The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

[IFR Piglet]

Crab,

An answer you are looking for is closer than you might think. Re-read your last post in particular the bits were you quoted a couple of modes the P701A has available for use.....GMAP1 and GMAP2. Why don’t you have a wild stab in the dark and guess what GMAP stands for?? I’ll give you a clue; it’s not a weather detection mode; for that the P701A uses WX mode......that’s the P701A Radar,known as the “P701A radar” not “P701A weather radar” do you understand?

Should we ever be able to afford you or your crab fat friends, my advice would be to get absolutely everything in writing. Far too many of the ex-mil types have been chewed up and spat out by false promises. Exploitation can be an ugly part of the civie game.....so be careful and remember Mrs Crab still needs her Louis Vuitton accessories, don’t sell yourself short or risk a kick in the boll£cks! Or are you in fact banging a RADOP, which would help explain your obsession…..hope he’s good to you! :p

I would be interested to hear how the DofT managed to answer the recent questions raised by the Transport Select Committee.....any news?

Found this little ditty that I’ve not seen (soz if it’s a repost) regarding Boulmers MPs struggle to keep the base open. It has a couple of links; one that demonstrates how to dazzle with bull in order to support an argument that conveniently allows the government to spend less money.....very nice! Good luck Sir Alan Beith. :ugh:

When they close Boulmer; will that mean Leconfield can move north - to cover the gap - to somewhere like ......Boulmer? Is that still “in the vicinity”? Must be a terrible headache for someone.

http://berwicklibdems.org.uk/en/article/2012/576972/beith-battles-on-for-boulmer-s-search-and-rescue-heroes (http://berwicklibdems.org.uk/en/article/2012/576972/beith-battles-on-for-boulmer-s-search-and-rescue-heroes)

Shame the EC-175 got down selected; its belly mounted life ring could have come in handy. :}

[Hedski]

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.


Nobody is pretending LIMSAR is not a limitation, it's in the name but the unit in question was not off state, each task request would have been assessed at the time. No finger pointing going on.

As for the Primus701A, are you seriously suggesting by reading the manufacturers web page you know more about the system than those who work with it?

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


Another inaccurate assumption.......:=

such as current UK SAR experience, NVG etc

Are you aware that the least experienced co in civ SAR at the moment has about 4 years SAR experience, over 2k hours, nearly 1k on type in SAR, that's the least experienced. It's never going to be R22 VFR people running a radar letdown.:}

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

There once was a pilot called Crab,
Who thought his CRM was fab.
He kept on moaning
About radar homings
But the MOD scrapped his old cab.

Sorry, I'm fully booked over the festive period but am available most evenings/weekends in the New Year:ok:

[[email protected]]

Hedski and piglet - no, I do not think I know more about the Primus but does your handbook say it is a ground mapping radar or does it say it is a weather radar with the ability to see land in its GMAP (yes I do realise what that stands for) modes.

Just because it has a Gmap mode (which is only the manufacturer's name for a mode with a certain optimisation using processing) it does not make it a ground mapping radar - it's just extra shop-dressing to make you buy this 'weather radar' rather than any others on the market - add the terms search, rescue and military operations and it makes it more attractive, not more capable.

Just how exactly do you close to land with any accuracy if you are not comparing a GPS derived position-driven graphic coupled with the raw/processed radar picture?

The level of your least experienced co at the moment is not where the Dft has set the bar is it? The contractors need to fill another 6 flts with SAR crews - that is a lot of real SAR experience to find from nowhere and their proposed minima for copilots means the contractors can go for the cheapest option.

So, do you really turn down experienced and current UK mil SAR operators with many years of SAR and NVG flying, instruction and examining just because they dare to challenge your operating ideas and concepts?

Exploitation can be an ugly part of the civie game. and this is a recommendation for civilianising SAR???

The Dft will probably be exploited by AW promising to produce the 189 SAR variant in UK (a relatively small production run I suspect) to be seen to protect UK jobs and then be surprised when the rest of the 189 production reverts to Milan for the many more they will sell as a result of the UKSAR contract.

Junglie beefer - although the selective availability and anti spoofing was turned off by the yanks a few years ago, the mil encrypted GPS signal is still more accurate and less affected by jamming.

TOTD - very good:D

[Flounder]

Crab - have you ever genuinely conceded a point?

If CHC/Bristow/Bond apply the DfT min requirement set for co-pilots then that doesn't imply those companies are going to hire the lowest time pilots who just reach the minimum requirement.

A new co-pilot is starting on the same pay at the same point on the pay scale whether they have 10 years and 5000hrs experience (from wherever doing whatever) or an R22 type rating and 300hrs. Given that the cost to the company is set at the year 1 level do you think that CHC/Bristow/Bond will go for the low hour example or the highly experienced example?

[Hedski]

Nobody suggested turning people down, but clearly challenging your operating ideas and concepts is something you think unacceptable. Hypocrisy per chance?
The DfT have accepted the same minima for P1 and P2 on Interim SAR and Gap SAR contracts, lower minima for P2 were used years before by BHL when S61's were in use. There has not been an issue of lesser standards or capability at any time.
Manuals say GMAP 1 is designed for short range mapping of small targets in water, less than 50 miles, using a short pulse width at a high PRF for maximum resolution to allow good definition between adjacent targets. With GMAP 2 selected the radar operates in ground mapping mode, longer pulse width and lower PRF for ground mapping / littoral use. GPS derived positions come from the several sources including OS moving map display, AIS position as well as FMS GPS EGPWS comparison with GMAP overlays. Extra GPS sources available if required. Then FLIR can enter the equation.
And yes, I agree the 189 is a bad idea and drop in capability, but a certain government minister was heard to say as long as it's a 189 for the smaller bases then the bidder has a chance.....:ugh:

[[email protected]]

Nobody suggested turning people down, but clearly challenging your operating ideas and concepts is something you think unacceptable. Hypocrisy per chance? no but don't dress them up as equal or better in capability when it is clear they are not.

So GMAP 1 isn't in fact a ground mapping mode, its a search mode. If they use different different pulse width and a lower PRF in GMAp2 they are just gaining range, not resolution.

The position is still derived from GPS as that is what tells your moving map display where you are (the graphic overlay if you like). AIS is too slow to update to be used and is most definitely an area weapon. GPWS uses your same GPS position.

So, in essence, you can only close to small distances from land if you have an accurate GPS position and a radar return - then you compare what the GPS tells you (via the graphics overlay which clearly needs to be very accurate) with what the real-time radar returns are telling you.

Different sea states and tide level all affect what land returns the radar sees whereas your coastline graphic (OS map display) will probably only indicate mean high water springs rather than the Lowest Astronomical Tide so there may be a massive difference when the tide is out - hence the need for a good quality, correctly processed radar picture.

[IFR Piglet]

Hi Crab,
Your wrong (again),GMAP1 is a mode on a “search radar” optimised for ground mapping.....actually. Not that you were to know, as quite simply you don’t need to, because you neither operate a civil SAR aircraft nor govern one.
Have you decided that someone said the P701A is a ground mapping radar and are now arguing it’s not, is that your point?? Given that we conduct Search and Rescue what other type of radar would you suggest we use? I presume the Thales defence ARI5955/2 is a search radar too? How does it optimise itself for ground mapping......no wait.... I don’t need to know!
I’m glad you told us all how to operate safely in the DVE.....cheers...really helpful....I did wonder. :ok:
Now getting back to the thread.......Where do you see yourself in the future of UK SAR? Our new glorious leader? You could re-educate us all, and teach us ship oriented axis decks. Or perhaps continue to be a tireless campaigner for the 360 degree radar as you don’t do the “big picture” even though 360 degrees dose sound like a big picture.

[[email protected]]

Piglet - So you and Hedski aren't singing off the same songsheet then - you say GMAP 1 is a mode on a search radar optimised for ground mapping and he says GMAP1 is designed for short range mapping of small targets in water, less than 50 miles, using a short pulse width at a high PRF for maximum resolution to allow good definition between adjacent targets Which is it? Ideally a ground mapping mode has a high data rate so it would suggest that a high PRF would be the best option.

Out of interest, what is your SOP for letting down IMC over the water? Do you have to make a number of runs with your 120 radar to clear a box to let down into? Surely turning in the descent isn't an option since you can't actually see where you are going. How long does this take?

I don't think I ever said ours was a ground mapping radar. What ours does have is a vastly superior sweep so searches and let downs are easier and more efficient and the even bigger benefit of a very well trained radop who regularly practices getting down to minimum radar range (75m) day and night against vessels and land targets.

