right Crab, as I pronounce the lack of competence in the global pilot workforce I am deafened by the silence and disinterest and in that respect I must empathise with your concern.

Unfortunately the reality we must both face up to is that the only joy we will experience will be Pyrrhic. When it all turns to rat-s**t we can claim, from our bath-chairs, that "We told you so."

I don't expect this conclusion will make you feel at ease about this dilemma but for those of us who used to be where you are and know what you are talking about we are just far enough away from the coal-face to realise that in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter one iota - the NHS will pick up the broken bodies and the compensation payments to crippled back-seaters will come out of another budget.

G. :{

[jimf671]

Does Joe Public care?

If it appears on the TV news that £3bn has been wasted on something sub-standard then quite possibly. That will take a tragic event to highlight it unfortunately.


Privatization:
Can it all go wrong?
Is there any way back?

Better ask the Swedes.

[[email protected]]

Sad but true Geoffers - doesn't make it any easier to watch the slow motion car crash though:ugh:

[jimf671]

Invitations to submit final tenders will be issued before Christmas apparently.

[Support Monkey]

More questions asked of the DfT by the Transport Committee about their procurement process and lack of public consultation

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/Chair%20to%20Patrick%20Mcloughlin%20-%20SAR%20Helicopters.pdf

We will have to wait and see if they can keep everyone happy and still get the tender out!

SM

[[email protected]]

She askes a lot of pertinent questions in that letter and I don't think she will like some of the answers, especially when it comes to the closure of 2 bases (even if one is not 24 hours) being all about saving money.

As for military involvement - it was specified (albeit vaguely) in the last process and should be in this one, but because SAR has slipped off MoD's to do list and the contractors (so far) won't make any commitment to directly transferring mil crews to civ and DfT just want the contract signed it won't happen.

[NRDK]

:ok::rolleyes:Crab still trying to get straight in that door, sorry mate firmly shut, so do it the way all the ex mil guys did....join a 'Q' after jumping through all the hoops. On the bright side they will need someone to whinge & bitch to management about the problems and issues with the Civvie platforms, equipment & training shortfalls so you would be ideal...seriously. They will need an experienced SAR person to do that 'bombing run', you'll eventually get shot down though or just ignored like the MOD have done to you. Your mission....:ok:

[[email protected]]

Crab still trying to get straight in that door, sorry mate firmly shut just as it was last time you mean?

Many a slip twixt cup and lip as the saying goes;)

[queueaitcheye]

Gotta say - NRDK has a point about the queue!

[[email protected]]

But how many in that queue are current UKSAR/NVG experienced?

[NRDK]

None of the RAF/RN were before NVG's and as for SAR training well nice if they have it, if not then it's co pilot training first. Yes we'll no doubt need those RN chaps with a licence in the wings.

[Thomas coupling]

Ahh: The managed transition oh wise one. That time frame between endex milSAR and comex civSAR.
Let's see what the pool consists of and what the demands are:
How many crews does Long SAR need to comply with its regulatory comittments? How many milSAR crews does the MoD want to get shot of.

Assume the following position :eek:

CivSAR may only need half of the (possibly) 16 crew complements for the (possibly) 16 new a/c. The rest come from civ industry.
Some milSAR crews may wish to stay on and further their career in SH.
Some milSAR will find that private schooling is not an option in civSAR.
Some milSAR will not wish to fly in certain geographic areas of the UK.
Some milSAR have already missed the ATPL(H) bus.

Assume, as a result of the above, there are too many places and too few applying. Will the managed transition cater for this or will we see a lot of mil pilots left high and dry? Because, believe me the MoD want shot of SAR.
Who will manage the "Managed Path" oh wise one :uhoh: Who cometh over the horizon............................................

[pitotprobe]

Plenty of us out here Crab!

[queueaitcheye]

I believe the SARF are describing it as a 'managed path' to their guys.

Ever so slightly arrogant don't you think?!