A little bird told me that sometimes on civsar the cojo just calls targets using the weather radar and the winchop does the actual directing of the let down using the moving map display in the back - surely that can't be true;)

As to the future - who knows, that will depend on who gets the contract, how much they pay, what slots are available and a host of other variables. I have never wanted to be anyones glorious leader but if you don't think you need some education regarding low level night ops on SAR the you might be in for a rude awakening when you have to go inland on a dark and shi88y night;)
It's only the Navy who can't deal with boat axis decks isn't it?;)

Flounder - yes. However, this new contract is going to need to fill another 6 flights with SAR captains and co-pilots (the winchops and winchmen is a whole other ball game of qualified personnel shortages altogether). Given that this is a competition and that costs will be be a big consideration in the modern economic climate, what incentive (given the DfT's low minimas for co jos) is there for the winning contractor to pay more than they need to in order to fulfil the terms of the contract? And if you were the 5000 hours 10 years experience co pilot, would you accept the same as someone with the minimum qualifications?

[pitotprobe]

So, manning of 6 flts then Crab?

Call that 30 Captains. Do you honestly think that there are less than 30 recent ex-RAF and ex-RN Captains out there? All familiar with NVG and the UK environment. They're not sat on their arses either - they're out there working, flying, broadening their CVs, getting experience on newer aircraft and gaining new skills. I'd start getting some time in the rad-shack if I were you!

That's before you bring the perfectly capable civvies into the mix.

Doesn't have to be Brits either....

Non-mil aviation is an entirely different world to your cosy little nest.

[[email protected]]

Call that 30 Captains. Do you honestly think that there are less than 30 recent ex-RAF and ex-RN Captains out there? All familiar with NVG and the UK environment so not actually current then since they won't be using NVG and, unless they are already at Sumburgh or Stornoway, not doing UK SAR either? How many of those will already be S92 qualified? How recent is their experience?

[Al-bert]

As a former Crab, with 22 years SAR experience on Wessex and Seaking, plus a couple of tours on SH (including flying PNG ops in NI whilst being shot at - probably before THE Crab was born) I feel that it is incumbent on me to apologise to all the civvy pilots and non ex Crabs for THE Crab's petulant behaviour in this Forum. This is what comes of abolishing corporal punishment and allowing youngsters to believe they are God's gift. A good smack round the head with a nav ruler at a formative stage, whilst sadly no longer permitted, might have done him some good!
Now, Corporal Punishment.....wasn't he at Chiv, back in '72 :E

[Rescue1]

As a former Crab, with 22 years SAR experience on Wessex and Seaking, plus a couple of tours on SH (including flying PNG ops in NI whilst being shot at - probably before THE Crab was born) I feel that it is incumbent on me to apologise to all the civvy pilots and non ex Crabs for THE Crab's petulant behaviour in this Forum. This is what comes of abolishing corporal punishment and allowing youngsters to believe they are God's gift. A good smack round the head with a nav ruler at a formative stage, whilst sadly no longer permitted, might have done him some good!
Now, Corporal Punishment.....wasn't he at Chiv, back in '72

Thankyou Al-Bert apology accepted :D but I have to say that Crab is one of main reasons more aircrew do not post on this thread, which I feel is a shame:rolleyes:

[llamaman]

It's a shame really, for every petulant whinger (not just Crab!) that posts on here there's probably a hundred aircrew with really useful valuable opinions who are put off posting for fear of being dragged into a petty slanging match.

Apologies for getting back on thread but any thoughts on what the basing solution might be? I'll kick off with Lossie to Inverness.

[[email protected]]

Thankyou Al-Bert apology accepted but I have to say that Crab is one of main reasons more aircrew do not post on this thread, which I feel is a shame or is just that people won't stand up for what they believe in?

Al-bert - I did the NI getting shot at thing too but with only the crewman having hand held goggles - we were on self-drive nitesun.

llamaman - the bases will stay the same - for the moment - so feel free to speculate.

It is only a slanging match when both sides make personal comments about each other - you might notice I don't actually do that - I just question some of the 'facts' that others present. If people can't handle debate without resorting to insults, that isn't my problem, it's theirs:)

[Gene Genie]

Gents, you're spot on. Now, my rumour is Lec to Humberside with the S92. But it is just a rumour...

Gene

[IFR Piglet]

Regarding the basing solution; given all three operators in the running have existing bases and infrastructure around the country it’s going to be no surprise if they attempted to use those to keep costs down and maximise competitiveness.
For example, Humberside might be an alternative to Leconfield (all three operators have a presence there) but that will leave a large part of the east coast without cover once Bulmer closes as planned. Aberdeen is a possibility and another alternative to Inverness but some argue is too busy an airport for a SAR unit and risk having a rescue call sign being held for the incoming Thomson flight. That said the controllers there are very good at integrating rotary traffic with fixed wing and with the numerous ditching of aircraft recently they could perhaps do with the cover.
The other options that must be available to the operators are the use and development of green field sites away from busy airports but in areas where the asset is required. The other advantage of a purpose built unit is that after the initial capital outlay the running costs should be relatively low compared to the charges levied by airports in particular HIAL; should the rumours be correct of course and I’ve heard Prestwick is pretty pricey too. Given the contract length has been reduced to 10 years this option may no longer be available. That said; Longside used to be owned by Bond and then perhaps CHC post merger and that may remain the case. Edzel might be another option; it’s on the doorstep of the Cairngorm national park and Leuchars could be used as a poor weather div given its coastal and easier to recover an aircraft to. Valley will share the same problem as Sumburgh and Stornoway in that people aren’t attracted by the location. So perhaps a move to Liverpool or Blackpool is on the cards to slot it between the Lake District and Snowdonia national parks.......
Chiv should stay where it is to keep Crab happy and I hope he doesn’t feel insulted by some of my teasing comments, that’s really not the intention. :ok:
The DofT have certainly allowed the operators to use their ingenuity and powers of lateral thinking providing they can prove their 10 base option is as efficient at providing the required SAR cover. It will be interesting to see what solution is eventually decided on. The preferred bidder announcement can’t be that far away providing the DofT select committee are happy with the answers provided to their recent questions.

[Ray Stawynch]

Crab,

No, I'm sorry. A great many of us do believe in aspects of what is right or wrong with what may or may not happen over the next few years.

Being objective, I have read your posts over the years; many have had genuine, deep understanding and knowledge imparted on the various subject matters. I have, on occasion, publicly agreed and supported you. However, the common denominator, is that your posts have been blinkered, belligerent, anti civilianisation, and down right self righteous.

You have only yourself to blame for the way in which your name is discussed through a great many crew rooms throughout both navy, civilian AND Air Force crew rooms.

This is a rumours network, whereby people should feel free to CONSTRUCTIVELY debate.

I wish you all the luck in the world if you are prepared to integrate your obvious knowledge and professionalism within the progressive face of the future of UK SAR. I fear, however, that that might be a deck too rough........

Ray.

[Al-bert]

I did the NI getting shot at thing too but with only the crewman having hand held goggles - we were on self-drive nitesun.


Yes Crab, that came after PNG, they were crap. And I also trialled 'self drive nitesun' - and your point is? :hmm:

[[email protected]]

Ray, a measured and reasoned post - thank you for praise and blame in equal measure.

One of the problems with posting (the same as texting) is that expression and meaning are often lost and, in attempting to get my concerns across, I can see how I have raised hackles in a number of camps.

I do acknowledge that at times I may have seemed distinctly anti but usually when the only arguments have been 'civsar is better because it's new so suck it up' often claiming capabilities that are not quite factual.

SARH could be the best thing since sliced bread but only if the civil servants, the politicians and the contractors are kept honest - this battle is still being fought in the assessment process now. If I have fostered debate by upsetting people but it prevents what happened when the 139 was introduced to service with inadequate lighting and no over water SAR modes then I can live with that.

Al-bert - you are older than me - I get that;)

[Al-bert]

Al-bert - you are older than me - I get thathttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

And with age comes experiance, a broader perspective, and sometimes even wisdom - hope you get there, there might even be a civvy seat out there for you! ;)

[[email protected]]

And with age comes experience, a broader perspective, and sometimes even wisdom well 2 out of 3's not bad;)

and you did start the 'been there done that';)

[Al-bert]

:E and you did start the 'been there done that'http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


don't forget the T Shirts........lots of them! :=

[IFR Piglet]

Anyone fancy doing some "Wet Decks" to these?............anyone........anyone.........anyone....:oo h:

LiveLeak.com - Lost at Sea

In the future; did the DofT specify a beam me up device?

[Al-bert]

Don't fancy it anymore, but the FV would be ok if it turned downwind/sea or prob even slowed down. Not so sure about the warship though! :ooh:

[Hummingfrog]

IFR Piglet

There are many ways to mitigate the pitch roll and heave even in very rough seas - as Albert says. It was even more fun at night.:eek: You always have to balance the risk to your winchman and crew compared to the injuries to the casualty.There was nothing more frustrating than to battle, at night, through a gale to a trawler who had a crewman with chest pains to find he had forgotten to bring his angina tablets with him and was waiting on a heaving deck with his suitcase!! ( happened off Eire!)