[jimf671]

... believe me the MoD want shot of SAR. ...

Tough.

Somebody bought them carriers.

How long do you think Crab would take to get his sea legs?

[Pol Potty mouth]

queueaitcheye said

" I believe the SARF are describing it as a 'managed path' to their guys. Ever so slightly arrogant don't you think?!"

Quite the opposite actually. SARF HQ's latest missive on the subject makes it emphatically clear that it will not be a quote managed path unquote.

You really should be careful what you write here if you don't have access to the full facts, lest others might start to accept hearsay as fact.

[queueaitcheye]

Could you perhaps present us with the facts then? We only have hearsay to go on!!

[Hawksridge]

If we had the facts it would kind of spoil the fun of this being a 'Rumour Network!

On another note, I can't help noticing repeated references to 'join the queue' ..... Wouldn't it be better to select people for future civvie SAR positions based on relevant experience and qualifications rather than how long you've been in the queue? Or have I missed the point again.......

[bigglesbutler]

Or have I missed the point again.......

CRM is a vital part of modern aviation culture, it promotes a safe operating regime and allows multiple people to work in a crew effectively. Some people have shown a side of themselves that would seriously damage their credibility when it comes to CRM.

How can you trust someone who has spent the past 3 - 4 years bashing you and your colleagues?

Si

[queueaitcheye]

'On another note, I can't help noticing repeated references to 'join the queue' ..... Wouldn't it be better to select people for future civvie SAR positions based on relevant experience and qualifications rather than how long you've been in the queue? Or have I missed the point again.......'

Agreed. There are a pool of highly-qualified and skilled people out there - civvie and ex-military. More capable than some would have you believe. When was the last time Crab or one of his SAR Gods directed a radar letdown for example?

The issue is that there is a fair amount of military flak going up; perhaps in an effort to circumvent the licensing process that others have had to toil through....

[[email protected]]

We direct radar let downs all the time but I think you mean conduct a radar letdown as a co-pilot using a weather radar not actually designed for the purpose and not cleared for IMC use below 1000'.

When was the last time those people in the queue conducted NVG mountains as that gets done a whole lot more than radar letdowns?

CRM is about telling the truth and not ignoring the elephant in the room - if you thkink you can judge anyone's CRM skills based on an internet forum I think you need more training;)

[jimf671]

... conducted NVG mountains as that gets done a whole lot more than radar letdowns? ...

I suppose that depends whether you are reading MoD-DASA reports about SAR or MCA reports.

[[email protected]]

True but the MCA are hardly going to write negative reports on jobs they can't do and capability they don't have.

And only 2 of the MCA flights are likely to get involved in night mountains anyway.

As for licensing - do you actually need a licence for a State function like SAR?

[jimf671]

... As for licensing - do you actually need a licence for a State function like SAR?

No idea.

What would be good is if we could buy the kit, train the people and get on with the job. However, because we are British then no matter how good the poor sods on the front-line are, we need 7000 bureaucrats behind them working for years to discover new ways of obstructing their talents.

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: some may say that police a/c are state a/c.

[cyclic]

We direct radar let downs all the time but I think you mean conduct a radar letdown as a co-pilot using a weather radar not actually designed for the purpose and not cleared for IMC use below 1000'.

Crab, I don't think you have seen or used these inferior radars or you might not have made this comment. I have used them and they are more than capable of closing a boat to 0.25 of a mile. I was quite surprised how good they are. Having the whole picture in front of you is also very handy. They are pretty good at mapping the coast as well. No doubt there is better kit available but this is SAR not finding a coke can in the middle of the Atlantic (something I have also see and done). If you need to get closer, you probably shouldn't be there.

[[email protected]]

Yes there is better kit out there and has been for many years - the present military SAR has that capability and it will be lost come SARH.

'Pretty good' at mapping the coast just isn't good enough and, having seen the radar in action on the 139 and its limited field of view, you are poorly placed to manoeuvre with any sort of realistic clearances.