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk68/squadron72/SeakingAtlanticcropped.jpg

A pic from a Nimrod about 150mls into the Atlantic. I think we had just recovered the winchman and casualty when this was taken.

HF

[Al-bert]

A pic from a Nimrod about 150mls into the Atlantic

Ah, must have been Lossie then - Brawdy would have been 250mls! ;)

[[email protected]]

On a different tack ('scuse the nautical pun), how will HSBC's £1.2Bn fine for money laundering affect one of the bidder's submission given that a large part of the competition process is to do with financial viability?

If there are enough fallers at the last hurdles for the process not to qualify as a competition - what then? Issue a single contract anyway? Buy S92s for the military???

Then there is the issue of all the outcry following and new and innovative basing solutions since MoD bases are likely to be a. too expensive and b. too much hassle to operate from. Someone needs a very pro-active PR department.

Oh and we're in a triple dip recession with no prospect for growth!

This could be shaping up to be an even bigger fiasco that the last event!

[Hummingfrog]

Hi Al-Bert

Ah, must have been Lossie then - Brawdy would have been 250mls!

Though I was at Lossie as well this was from Brawdy. I can still remember that feeling of loneliness as the lights of EIRE disappeared behind one and the RCC controller told you that the Nimrod was just getting airborne as you still had over an hour and a half to the target.

Those were the days for youth and immortality:ok:

HF

[jimf671]

... what then? ...

Surely it must be clear, particularly given the timing of relevant changes in military commitments (carriers, Afghan exit), that if this all goes into Room 101 then that's what will fly out the other side. :-)


... Buy S92s for the military? ...

This is how it's done.
The future helicopter search and rescue service - regjeringen.no (http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/jd/whats-new/Speeches-and-articles-/politisk_ledelse/statssekretaer-moland-pedersen/2010/The-future-helicopter-search-and-rescue-service.html?id=620429)


... bigger fiasco ...

It's not just the likes of HSBC who are 'merchant bankers'.
BBC News - Coastguards 'disillusioned' by changes to service, say MPs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20668954)

[Al-bert]

HF
I can still remember that feeling of loneliness as the lights of EIRE disappeared behind one and the RCC controller told you that the Nimrod was just getting airborne as you still had over an hour and a half to the target.

Those were the days for youth and immortalityhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Ah, what poetry! You haven't been drinking have you? ;)
Anyway, we were lucky - we had Nimrods back in the olden days :ok:

[[email protected]]

Jim, that link is exactly how to do it - decide on a capability and then work out how to afford it rather than agree a price and accept what you get from the salesman.

Al-bert - last one I did was with the maritime patrol Cessna out to 250nm W of Ireland - it wasn't as good as a Nimrod but having a friendly voice and another airborne presence that far out was still comforting. Didn't stop us from staring at the fuel gauges and MRGB oil pressure for 4 and a bit hours though.

You didn't have to be coy about your identity though;)

[Al-bert]

You didn't have to be coy about your identity though

Good Hevens (sp), was I? :D

[Vie sans frontieres]

Text book display of AHT decks from the RAF radop on Highland Emergency tonight. :D

[jimf671]

... on Highland Emergency tonight.

Who's in the right hand seat in the S-92 during the climber rescue at the bottom of the sea cliff? Voice sounds familiar.



(I don't normally watch it, honest. Is it true Highland Emergency is sanskrit for reduced payload?)

[onesquaremetre]

Major error in the accompanying written report (dated a couple of months back) but interesting to listen to this gentleman's take on the supposed non-conflict between private equity and providing rescue services.

BBC News - Today - Avincis CEO: No conflict with for-profit rescue team (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9760000/9760249.stm)

[IFR Piglet]

Hmmm.....curious error, does BBC radio 4 know something we’re not supposed to? For those not in the know, Avincis is Bonds parent company.

Understandably to some the concept of a profit making organisation involved in lifesaving will “go against the grain”. I’d like to think the capability and performance of the existing civvie SAR bases has helped to demonstrate good value for money (since around 1982), especially the last 5.5 years where the people in our local communities have enjoyed a 24/7 SAR service with near perfect availability.
Ditto with regards to the AHT rescue....a job well done with some sweet work by the winch op, it demonstrates that even benign conditions provide challenges. In the future one of the improvements for the boys and girls lucky to fly the new machines will be a better winch position i.e. just a few feet aft of the PF instead of a several metres (except when you have backed into a gully with 93.7kts onshore W/V and 2.7m vis):E. That said the small size of the vessel on last night’s show would probably have dictated a similar-ish response from a shiny new-ish CG machine.

[jimf671]

... since around ...

1st June 1971 at Manston.


WRECK SHIELD
1971/72 Manston Coastguard Rescue Helicopter Unit
1973/74 Orkney Coastguard Rescue Company and British Airways Helicopter Rescue Unit, Aberdeen

HELICOPTER HEROISM AWARD
The Glasgow Herald - Google News Archive Search (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19780422&id=RMpAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=waUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3300,5422376)

[pasptoo]

www.facebook.com/airrescue24

Interesting page popped up this morning. Anyone know anything about this? The machine appears to be the Lincolnshire Air Ambo - not exactly the "North West"

At least it's the right colour :ok:

[[email protected]]

Interesting to see who is paying for this.

[leopold bloom]

Some info here: Air Rescue 24 (http://airrescue24.org.uk/index.html)

[[email protected]]

So, the answer is joe public are paying for it - despite already paying for Air Ambulances (directly through donations) and SAR aircraft (indirectly through taxes).

Is there really a demonstrable need for this service? It seems to imply that the present emergency services cannot cope and take too long to get to incidents which I don't think is the case.

Or is this just a continuation of some Fire Service senior bods empire building - they wanted their own helicopters from the taxpayer and were told no so this is their reaction perhaps?

If they think they can prove the need for the service and then get HMG to fund it, they should look at how long AAs have been running without HMG support.

[Geoffersincornwall]

..... someone demonstrating that the multi-agency approach is the way to go. If you are fed up with the traditional enmity between the Ambulance Service and the Fire Service then these guys and gals are hopefully going to show the way forward.

Integration is the key to improving the outcome and the bottom line and the next step would - hopefully - lead to this embracing SAR at least at the parochial level.

I read the report by the Royal United Services Institute and the lass who wrote it has the right idea. Fewer long range SAR units and more medium/light twins supporting the Blue Light Brigade.

Yes I know the integration of charitable AA units is an anathema to those units and that will undoubtedly be a hard nut to crack but if there is a decent incentive to integrate (use your imagination £££) then the Trustees will find it hard to ignore the operational benefits that derive to those that are donating their hard-earned cash.

G.

[jimf671]

Geoff,

The principal lesson of the RUSI event was that there is no such thing as a universal multi-role blue light air asset.

The second lesson was that there is not nearly enough joined up thinking on this stuff, particularly in the UK, but also in some other territories.

Those were not lessons from the Institute, but from a room full of experienced people from most of the relevant organisations.

[jimf671]

On the DfT website.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-search-and-rescue-helicopter-service
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28615/UK-SAR-ITT.ZIP [!!! 5Mb !!!]

Are these the latest ITT docs that are being used this month or are these from an earlier stage?


[Specification at 2.1. Includes aircraft equipment, pilot experience and more.]

[Vie sans frontieres]

50 hours of training per month works out at about 1 hour 35 per shift. If on average a crewmember works about 84 shifts per year ie 7 shifts per month that's just 11 hours and 5 minutes training per person per month. About 3 hours of a pilot's training allowance will probably go towards instrument flying leaving him just 8 hours or so for SAR role training. About half the time on SAR training sorties is spent transiting to the training location and not always under the hood so that leaves just four hours per month for sits, decks, drums, wets, mountains, homing etc. That doesn't seem enough for experienced SAR operators let alone inexperienced aircrew who may be recruited.

[[email protected]]

Vie - don't talk about training, that is expensive and clearly not required - apparently you can just pitch up to any situation and just cuff it:{

[jimf671]

Schedule 2.1 2.2.2.2.1
50 hours of training per month works out at about 1 hour 35 per shift. If on average a crewmember works about 84 shifts per year ie 7 shifts per month that's just 11 hours and 5 minutes training per person per month. About 3 hours of a pilot's training alowance will probably go towards instrument flying leaving him just 8 hours or so for SAR role training. About half the time on SAR training sorties is spent transiting to the training location and not always under the hood so that leaves just four hours per month for sits, decks, drums, wets, mountains, homing etc. That doesn't seem enough for experienced SAR operators let alone inexperienced aircrew who may be recruited.


I organise several exercises each year with SAR helicopters from more than one provider. There is reason for me to be concerned about this. If it was just a bit more of the same then it not a drama. Inadequate though the attitude is, there are numerous SAR partners out there who just think, 'Well, helicopters, I know what a Sea King looks like, I trained with one in 1996 and we've done a few ops with them. What's the problem?'

Amongst those, there are Auxiliary Coastguard unit in the north west where helo training is a bit short of adequate, so they can't even look after their own people. What about the rest of us?

In Scottish MR alone, 20 MR teams (several hundred people) will need initial type training in 2015. Add Aux CG, RNLI, other lifeboats, medical teams, ...
Then there's continuation training.

That's thousands of people in SAR partner organisations just for the 4 Scottish bases to reach out to, with all the workload falling on 2 bases in 2015. That's in addition to aircrew SAR training.

Has anyone seen anything about training rear-crew for mountains? Do I need to write to the HSE about this?

[Geoffersincornwall]

..... if you want to make a case for more training.

As a trainer I'm right out there in the front line saying we can't get enough but there are a couple of things we have to acknowledge otherwise the 'naysayers' will shoot us down in flames.

1. A lot of 'training by doing' is going on out there - at least I hope it is for every callout is a refresher and a rehearsal. The tougher the job the more value the previous 'rehearsals' have been. Every failed search is a refresher for the time when you DO find someone and I am hoping that we are all using DEBRIEFING as a way of making EVERY job a contributor to the overall knowledge and effectiveness of the units involved.

2. The use of simulators in role training and rehearsal is growing and we must protect the 'real aircraft' training against erosion by the misapprehension idea that it can REPLACE the real thing - it can't. What it can do is provide some important development opportunities for newbies, for those promoted to command and for the development of new techniques and ideas. Sim training is easier to programme and plan and very cost effective if the course material is well designed and the lessons well executed.

I suggest you go in to bat with a better thought-out argument than a simple hours count.

G.

[meanttobe]

Chc have been advised by DfT that they are not to submit a final bid for uk long sar as a competitor has submitted a bid over 20% lower. Step forward mister cheapo mac cheap Bond.

[[email protected]]

Geoffers, simulators are wonderful things for some sorts of training but absolutely cock-all use for the sort of stuff Jim is talking about.

You can assume your ground staff will perform to the required standard they have been taught in the classroom, right up to the point there is a noisy 10 ton helicopter hovering near them - at which point half their brain power and most of the training escapes them. The only way to get people used to dealing with helicopters is to do it for real - that is one of the reasons that stage one training was always required for troops.

Equally, tabletop exercises can prepare ground commanders for basic scenarios but there is nothing like controlling a real helicopter in real time to acquire proper skills.

Can all this training be done without? Yes, if you want most SAROPs to turn into running goat-f*cks with comms and equipment faffs alles uber der platz and the poor casualty sucking the hind-tit as everyone else tries to get their poo in a pile.

The harsh fact is that training requires hours - the crews need their specific role training and the other agencies need their exposure to helicopters - try doing a RIB transfer with a trained RNLI crew against an untrained one and you will see what I mean.

[[email protected]]

What is your source for that statement, meanttobe?

[NRDK]

UK oil & gas looking attractive over Bond:ugh:

You Mil boys are welcome to pick up the pieces on this one.:ok:

Virgin rail fiasco all over again....:}

[Geoffersincornwall]

Crab has his agenda and presses on regardless. There is nothing in what I said in my last post that suggests that training should be reduced, is unnecessary, a waste of time or anything like that. Likewise I DID NOT SUGGEST that simulators can REPLACE live training..... BUT.... if you chose to wash over such facilities then you hand the naysayers a weapon with which they can beat you.

We are duty-bound to ensure that every 'Op' is analysed and debriefed to learn lessons and if you are not doing that then you have handed them - the £££-focussed ignoramuses - another stick to beat you with.

Please Crab, stop and read before lapsing into automatically chucking rocks at the next post to appear that doesn't say WELL DONE ALL CRABS WHO FLY YELLOW PERILS. We CAN be on your side without actually having to be so sycophantic that I request the next opportunity to lick your backside. Wise up.

Happy Christmas

G. :}

[IFR Piglet]

That’s certainly an interesting rumour and could come back to haunt the DofT.


Another rumour doing the rounds is that Bond have pulled out of the heavy bid to concentrate on the medium, leaving the heavy bid a two horse race. Hope they employ little piggies!!! ;)

[squirrelht1]

Guess meantobe is well informed. Maybe not?...

With Ex RAF/Navy SAR standards front and rear on Jigsaw we must be barking up the wrong tree when it comes to quality? But what would you know?

.....except your obvious lack of knowledge!? HAND..

[RotorRPM]

Some interesting rumours regarding the UK SAR bid, what I don't understand is a thread dedicated to CHC has become about belittling and openly bashing Bond? Did Bond not win the Jigsaw contract and have they not traditionally had fantastic people who work in finances?
If the rumour is true about Bond not bidding for the Heavy's, then surely it's now a one horse race, not two.....?

RRPMp

[jayteeto]

yawn............... so come off the fence, don't mince your words. why are us ex- Central Flying School (H) pilots such low quality? Pray tell us why our supervision, training staff and pilots are so useless? I joined Bond 3 yrs ago and am massively impressed by how they do business. WAY better than some operators that I know of. I await you telling me of my bottom of the barrel skills........ k@@b.

[industry insider]

Piglet, you can stay at home and have roast beef. Your rumour is very close.

[jimf671]

I know that simulators will help the guys in the front seats with any number of new situations and in the next couple of months I fully expect that there will be a lot more simulator hours for SAR helicopter pilots than has been the routine in the past. I would love to learn more about this simulator training and particularly about how good the simulated dogs, snow and climbing ropes are.

I am mainly with Crab on this one. It would be most helpful if the CAA was as well. Some of the words in the public version of CAP 999 appear to support that point of view in its references to provisions for Ground/Maritime Emergency Service Personnel. However, current interpretations appear to fall some way short of realism.

Just on the matter of downdraught/downwash/outwash there may be a few problems. Downdraught mitigation on maritime and land SAR is going to be a serious matter for the new contractors and for anyone who works with them. There have been UK downdraught accidents and one was with a 135, so it's not all about S-92 and Chinooks. There have been deaths in other territories, and at least one organisation in SAR is to seek downwash/outwash diagrams from all appropriate aircraft manufacturers to assist in development of mitigating procedures.

I have worked closer with SAR helicopters than most people imagine would be required. On one occasion that I particularly remember, in a tight gnarly gully, several of us were sliding along the side of a partially-landed S-92 to deliver a loaded stretcher to the door. The blades were low, the ground was difficult and kit was snagging on the aircraft. The job got done, the aircraft was safe, nobody got their head chopped off and faith in our SAR helicopter providers was reinforced. Without regular and appropriate training, the outcome could easily have been different.

[karabiner]

I hear from through the grapevine at CHC Ireland, that all is not well over there. Management are beset with Industrial Relations problems and are pleading poverty despite winning a circa 500 mil contract for 10 yrs. Also have been taken to court by an ex Navy or RAF lad a couple of months ago for wrongful dismissal (It will or has cost them a few bob that one.) Seems to be falling down around their ears a little bit.

[4thright]

Good to see someone talking pragmatic good sense.

[4thright]

Some people don't half put some tosh up on here! I know its a rumour network but really! There's a fine line between provocative wind ups and litigation attacting libel.

Meanttobe you just sound like a hasbeen that is pi**ed orf cos you were turned down or sacked by Bond. Your standard of input is appalling and unwarranted, and I dont even work for Bond. The word is Troll isn't it?


Having said that, it also concerns me that people are picking up stuff from people (maybe evaluators or civ servants in the ministry), and if they are blabbing they are in severe danger of bringing the whole show down again as the last crab did.

Some might think that a good thing but dont kid yourself. If this race stalls I am not sure the governement will do anything sensible given there's no cash anymore.

Happy Christmas

[[email protected]]

Geoffers, I don't think Jim was washing over simulators as a valuable training aid but, once you accept their limitations on the sort of training Jim has in mind, you are left with the fact that you need to train with the real aircraft - and that means flying hours.

The new DfT/MCA SAR Force runs the risk of re-inventing the wheel if they don't learn from what exists at the moment and how much liaison and mutual training is required between agencies.

I do have my constant message, and that is that SAR cannot be done 'on the cheap' no matter what the bean counters believe.

Out of interest, our current 6-monthly simulator package includes all the emergency stuff you would expect but much of it is set within SARexs both day and night with rig landings, mountain flying, deck landings, multiple aircraft ops etc etc etc. Now, will the new contract ensure such high-quality training is conducted or will they just tick the required contractual boxes.

I think Jim's (and my) underlying point is that if the contract isn't perfectly written to ensure corners can't be cut, then the SAR service as a whole in UK will suffer.

[Pink Panther]

I'm hearing meanttobe might not be far of the mark in relation to a certain bidder being now out of the race.
Im hearing it from what I would class, a reliable source. Surely a press release will be issued?