The weather radar may be adequate for a straight line let down in uncongested waters to a big target but for anything more complex it is simply unsafe.

You don't say how big a boat you would let down to 0.25 nm but I suspect it is not a small fishing vessel or lifeboat.

Will your weather radar pick up a windfarm survey anemometer mast? They are all over the place.

When it is your life on the line would you rather have the radar that can see dolphins and water breaking over sandbars (so it will definitely see anything nasty you might bump into) - or would you rather have a limited arc radar only designed to see bad weather?

If you need to get closer, you probably shouldn't be there.that is exactly the kind of remark that allows bean counters to reduce capability that might actually save lives. I, like lots of others, have had to get closer than 0.25nm both to vessels and the coast on jobs and we would not have been able to complete the mission if all we had was a crappy weather radar.

[detgnome]

Will your weather radar pick up a windfarm survey anemometer mast? They are all over the place.

I've been flogging around at low level overwater in a Sea King and they didn't show up on it's radar....

[Sevarg]

Must be hard to pick up anything with the MGB in the way!!! OK to see where you've been, so maybe you back in:rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

Detgnome - maybe you need RAF Radops rather than RN observers using the radar then because ours see them all the time;)

Norma - 75m minimum radar range on the mighty Sea King:ok:

I would still like to see who has approved a weather radar for IMC operations over water below 1000' - it is very different using it as an additional aid for a procedural rig letdown to using it as a stand-alone item for manoeuvering at low level below safety alt.

If it is part of the SAR AOC, who has sanctioned the use of the radar in this way and who has done the trials on its resolution and detection capability?

[Hedski]

Honeywell Primus P701A can pick up a marker buoy on a normal day, flock of birds on the surface on a calm day in Ground Map 1 and Ground Map 2 modes. When position verified and radar used for letdown the aircraft may be flown to system minima (GMAP1: 0.07nm, GMAP2: 0.12nm) and SAR AFCS minima as promulgated in relevant Company SAR Operations Manuals approved by the UK CAA.

[detgnome]

Detgnome - maybe you need RAF Radops rather than RN observers using the radar then because ours see them all the time


Duh. Mk3/3a..... Pretty sure the crews I flew with were predominantly RAF, aside from the odd USCG or RN interloper.

[Lioncopter]

....701A can also pick up other aircraft quite well too :) its nice seeing a radar return of a airborne TCAS contact :)

...if tilt'ed and set correctly.

[High_Expect]

Well mine's 7 1/2"!!!!!

G.... and I thought fast jet mates were supposed to be pretentious.

[[email protected]]

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/Helicopters-documents/Primus_700A-701A_for_SAR.pdf
minimum radar range 450 feet!

Position verified how?

Its a weather radar and the manufacturers do not claim otherwise.

[Hedski]

Ground mapping modes don't detect wx unless severe and aren't supposed to. Verification by cross reference tends to be the norm.

[Hummingfrog]

Hedski

Out of interest what is your procedure for getting to a cliff sticker on say a steep sea cliff/rockface with a 35-40kt directly onshore wind, with a visibility of say 300ft at night?

HF

[Max Contingency]

Its right there in the Ops Manual next to the procedure for rescuing one legged unicyclists going round in circles. In a crewroom with 50 collective years of military SAR experience, not one of us have ever had to do that for real and if I had been tasked to fly that scenario in a Sea King I would have taken a look but I would still have preferred to leave it to a cliff rescue team. There is no such thing as a purpose build SAR helicopter and that includes the Sea King, the S92 and the AW139. Yes an anti submarine warfare radar will always be more capable than a commercial radar but whenever you change aircraft there will always be gains and losses. If you are lucky enough to fly a modern helicopter then you will soon appreciate that things like the ability to climb IFR in icing, the ability to fly to the casualty at 150kts+ and a whole host of other benefits that you will use on a daily basis should more than offset any decrease in radar capability.