[212man]

Im hearing it from what I would class, a reliable source

Me too.......

[pitotprobe]

I believe this is part of a message that was sent to all CHC UK employees:

Subject: Update on U.K. SAR Bidding Process


U.K. Colleagues,

Late Thursday there was a big development in the bidding process for U.K. SAR helicopter services that you need to know about. The net: CHC won’t be asked to submit final tenders for this contract. That’s disappointing news. While we never take contracts for granted, we go into the tender process intending to win every one that we choose to bid on.

At the same time, we’ve got to make sure that the business we take on comes with a sufficient level of profitability. That’s in the long-term best interest of CHC and our customers, who benefit from our reinvesting in important new technology and other capabilities. The U.K. Department for Transport advised us that another bidder tendered at more than 20 percent below the price we submitted.

The process we followed was professional, disciplined and thorough. We think our final proposal would have provided a robust, high-quality solution; unique capabilities; and great value for the U.K. government and general public. We don’t have insight to the financial or other motivations of competitors. But we know that the economics at a price 20 percent lower than our interim bid simply aren’t right for CHC.

Best regards,

Peter Bartolotta
Chief Operating Officer and
President, Helicopter Services

[jeepys]

A press release has been issued.

It's genuine info.

I have seen it.

[4thright]

:ugh:So he may be but he should keep his language sorted. If CHC are out, then it looks like the DfT has the 2 horse race it was looking for by this stage. After all thats what the bidding in October was for. Ayway best I get my CV posted off then. Will it be B or B? Life is so full of hard choices!!;)

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Is meanttobe a bonafide Bond hater - or just stirring the pot, or both?

[terminus mos]

I would suggest that Mr. Peter Bartolotta institutes a top down look at CHC's cost structure very soon.

I have been involved quite closely with other recent CHC bids and this is not the only tender where CHC has been 15-20% above both other bidders.

[Thomas coupling]

Maybe what goes round comes round for CHC. Maybe the DfT are still pissed about CHC's last unethical attempt at winning the competition, Maybe CHC are finally staring their future in the face..........................

Senior Pilot is this thread worth amalgamating with the SARH thread?

[Anthony Supplebottom]

T.C. I wish you were right but - Norway – CHC Helikopter Service secured nine contracts in 2012 | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2012/12/20/norway-chc-helikopter-service-secured-nine-contracts-in-2012/)

[ericferret]

I went to a dinner party last week which was attended by a senior oil company man who I have known since the early eighties. While I have continued to bend spanners he has risen to the dizzy heights.

He said he could not understand why the helicopter operators continued to cut each others throats particularly on price.

In their defence I pointed out that whenever the oil companies shouted jump the operators reply was how high. Each jump increasing costs till the point when overheads became massive.

Next stage is a new kid on the block (Bond, NHV, Dancopter e.t.c) leaner and less top heavy.

Then the whole cycle of jump/how high starts all over again.

[Norfolk Inchance]

I really am not a fan of Crab, but I do fear this decision. If the sole driver behind this is cost, then it is bad for the UK and SAR in particular. Whilst I fully appreciate SAR(H) would have been a very sensible and reasonably economically sound programme with excellent platforms, this decision makes me think of a poorly funded and supported contract that will be regretted in the future. How can a company with CHC's experience be out by 20%? The DfT also do not have a good record- East Coast Mainline for example.

[jimf671]

I think Jim's (and my) underlying point is that if the contract isn't perfectly written to ensure corners can't be cut, then the SAR service as a whole in UK will suffer.


"Successful equipment fits and methods of deployment under private contracts are highly dependent upon contract conditions. It is difficult to match the evolutionary complexity and suitability of the previous arrangements.

There may be less scope for improvisation during operational conditions under civilian flying rules thus amplifying contract shortcomings. "

JF
May 2010
(to my MP)

[llamaman]

It would be interesting to know where the 20% difference in cost lies, not that we ever will. I imagine the majority of costs to the potential Operators would be broadly similar over the life of the contract (assuming similar types of aircraft/similar operating costs). To my mind that leaves salaries and amount of training as two of the possible variable costs, a touch worrying I fear.

[Bravo73]

To my mind that leaves salaries and amount of training as two of the possible variable costs, a touch worrying I fear.

Or maybe the CHC bid included a provision to pay for the Directors' new Astons and Rollers... :E

[Anthony Supplebottom]

To my mind that leaves salaries and amount of training as two of the possible variable costs,

Err yes, except for that one little matter of profit which can be worked in to a contact 1001 different ways!

[llamaman]

Quote:

'Err yes, except for that one little matter of profit which can be worked in to a contact 1001 different ways!'

Profit is not a cost, it's a function of varying costs. Which was kind of my point!

[Anthony Supplebottom]

The OP wrote: a competitor has submitted a bid over 20% lower

So there is no direct reference to cost but even if he had worded it "a bid which cost 20% lower" we still don't know if this is contract cost or 'real costs'.

As I said, there are 1001 ways in which companies pad out their submissions for the purpose of accruing greater profit.

[onesquaremetre]

If the sole driver behind this is cost, then it is bad for the UK and SAR in particular.

What indications have there ever been that this wasn't going to be the case?

[llamaman]

The problem is where does the 'happy medium' lie? Anyone with a sensible opinion will agree that the military over-train, which is great for the taxpayer as they can be fairly confident that if they fall off a hill or into the water they're going to get a pretty good service. Not that they don't when the non-military types turn up. This is the safe (expensive) option. The subject of what adequate training entails is an emotive one; there won't be a huge pot of training hours because it will be too expensive. How do those empowered decide what constitutes sufficiently experienced/qualified crews, how much and what type of training should be implemented and how should the whole thing be regulated so that it's a) safe and b) value for money? It's new(ish) territory as far as the UK is concerned but IF done properly should work. Probably.

[jimf671]

... train hard fight easy ...

A Polish version.

GOPR x LPR - YouTube

[farsouth]

I fully admit to having very little knowledge of the operating costs we are talking about here - I just get paid to fly the things and have never taken a close interest in the finer financial details. But given all the fixed costs of salaries, bases, spares holdings, etc - does training hours really form a significant proportion of the overall costs?
How much would (for example) a 100% increase in the proposed 50hr training figure affect the overall cost - 1%, 5%, 10% ?? I have no idea but would be interesting to know.

[Thomas coupling]

Could it be that bond have undercut so sharply because they are owned by Invaer or Anvictis or whatever they are called?? Perhaps the parent company can simply afford to absorb the cost?
I also suspect that to come in at this price, Bond will have to bias towards an airframe with cheap running costs (perhaps the 139?). Surely they wouldn't come in at this level AND bring on board a new design like the 189 etc???

Only 3 months to go now.............

[jimf671]

ONE
139 is history. One would be crazy to believe it makes it on the survivor count and it certainly can't carry the 'Standard MRT Load'.

TWO
Who says it's Bond that are the cheap one?

THREE
Who says Bond are the only one with a big(-ish) parent?

[jimf671]

You have to factor in that the customer is a control freak who can't get a handle on other people being allowed to control who is playing with their toys.

[terminus mos]

Don't be so sure about the 139 being history Jimf.....

Don't be so sure about the 189 not being in the cheap mix TC

Bond will win the lights and Bristow will win the heavies. Done deal.

[That lights normal!]

I imagine the majority of costs to the potential Operators would be broadly similar over the life of the contract (assuming similar types of aircraft/similar operating costs).

Don't CHCs parts cost up to 10 times the market rate?

[[email protected]]

Bond will win the lights and Bristow will win the heavies. Done deal. I think you are probably right on that one but let's see what other shenanigans will surface as we get closer to the finishing line:{

As expected - SAR down to a price, not up to a standard:{

[llamaman]

Not sure quite what your point is jimf, was it made post a few Saturday night beers per chance?

[jayteeto]

Or of course it could be a compromise between the two. Something has to give, accept it and move on.

[meanttobe]

Bond are owned by worldwide helicopters who are owned by private investment company KKR. They will be looking for at least 20% ROCE. They are not in tue business of making 4% on an investment. Bond have not gotten a 20% reduction on the purchase price of any aircraft they bid.

So how do they bid over 20% lower that Chc ?. Simple they pass it onto the T&C of the pilots, crew and engineers . One possible way of doing this is have all your employees work for a sub contracted company. Like developing assets. Simply put they will offer T&C below both other main heli operators, with no chance of BALPA coming in to push the case for improvements as bond do not recognise unions. This may suit people coming out of MOD with a pension to supplement
your pay. This may be business but your cutting your own throats.

[jimf671]

Don't be so sure about the 139 being history Jimf.....

From the September 19th version of the ITT document pack for the revised submissions as provided a few days ago on the DfT website. Identical in these sections to the February version and there is believed to be a stated objective of the final tender stage being different only in small details.