[NRDK]

And a 40kt tail rotor authority to cope with that wonderful cliff job:rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

There is no such thing as a purpose build SAR helicopterYet the venerable Sea King/S61 is widely acknowledged as the best SAR helicopter ever built with a track-record that modern helicopters can only dream of.

The S-92 is proving its worth and I would much rather have it than the AW189 but whichever way you cut it a 120 degree weather radar does not give you the safety and flexibility of a 330, whether it is making approaches to land in poor weather or operating in a multi asset environment over the water. You need to see what is around you, not just what is in front of you.

What do you do over the sea at night below 1000' (effectively IMC below SAlt) since you don't have NVG? How does your weather radar make that legal or safe or is the CAA clearance only for the let down phase ie 1000' to the hover rather than manoeuvring at low level?

As for the 150 kts and the icing clearance - neither of those are much good at low level over land at night in poor weather - you won't be going fast because you can't see much and if you climb for IFR you won't get down again to do the job.

I know, I know, everyone will be getting NVG come SAR H - that was promised before and still hasn't happened - if the CAA were serious about it, civ SAR would at least be trialling it now ready for the future.

Detgnome - more time on the radar required then because I seem to fly with Radops who can see anemometer masts;)

[detgnome]

Detgnome - more time on the radar required then because I seem to fly with Radops who can see anemometer masts

Give or take a few departures and some new arrivals, they are the same radops....

[Hedski]

Manoeuvring low level conducted within operations manual, radar and afcs system limitations as approved by the OEM and the CAA.

[jimf671]

There has been clear recent evidence that amongst the crucial capabilities for land SAR aircraft are seeing and hearing in the fullest possible variety of conditions that occur on a cluster of sub-arctic atlantic rock outcrops like these ones. [Sea King: high marks. S-92: must try harder.]

Unfortunately for the Sea King, there a little bit of a hot'n'high spec (Scottish version of hot'n'high) in the new contract that makes it look its age.

Speed is useful and a recent near 200kt AIS trace for a NE-bound S-92 was a good demonstration of how that can work. For the 10-base solution, and the variations on it that we shall probably see put into practice, modern cruising speeds are essential.

[NRDK]

Thank you for enlightening CRAB on that, as I'm sure many are tired of him banging on about that.:ugh: He really has no idea how easy it is to operate even something as old as the S61 on SAROP's, let alone a modern aircraft. Given the right 'attitude & training':ok:

OMG no Radop:eek: Don't worry Crab, some civvie will show you how to turn it on.:D

[Hummingfrog]

Max Contingency

Its right there in the Ops Manual next to the procedure for rescuing one legged unicyclists going round in circles. In a crewroom with 50 collective years of military SAR experience, not one of us have ever had to do that for real and if I had been tasked to fly that scenario in a Sea King I would have taken a look but I would still have preferred to leave it to a cliff rescue team.

I am surprised that with 50yrs of SAR experience nobody has had to use the full capabilities of a 360deg radar. In my 3 tours on SAR I can remember using the capability several times on the cliffs around Brawdy and the N Devon Coast. I certainly wouldn't have been able to close with the cliffs using a radar that only had a 120deg forward arc. While the cliff rescue team, if there is one in the area, can mount a rescue by the time they have driven to the often difficult to access area, done their recce and risk assessment, set out their kit we are way past the golden hour.

The S92 is obviously the way forward as it is the only modern a/c available. It is, however, not as capable as it should be bearing in mind it will be our SAR a/c for many years to come.

HF

[Max Contingency]

I didnt say that no has had to use the full capabilities of a 360 degree radar I said that no one had been called upon to fly your very unique scenario.
a cliff sticker on say a steep sea cliff/rockface with a 35-40kt directly onshore wind, with a visibility of say 300ft at night. There will always be a scenario that you can invent to defeat any aircraft. Take out any one of those factors and a Wessex could probably fly the mission. Add in a requirement such as a transit IFR in airframe icing, an ROA greater than 240nm or a requirement to fly faster than 120kts and you would defeat a Sea King. All helicopters are a compromise.