Schedule 1 - Definitions

"MRT Standard Load"
a team comprising of six member at 80kg each, plus 25kg for hill bags. Hill bag dimensions being 0.6m x 0.35m x 0.3m. Additional rescue kit to be carried as a separate lift: one stretcher at 25kg, dimensions of 1.2m x 0.6m x 0.4m. Four rope bags at 10kg per bag, dimensions 0.6m x 0.3m. One crag bag at 15kg, dimensions 0.6m x 0.3m;

Schedule 2.1 - Specification

4.1.4 Performance
1 4.1.4.1 All On State Airborne Systems must be capable of retaining the Hover:
4.1.4.1.1 outside of Ground Effect whilst delivering an MRT Standard Load at or below 4000ft amsl at ISA +15 degrees centigrade in still air; and
4.1.4.1.2 with 30 minutes SAR Endurance remaining, at the location of any SAR Incident in the Mountainous Regions of the UK SRR.

4.2.4.2.2 Numbers
4.2.4.2.2.2 Smaller Minimum Rescue Capacity
4.2.4.2.2.2.1 [For Lot 2] The Contractor must, throughout Aircraft Operation be able to rescue up to 4 Casualties and/or Survivors (2 of which are capable of being stretchered) with one Airborne System anywhere within the Threshold SAR Operating Area.

4.2.7 Transport
4.2.7.1 All On State Airborne Systems must be capable of deploying from and retrieving to the Aircraft an MRT Standard Load in a single trip and from the air or on the ground.

[terminus mos]

Jimf, thanks for the reproduction of the DFT website. I was already very aware of the ITT contents before posting.

Anyway, still don't be too sure about the 139 being history.

[jimf671]

Not sure quite what your point is jimf, was it made post a few Saturday night beers per chance?

Not at all.

These are aircraft that will operate under a specialist AOC that is supposed to recognise that they do not operate in a normal aviation environment where every aspect is within the grasp of an aviation regulator. To compensate for the lack of aviation regulation in the training of lifeboat crew, or the training of mountain rescue teams, or the shape of a mountain side, or the mast of a tall vessel, the regulator has developed a special approach. I believe that the regulator needs to be more assertive about how one achieves that compensation. 'Train hard fight easy' sums it up quite nicely. It is possiible that the regulator has underestimated the training load necessary with non-aviation organisations and locations.

Currently, the customer is involved in a small way in the process of arranging training with non-aviation situations. Even this small involvement sends the wrong message. The regulator needs to be there requiring the operator to do appropriate training and the customer shouldn't be a part of the routine.

At the same time, we have a substantial contract process that has been going on for some time and all principal documents were written as though the tasking organisation, the ARCC, does not exist. Although co-ordinating authorities were referred to in the documentation, one could easily get the impression that the police had nothing to do with this. In recent versions, the ARCC has come into the picture and gets one mention in the side-notes of the Specification of 19th September for instance.

[jimf671]

However, 139 and the MRT standard load? Is the winchweight standing outside on the FLIR-ball bracket pushing people to get the door closed, like a Japanese train guard at rush-hour?

[RotorRPM]

Meanttobe: Bond is now owned by Avincis, not World Helicopters. (Rebrand) I hope your other information is up to date.

Why is everyone automatically assuming its Bond/Avincis bid that is 20% lower? Surely it could be Bristow?

One final point... Bristow rescued 7,000 people over the last 2 decades, CHC rescue between 200 and 800 people per base (Ireland slightly different), Avincis rescued 7,000 people in ONE year.... Those figures tell me that Avincis is the World Leader in SAR, HEMS etc.... Are they not going to be the top bidder?

(All figures from respective websites)

[4thright]

Oh no not agiain! Meantobe you should try and stop droning on about your prejudices about Bond. For starters you and others seem to be assuming its Bond that were 20% cheaper whereas its more likely to be Bristow given their size and great financial conditon, plus their enormous S92 fleet with 28 more on order has to put them in a good place. That smacks of a good starting point for being cheap not all this dribble about Bond or anyone trying to hire very professional aircrew at nonesense salaries. Get real people and look a bit deeper before mouthing off please! There were 3 Lots being bid according to the DfT website, and CHC were biddig all 3 of them according to the last selection process. So CHC seem to have blown it big time if they couldn't get the price right to survive in at least one of those Lots.

Jim671 is right IMO. 139 is history.

Crab: even if the military was still organising a replacement they too would have a price ceiling wouldn't they? Especially these days. When has the military bought stuff on the basis of "dream up the best solution and then pay for it whatever the cost" - your nievity (sp?) is stunning Crab but perhaps not surprising if you have spent too much time being a Crab SAR pilot. So your constant mantra about the commercial run service always stooping to the lowest price is just utter crap. Your vast experience of the commercial aviation world really puts you in a strong position on that one (NOT)!

Happy Christmas Everyone! My CV is off to Bristow for what its worth :)

[Vie sans frontieres]

One final point... Bristow rescued 7,000 people over the last 2 decades, CHC rescue between 200 and 800 people per base (Ireland slightly different), Avincis rescued 7,000 people in ONE year.... Those figures tell me that Avincis is the World Leader in SAR, HEMS etc.... Are they not going to be the top bidder?


Why bother having a Competitive Dialogue procedure at all then? Surely the DfT can just base their decision upon what's contained on each bidder's website. :rolleyes:

[Spanish Waltzer]

Can we assume the regulator is represented within the DfT SAR-H project team?

[Spanish Waltzer]

It doesnt matter who the final winner(s) is/are...Apart from the senior management the boys and girls on the shop floor will be the same, just wearing a different logo on their overalls. All doing their utmost to make the new service work within the T's & C's they're given. Market forces will ultimately decide their salaries.

[RotorRPM]

Vie, look at the bigger picture..... Much more experience in the applicable role!

[[email protected]]

4thright - why is that you and so many others on this forum feel the need to revert to personal insults instead of making valid points?

It is called the Ad Hominem argument - literally 'to the man' since it involves insulting and otherwise denigrating the opponent such that by association his argument must also be worthless since he is obviously unworthy. It is used extensively by politicians and those of weak mind and position.

According to your fatuous argument, I cannot know anything about commercial aviation simply because I have been in the RAF for 30 years - not actually much real logic in there is there?:ugh:

[jimf671]

I think the way that joins up is through a different mechanism. The CAA Flight Operations Inspector for SAR is on the UK SAR Liaison Committee along with representatives of various RAF bits of the pie and the contractors, MCA and several DfT.

---------------
Added.

Assuming that the regulator is represented within the DfT SAR-H project team may be a potentially dangerous notion. The CAA clearly work at standing off from their mothership the DfT and the FSG perhaps some distance again. Thus the separation of FSG and project team representation on the UK SAR Liaison Committee.

The project documentation has limited references to the regulatory aspects. It is believed that the DfT Project Team have made clear that they will play no part in regulatory matters and that relationship is solely between the operator and the regulator. This is consistent with the approach demonstrated in my communications with the bodies involved.

---------------

On documentation, for instance, in the 19th September ITT set, the only reference to regulatory matters that I could find was as follows.

Schedule 6.2 – Acceptance Procedures
1.3 The Acceptance Procedure shall only take place once the Civil Aviation Authority has granted the AOC at each Base.

[Rescue1]

I cannot know anything about commercial aviation simply because I have been in the RAF for 30 years Well done Crab it takes guts to admit that;) so a Merry Christmas to you and all at Chivenor and all the best for 2013 :ok:

[llamaman]

From Jayteeto

Or of course it could be a compromise between the two. Something has to give, accept it and move on.

A bit harsh From Jayteeto. I think the reason people are having a bit of a rant is that they feel passionate about what they do and see compromise as exactly that, a compromise. Unfortunately the reality is that, yes, people will have to accept it and move on, whatever 'it' turns out to be.

It's a shame that the comments (as ever) are getting more personal as the thread continues.

Yuletide greetings to all,

Llamaman

[llamaman]

p.s. can somebody please merge this thread with the SAR-H thread?

[Vie sans frontieres]

Vie, look at the bigger picture..... Much more experience in the applicable role!

RotorRPM

Of the 7000 people that the newly-formed Avincis rescued in one year, are you able to let us know how many were rescued by a dedicated national SAR helicopter using a winch and how many were HEMS or Air Ambulance tasks?

Bond have some experienced SAR operators on their payroll who are no doubt playing a part in developing their operation from one that had something of a shaky start in the North Sea into one that is now proving itself in complex rescues and may well, it appears, have a significant role to play in the future of UK Search and Rescue. However, geographically they're on the periphery at the moment and are therefore not the first port of call for daily SAR tasks around the UK. To suggest that the operation has more experience in the applicable role is something of a departure from reality when it is the RAF, RN, CHC and Bristows who have been providing frontline SAR cover for the UK for the last twenty-five plus years.