[[email protected]]

Hummingfrog - quiet! - that is not the message the naysayers want to hear!

They want desperately to believe that a 120 deg radar is as safe and capable as a 330 one.

Why? because that is what they accepted and what they are stuck with. Once a capability is compromised, it is lost for ever.

As for icing, the Sea King can fly in airframe icing down to minus 7 and there is no panic if the RIPS stops working. The only time icing has stopped me from doing a job is when freezing rain was forecast and even the clever S-92 can't fly in that.

The extra range isn't available in all the S92s is it? You have to have the extra tanks fitted (something that was conveniently ignored when it first saw service in Scotland).

Getting to the job quickly is only part of the equation, you have to be able to let down quickly and safely and a 120 radar and lack of NVG make that more problematic at night - swings and roundabouts as they say.

[IFR Piglet]

Crab I don’t recall anyone saying a 120 degree RADAR is as safe and capable as a 330 degree. Honestly; why would they?? My dear chap life isn’t a pissing contest.......you do know that.....right? But I think the truth is you don’t and will excuse your recent posts as some feeble attempt at humour/banter etc.

I hope that the future SAR service is as reliable, capable and accountable for the money the government has available to spend; don’t you? I believe (at the moment) it will be, and arguably more so than the current service provided by the RAF. :ooh:
Sure a full 360 RADAR would be nice for the given fore-mention scenario, and I bet there are plenty of other goodies we could have in the mix. But to add a wee bit of balance; I’ve not required the use of a 360 yet and have not been unable to accomplish a mission due to its absence. If it came down to choosing where best to spend some extra money found in the coffers of the treasury, wouldn’t it be preferable to see Portland and Boulmer remain operational than a 360 radar bolted to the cabs?

[llamaman]

This little debate certainly seems to be going round and round in ever decreasing circles. Two decisions have been made and are unavoidable (if not delayable!);

1. UK SAR will be civilianised.

2. The Sea King will retire.

Both are going to happen very soon.

A p*ssing contest regarding who has the best radar, although mildly amusing to read when there's nothing better on't telly, is irrelevant. Whoever gets the contract(s) will have to order and deliver a substantial amount of aircraft in quick time and that narrows the field to the few platforms already mentioned in this forum. Nobody is going to build a bespoke SAR platform (obviously) and the option for a fully swept-up radar a la Sea King isn't an option. Therefore, as stated many times previously herein the solution will be a compromise, every aircraft ever produced has been.

I'm fairly convinced that the majority of us who have flown both vintage and modern aircraft in similar roles would chose the modern variant (I standby to be corrected!). For what it's worth I believe that the advantages a new aircraft will offer will outweigh the capabilities lost when the current stalwart retires. Just my very humble opinion.

[Hummingfrog]

llamaman

For what it's worth I believe that the advantages a new aircraft will offer will outweigh the capabilities lost when the current stalwart retires.

That statement is not always true. I started on the NS on the 332L a capable a/c that did the job better than the S61 it replaced as it was faster and could carry the same number of pax. I then flew a newer a/c that had a better autopilot, radar, navigation system and was faster so you would think this was better than the 332L - only trouble was it could only carry 6 pax out to the nearest rigs so, although it was better as a flying platform than the 332L, it was far inferior in what the customer wanted which was as many people as possible flown to the rigs on each flight. The 365N2, however, was brilliant as a single pilot interfield shuttle a/c

We all know that it is inevitable that the S92 will takeover UK SAR and will probably do an adequate job but it does have some failings in what a SAR cab should be as it has a limited radar and without the longrange tanks a limited range. It is not a pissing contest as you eloquently put it but just differences in views. The next SAR helicopter is going to have to last a very long time it is a pity it won't be as capable as it should be.