[RotorRPM]

Vie, I appreciate your views and knowledge. I'm afraid I can't answer your question though. I agree with you when you talk about the RAF, RN, CHC and Bristow being at the frontline of SAR cover in the UK. I would have thought that knowledge/experience worldwide would play a bigger part of the bid than just locally. I may well be completely off the mark as I've never been in the SAR business, I'm just interested and want to understand why people seem narrow minded about Avincis (Bond) and were taken back with this latest news of CHC.

RRPM

[jimf671]

Appreciation of SAR worldwide is useful but northern Europe is quite a specialist region because of the latitude, terrain and sea conditions. I have only dipped my toe in the international pool but there seem to be some common themes amongst the Brits, Norwegians, Icelanders, Swedes, Irish and Poles.

[llamaman]

Appreciation of SAR worldwide is useful but northern Europe is quite a specialist region because of the latitude, terrain and sea conditions

What utter nonsense.

Do you really think that there aren't other parts of the world (northern and southern hemisphere), aside from northern Europe, that don't have similar or even more challenging latitude/terrain/sea conditions?

[jimf671]

Do you really think that there aren't other parts of the world (northern and southern hemisphere), aside from northern Europe, that don't have similar or even more challenging latitude/terrain/sea conditions?

Well, actually, having sometimes had my head in wave resource studies for weeks on end, I know there are other places with very similar conditions. About half a dozen of them actually. None of those are adjacent to significant populations. Numbers, numbers, numbers!

About 80 million people face the wrath of our wild side of the North Atlantic, many of whom will be served by the contract in question, whereas a little over 1.5 million live in the Atlantic provinces of Canada and 60 thousand in Greenland. The entire permanent population south of 45 degrees south is about the same as Iceland.

It is not the case that I do not want us to learn from other territories, indeed I presented on what we can learn from other territories last weekend. The first places I'd look though would be Norway, Ireland, Iceland and Sweden.

[onesquaremetre]

Unfortunately Avincis have a bit of work to do to erase the memory of this example of their international SAR experience.

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/C6E653F5-E80D-42A8-9562-B8EB29B71E0F/113643/2010_002_A_ENG.pdf

Just a quick thumb through the findings and recommendations would be quite startling even for the layman.

Of particular interest, considering the discussion regarding flying hours on the other thread

The pilots had undergone very little flight hours in the last three months: 25 and 23 h.

[[email protected]]

there seem to be some common themes amongst the Brits, Norwegians, Icelanders, Swedes, Irish and Poles. yes, we all drink too much! But it is Christmas so crack on:)
A Very Merry Christmas and a Happy (and safe flying) New Year to all:ok:

[[email protected]]

I agree that the military overtrain, based on what? the number of hours flown or the number and diversity of exercises.

Note that not all military SAR train the same way or the same amount - some don't see the need for night wets or PLB homings for example and have a basic set of currency requirements whilst others have a broad spectrum of training requirements proven over many years to yield the right levels of training for even the most demanding SARop.

I've been doing this for a few years now and I know when I haven't done enough training and certainly, through examining, when others haven't done enough!

You can write your training system to be as lean as possible and then ensure that the standard you require is relatively low so everyone can achieve it with minimal training - it's just like dumbing down O levels so more people pass and you can convince the world your education system works!

Geoffers in cornwall has highlighted his concerns on other threads that the quality of training in some areas of the commercial world is falling - is that the way we want to go with SAR?

[Pittsextra]

Sadly as is so very often the case with UK plc doing things cheaply seems to trump doing things well. The price of everything and the value of nothing.

CHC won't be 20% out of line by accident. They will bid because they need to bid to show willing. As their own press release states turning a profit means they can 1) do the job that is expected 2) survive into the future.

Aviation is full of businesses and individuals that all too often try and do something for nothing. It never lasts very long.

[Vertical751]

Everyone is talking about a 20% lower offer.... But where are the numbers? The economic facts? Maybe we should be discussing why a company offered a bid 20% more expensive. Sometimes more money doesn't necessarely means more quality....



Merry Xmas to you all!

[Perrito Piloto]

onesquaremetre

Unfortunately Avincis have a bit of work to do to erase the memory of this example of their international SAR experience.

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyr..._002_A_ENG.pdf

Just a quick thumb through the findings and recommendations would be quite startling even for the layman.

Of particular interest, considering the discussion regarding flying hours on the other thread

The pilots had undergone very little flight hours in the last three months: 25 and 23 h.

I going to give some "fresh" info about how Inaer-Avincis manages his Spanish SAR contract:

- Maximum annual working hours is 2,000 in Spain. Inaer-Avincis is scheduling most of SAR pilots over 2,200 hours.
Pilot's union has reported it to the Work Inspection Administration.

- Average flight hours (including training) for a SAR pilot is 110-125.

- Inaer-Avincis is about to reduce salaries (about 3500€/year).


- About two weeks ago, a woman died in the north coast because SAR helicopter takes 40 minutes to reach the scene.

The reason?
Increase on times of response from 10 to "30 day/45 night" minutes due to lack of pilots.
Pilots are at home with a mobile phone waiting for a call.
The woman fell off a cliff and she was floating ALIVE 30 minutes!

- Most of our salary is "per day". If for any reason your helicopter is out of service during your days on...you'll earn almost NOTHING! (about 1300-1400€ for a captain)

IMO, Avincis is importing the "Inaer way of life" to the other companies...

I hope, I'm wrong....:ouch:

[Spanish Waltzer]

Perrito,

You quote some disturbing headlines there which no doubt will cause some on here to jump to a conclusion that they are all doomed in the UK.

What you don't mention is what the regulator/authority is doing to hold Avincis to account. Surely if the contract allows the company to make such changes to its operating procedures, or if it doesn't, they are not being penalized for it, then it is as much the fault of the contract/authority. Its not new news that a commercial outfit will wish to make profit out of its operations - that's business in this world, and is not restricted to aviation companies.

From what I have read on here & the DfT website (assuming one believes either :ok:) the future UK SAR contract would not permit such a reduction in service once the contract is in place.

SW

[Geoffersincornwall]

I must point out that as a member of a large team dedicated to providing quality training we are also the victims of the regulators and the customers who both seem to think that in some weird variation of the laws of physics that LESS is somehow MORE.

The regulators apparently fail to notice that we are two generations of helicopter on since they wrote the licensing syllabuses and drew up their ideas for recurrent training.

Customers have a habit of promising the best training then never writing the cheques because they find out that having been awarded the contract at a skinny price they can no longer meet their promises because they overestimated the reliability of their hardware and the vagaries of day to day life in the helicopter business.

One wonders quietly whether the operators will be do their usual trick and cut back on training and spare parts which have traditionally not been well defined in operating contracts. Is that in error or by design? mmmmmm....
conspiracy theories are two a penny but as long as the job gets done........

The most frustrating thing in the world for any teacher is to be handed good students who are hard working and keen as mustard only to find that you have to pass them on with the job half done. The next most frustrating thing is to be handed students who have had such poor basic training that you don't have a hope in hell of getting them to where they need to be. Unfortunately I see too many of the latter and not enough of the former.

I can't help feeling that one day we will pay the price for this.

As far as the SAR predicament goes if you have well trained personnel then to a certain extent you can pinch a bit on the recurrent training but what worries me is the poor training levels that precede their arrival in the SAR world. My focus is a global one and not necessarily relating to UK but I can't help feeling that UKSAR suffers from the same malaise. Less than ideal but we will fumble through. We always do.


G.

[jimf671]

... conspiracy theories are two a penny ...

One should not propose conspiracy when coincidences of incompetence provide a perfectly satisfactory explanation. :)

[jayteeto]

I wasn't trying to be harsh and other than biting back at the poster who said Bond Pilots (ie ME!) were useless, I wasn't trying to be personal.
I did 25 years in the RAF and am approaching 10 years of police/hems operations, this allows me a valid opinion on this thread. Not all will agree, but I was exposed to financial pressures in both jobs. The simple facts are that you need to accept how governments work. It really is that simple........ They don't care how much better or worse a system is, they don't care about peoples lives. There are 2 things that matter ABOVE ALL ELSE,

Primary: Will the public care and still vote for them?

Secondary: The cost.

For instance, one layman in a roomful of experts. A minister asks a question on how much a service will cost. If the layman shouts out a figure lower than rest, guess which 'expert' the minister will listen to?
Bond understand the system, they cut costs everywhere they can, the service may be the silver solution, but it WILL be fit for purpose. Crab, I understand EXACTLY where you are coming from, however that just isn't going to happen in a million years. I said earlier, you all need to accept it and move on, give the new service some support, even if it should be better. A reduced service is better than none at all.:(

[onesquaremetre]

A reduced service is better than none at all

Tell that to the family of the woman off the north coast of Spain that Perrito Piloto refers to.