HF

[llamaman]

Hummingfrog

Quote:

'The next SAR helicopter is going to have to last a very long time it is a pity it won't be as capable as it should be.'

As I understand it the contract is for 10 years, hardly a very long time when you look at the lifespan of most modern fleets of aircraft. Also, what do you mean by 'it won't be as capable as it should be'? I'm very interested to hear what your solution might be, either in the form of a commercial replacement, and a hypothetical military option? Affordable/realistic answers only please.

[[email protected]]

Crab I don’t recall anyone saying a 120 degree RADAR is as safe and capable as a 330 degree. Honestly; why would they?? So then current civ SAR aircraft are not complying with the ALARP concept when conducting IMC overwater operations - oh dear, and the CAA have approved that!

You clearly acknowledge a deficiency in both current and planned capability.

Llamaman - if the S92 was going to be the answer for the whole of UK SAR I might agree that, overall, the proposed solution might be acceptable but primarily due to the increased availability of a modern helicopter (although one S92 flight was offstate for poor weather ops thanks to a rad alt failure the other night).

However, politics and bean counting are more than likely to create a 2 -contractor solution with the S92 going to the bigger bases and the AW189 going to the smaller ones.

Why? partly because the DfT are nervous that a single fleet with a single type is more vulnerable to either industrial action, contractual problems or type-grounding (a la super puma) following an incident or accident.

Secondly, because the S92 is expensive and AW have offered the 189 at a cheaper price with the added political kudos of keeping jobs in Yeovil.

So before we even start, the service is being hamstrung by factors other than capability and the 'no less capable service' ideal is well compromised (not least by the fact the civil servants keep redefining what capability is).

Hypothetical military option - lease S92s with a 360 radar spec - job done! Would it be cost effective? No one knows because the SARF were not allowed to bid in the competition.

Contractor owned and military operated aircraft is hardly a new concept and much of our future AT and AAR fleet will be provided this way and it's even good enough for the boys at Hereford!

That way you retain the all the current mil experience, you don't have to invent a new training system, you will never run out of crews and you won't ever have to worry about industrial action.

I know it is pie in the sky but the certainty of the last civilianisation was absolute, right up until it tripped over its own shoelaces - fortunately mil SAR was still around to carry on or where would we have been now?

[NRDK]

Well, we all know the expensive, delayed cluster fcuk that would be, don't we:ugh: would cost the tax payer much more and you know it....hence the reason it will never happen. :8

Good try though, will you ever stop trying to 'big yourself up' and 'pooh pooh' the fact that a great service is being provided and will only get better with enhanced capability requirements?

Your smoke and mirrors attempt to scare the un-informed masses is at best laughable:} and at worst, devisive :mad:

But then again that is the game you play.......will you be a civvie team player? Who knows, but you may find a few less than impressed colleagues up there in Sumburgh:ok:btw the only place you'll get.:ok:

[pitotprobe]

Well said NRDK! :D

The only reason I eventually stopped being a lurker on this forum was that I'd had enough of Crab's expoundings of self-protection, thinly disguised as wanting to safeguard a capability.

Plenty of people looking for a nice little slot at Chivenor!

[Rescue1]

if the S92 was going to be the answer for the whole of UK SAR I might agree that, overall, the proposed solution might be acceptable but primarily due to the increased availability of a modern helicopter (although one S92 flight was offstate for poor weather ops thanks to a rad alt failure the other night).

Crab thats one road you don't want to go down posting when others are on or off state or have limited capabilities := be very careful people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

But then again that is the game you play.......will you be a civvie team player? Who knows, but you may find a few less than impressed colleagues up there in Sumburgh btw the only place you'll get. I think Mr J Crab has more chance of winning Britain's got Talent than being accepted at Sumburgh.;)

[IFR Piglet]

Hi Crab

Do you mean ALARP as in “as low as reasonably practicable” defined in the UK health and Safety at work act. If so; how is operating over water with a 120 degree radar not complying with reasonably practicable?? Obviously there’s scope for interpretation and I’m open minded and willing to hear what you have to say.