Thanks for your perspective Perrito Piloto. It can't be easy to have a tragedy so close to home held up as an example of systemic failings but your insight into the current way of things in Spain is very revealing.

[[email protected]]

A reduced service is better than none at all jayteeto - I agree, but it is all about how much reduced that service is - otherwise we end up with a shiny veneer of capability with no substance to back it up and the first time it is tested it will fail.

If that isn't a vote-loser I don't know what is - it is the same sort of thing as the Labour opposition banging on about how the Govt aren't doing the right things to recover from the mess they (Labour) put us in. Who wants to lay claim to having created a f*cked-up SAR system from a very good one?

I agree the Spanish regulators have a lot to answer for but they doubtless bowed under political pressure to keep up appearances at minimum cost.

[Hedski]

TBH, the ethos of operations in Spain scares the life out of me. Just look at the findings after the Almeria 139 crash, in CRM and training terms. Avincis limited SAR experience regardless of where is not a beacon of success and high standards. Agree with Crab on this one, not a happy bunny.:hmm:

On a lighter note, Merry Christmas to all the SAR peeps out there, be you observers in the wings, at home or those on duty holding the fort at any of the bases during the hols.:D

[jayteeto]

Onesquaremetre, there will always be a job where a little bit more capability would have worked, even with the gold standard. When you do this job you quickly realise that you can't save them all, please dont try the guilt trip with me, it doesnt work. The fact is that there is no money in the pot. Police aviation in the uk has been decimated, literally. The answer is to make the most of what you have and stop whining. You can chain yourself naked outside 10 downing st and the outcome will not change. Live with it. :ugh:

[ninja-lewis]

"I really am not a fan of Crab, but I do fear this decision. If the sole driver behind this is cost, then it is bad for the UK and SAR in particular. Whilst I fully appreciate SAR(H) would have been a very sensible and reasonably economically sound programme with excellent platforms, this decision makes me think of a poorly funded and supported contract that will be regretted in the future. How can a company with CHC's experience be out by 20%? The DfT also do not have a good record- East Coast Mainline for example." Are the operators alone this time or have they all bid with partners (RBS, Thales, Lockheed, VT last time)? Sometimes in a contract like this there are other costs involved - particularly financing costs.

For example, Siemens won out over Bombardier for the Thameslink train contract because the Siemens train division were able to obtain much cheaper funding from the Siemens Group (Siemens have a bank licence) whereas Bombardier had to seek external financing. No big difference between the bids otherwise - just the financing aspect.

[onesquaremetre]

jayteeto - a career in management beckons. You sound ideal. :D

[lowfat]

Of course the only thing being considered is COST. Look at all the over fiasco's PFI for hospitals etc.
They want to cheaply cover an international responsibility to provide a maritime rescue service oh and the usual foolish walkers(which should pay by the way but that's a separate issue)

I am pleased its only 15 years. Like earlier posters have said, the badge on the outside of the chopper will change but 90% of the people will be the same.

By the way the wages will have to compete with the oil and gas ones.This isn't the Iberian peninsular.

Merry chrimbo and chill out , for once I'm with crab.

[212man]

Everyone is talking about a 20% lower offer.... But where are the numbers? The economic facts? Maybe we should be discussing why a company offered a bid 20% more expensive

Actually, it would be 25% more.......

I'll get my coat

[4thright]

Merry Christmas Crab

Sorry you took it personally, I just said you were talking crap about how commercial aviation prices things because you have no experience of how they do it. Perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. Your earlier comment about how the SAR competiton's outcome will be down to the lowest price reflects on how little you really know about how these things are finally done. You bang on about your own prejudices, how ever well informed from a military sar experience perspective, but you have none of any substance in the civil world so you should cut your argument accordingly IMO. You come across as arrogant, blinkered and prejudiced as a result.

BTW I note you answered none of my points but chose to argue by deflection rarher than anything else.

Merry Christmas to all of you who are working today. I know how it feels.

[jayteeto]

Jayteeto a manager......... tried that and failed miserably :ok: Why, because I can't lie about cheaper being good enough.
One squaremetre, what you don't realise is that I agree with what you want, you are right, it could be one of my family dies because of cost cutting. However, I may not be a manager, but I am a REALIST. Members of my family are taking pay cuts, the service our helicopter is supporting is creaking at the edges, sometimes failing, public services are being slashed all over the country. Police, hospitals, doctors, firemen, ambulance, military, binmen, schools, highways, coastguard and many more have been done at the knees. Tell me why SAR is more deserving than a cancer unit or a childrens ward?

Answer: They are not!! Repeat, Jayteeto is not a management lacky, he is a realist. Accept it and live with it.

[500e]

Crab will there be any Mil search & rescue albeit not as we know it ?

[jungliebeefer]

500e, Mil SAR in support of the MCA will cease however, as they have done for many decades, RN helicopters will provide 24/7 SAR cover when embarked. All RN aircrew complete SAR training as part of their respective training courses and then subsequently have to maintain currency/competency in this role.

[abzheli]

Does anybody know when the Government is to announce the winners of the 2 bids and also when these 2 contracts are to start. Has it also been announced where these aircraft are to be based. Am i correct in saying that it looks like Prestwick is to be moved to Glasgow airport.

[jimf671]

abzheli

The 7th March is the published date for the award to be announced but I don't expect the full story, including details of the base locations, to be known until some time after that.

The contract transition starts on 1st April 2015, Lot 1 at, or in the vicinity of, Leconfield, and Lot 2 at, or in the vicinity of, Lossiemouth.

[500e]

JBeefer
Thanks, so we will still be paying to train RN \ RAF SAR + paying for private SAR sounds good to me :confused:
Expect you look down on us most days, could almost train over the levels at present :E

[jimf671]

Talk of RN SAR when embarked brings the question of whether, in the absence of a budget for escort destroyers (!), we can expect new efforts in RN SAR as we approach the new carrier age.

In the same period, aircraft will return from Afghanistan. Even after scrapping some of them, and transfer between services, we may end 2015 with the question of why it was necessary to spend up to £3.1 billion on more helicopters.

I do wonder if we are going to be spending 2016 explaining to Joe Public and our dear friends in the Press why a Puma Mk2 isn't as good as a new S-92 with de-icing and a top quality FLIR ball.

[jayteeto]

How much have they spent per airframe on Puma Mk2?
How much is an S92 per airframe including introduction to service costs?

[212man]

How much is an S92 per airframe including introduction to service costs?

The airframes are around $35 million (in SAR fit)

[cyclic]

I haven't flown the S92 but the Puma L2 as a SAR aircraft is a long way from a good solution. All the Pumas are quite pitch unstable which makes doing decks more of a challenge. The autopilot makes the aircraft "mushy" although the SAR modes are good. The cockpit is cramped with no space for additional role equipment and the cabin would end up with a lot of folk with really bad backs. The Puma was designed to be fast in a straight line, the Sea King to be stable in the hover. A combination of the two would be ideal, I don't know if that is what the S92 is?

[jimf671]

Sorry? Didn"t catch that? ;)

[SARowl]

The cockpit is cramped with no space for additional role equipment and the cabin would end up with a lot of folk with really bad backs. The Puma was designed to be fast in a straight line, the Sea King to be stable in the hover.

Cyclic,

Try flying an AW139, which is in service as a SAR aircraft - and the AW189 won't be much better...

[jungliebeefer]

500e

You are confusing the issue here - the RN will train for SAR as they have always done - this is because as all mariners will know there is a moral obligation for all on the sea to help each other in an emergency. Often the best way for an RN skipper to help when at sea is to use his helicopter.

This is not a case of pay for one or the other (Mil or MCA SAR) but completely removed from the obligtation the government has to provide SAR around the UK coast.

Not sure what you are trying to say in your final para but I have never looked down on any fellow aviators based on whether they are RAF/RN or Civ - indeed I now fly in Civ SAR with a complete mix and enjoy doing so ...

[terminus mos]

Although the Puma series is a little unstable in pitch (and roll in my opinion) the EC225 auto hover is very stable, more so than the L2. But in terms of cabin, the S-92 is the best on the market today (ignoring the 101 which is prohibitively expensive for what will be a cost driven decision)

[500e]

JB thought you were still flying out of EGDY no slight intended, we are on the edge of the zone
I understand the life at sea obligation, used to ocean race in youth, still think it is sensible to have one training regime with one provider rather than split you have public money going to contractors + public money going to mill training so there is an overlap the mill training is a must as you say so why not funnel the Money to an existing proven provider.

[cyclic]

the EC225 auto hover is very stable

Over a deck you would have to fly through the modes though which can lead to some autopilot confusion. You certainly can't beep fast enough over a pitching, rolling deck. The 225 will trim itself at low ground speed though but you still have a cramped aircraft.

[[