Regarding the planned capability; it’s your blossom blue brethren that have been advising the DofT on the technical aspects of SAR, so why hasn’t the 360 degree radar capability been specified in the contract? Perhaps upon reflection your fellow Crab fats don’t think its value for money? What percentage of missions actually require its capability versus FLIRs? Civvies operated with them for years before the crabs finally fitted them......not enough wonga at the MOD? Given you feel so strongly and know so much about SAR why where you not asked to advise the Dof T personally, why didn’t you insist? Have you let the nation down Crab; I certainly hope not.

Like I said before, the taxpayer deserves the best value for money. Civvie companies will have to provide a capability or be held accountable as they have done so for many years. What use is your beloved 330 degree radar when it’s bolted to a polished turd operated with 65% availability? (DofT stat) How do you achieve the hypothetical rescues when you’re off state so much and who is accountable for your overall poor performance compared to the civilian operators? Our availability rates must be a little embarrassing for you. If the tables were turned ref availability it would make front page news I’m sure. The public deserve more.:oh:

Bottom line - providing the capability exists - the DofT will receive the capability they desire for the price they’re willing to pay; hardly a concept difficult to grasp and it will be heaps better than what your yellow paper weights currently provide.
You should keep banging on about the 360 degree radar though; you never know someone important might take notice and I might have an extra luxury in my swanky civvie cab thanks to you.........not that I’ve ever needed one....yet. I won’t hold my breath; besides out with your little scenario, day to day it would probably just get in the way i.e. reduced ground clearance.....breathe crab breathe.

Nothing wrong with rocking the boat –the big wigs should be able to take it – the trick, is knowing when to stop; which is where I fear you’ve royally f’up should you want to be a civvie SAR God, and only you could.....oh dear. Might as well keep going now though..eh? In fact maybe we should have two 360 radars, I’m sure there’s room; and special glasses to make the picture 3-d.:}

[llamaman]

Crab,

COMO fleets only tend to be an option where the capability offered is a military one (pilot training, AAR, AT etc.) I'm afraid the provision of SAR doesn't fall into this bracket. The MOD want rid of SAR because, lets be honest, it has evolved into such a highly specialised and very much civilian-orientated entity that it offers very little militarily (aside from recovery of ejectees, something which I am sure civvy crews are more than capable of). In my opinion the SAR force has become a victim of it's own success in that it is very good at what it does but little else. This is more applicable to the RAF than the Navy as they tend to bounce crews back to other Operational fleets more often.

I think you have to take a more pragmatic and less cynical view of the two fleet option. It makes sense on a lot of levels and offers flexibility as well as an element of economy (an inescapable fact of life these days). How often is the Sea King utilised to it's full capability? Also, there have been numerous fleet groundings in recent years, surely it's a good thing for the public to have greater odds of not being compromised by one in the future?

[Hedski]

No S92 flight went off state. One declared RADALT issue was not a show stopper. Certainly that flight remained capable of far more than the neighbouring Sea King flight who had no winchman/paramedic. Now what's that about never running out of crews? Plus it's been a regular occurence across the Sea King flights over the last few years including Chivenor.:eek: Let down's requiring manoeuvering with 120 degree radar just require turns to be conducted carefully in stages clearing the arc to be turned into. I have yet to read a report about a job where lack of 330 degree radar stopped play. It may have happened once or twice but certainly a rare occurence. Icing is much more of an issue and modern aircraft with appropriate equipment are proving much more reliable at service provision. As for servicability mentioned, current rates with the S92 average 98-99% throughout the year with 2 cabs per base and only 2 engineers per shift. I think the radar issue has been done to death, if only because it is one of the few points those who feel they want can use to get one up....:zzz:

[[email protected]]

The lim on the S92 as far as the RCS was concerned was quite clear that over water ops in poor weather were a non-starter - the rest is window dressing.

I don't think I have ever defended our poor availability - we are the ones sat on our hands wishing we we on state after all.

Now, back to the radar and, since this is a rumour network, is it true that the 189 is being offered with a 180 radar? This is at least a step in the right direction and a tacit acknowledgement that a 120 radar is not fit for purpose in the SAR environment.

I think the battle over radar capability on SARH is far from over - how good is a weather radar at searching into wind in a big sea state for a smallish target?

Now, out of interest, perhaps one of the anti-milsar brigade would tell me if the civvy SAR GPS is using the P codes with the military crypto or is it the normal GPS coarse positioning service? I only ask since cross referring position using a graphics overlay and a weather radar return might not be as accurate as a military spec GPS driven overlay and a milspec radar - just a thought.;)

As for my future employment in civSAR - maybe you should be more worried that I can undercut you on price since I will be in receipt of a very healthy mil pension by then - I could work for £50K and still be better off:ok: but then you all believe in market forces and value for money;)

[cyclic]

I could work for £50K and still be better off

Junior First Officers won't be on that I'm afraid Crab - it's all about seniority old chap ;)

[Hedski]

What was written on the RCS then? What are you considering window dressing? Positions are cross referenced via several sources but not using any 'graphics overlay'. Wildly inaccurate assumption.:= Those who have balanced views aren't anti-milsar necessarily. Very few on here that haven't seen mil service. Primus701A when used in GMAP1/2 modes is not a weather radar, different band, PRF etc. As for ANP on the GPS' used, what is considered accurate enough?

It'll be ok though, service agreements will prevent anybody from queue jumping if they lack certain credentials. At the very least they require good CRM for starters.:}

[jungliebeefer]

Crab,

As you will remember from your service in any of the main conflict areas over the past 10 years the GPS signal used by all, civilian and military is the same and has been for many years ...

[[email protected]]

Positions are cross referenced via several sources but not using any 'graphics overlay' which sources?
The RCS highlighted cloud and vis limits below which the aircraft would not do overwater Ops because of the rad alt - if you want to pretend that is not a serious limitation then carry on. Pointing the finger at Lossie not having a paramedic doesn't make the CG aircraft any more capable - they are both LIM SAR and not on full operational state.

Primus701A when used in GMAP1/2 modes is not a weather radar, different band, PRF etc are you sure you don't just mean different processing? you can use different levels of processing with different algorithms to enhance different modes whereas changing the band and PRF would be unusual I would have thought. The honeywell page only says the radar can assist in navigation by helping identify significant landmarks - not quite the same as claiming it is a ground mapping radar and they don't call it anything but a weather radar! And doppler processing is good for weather and turbulence detection but cock-all use for ground mapping.

The not running out of crews would be the case if milSAR was allowed to be fully manned and MoD saw it as any sort of priority - which it would if SAR was to stay in the mil. I can't defend the state we are in now with rearcrew manning - it was forecast but no-one did anything about it:{

It'll be ok though, service agreements will prevent anybody from queue jumping if they lack certain credentials such as current UK SAR experience, NVG etc.

It's good to see that this new and progressive service will ensure that time in the company counts for more than experience or ability - that must be value for money. As for CRM, you might be surprised to know that most people think I am quite good at that as well;)

What amuses me most is that the lowest paid and least experienced guy on the crew (ie the co-jo) will be the one letting you down IMC on the radar - all those R22 and 206 hours will be dead useful then;)

[NRDK]

Most IMC let downs are conducted with the Co pilot PF. The captain PNF usually provides the guidance aiming to take over the last minute visual stage with the winching area his side. That said both pilots practise the skill on a regular basis and as such are more than capable. Not many R22 drivers have walked in off the street, a few ex RAF though. They have managed it and any civvie North Sea driver would tell you it is quite a normally thing not a black art.:ok: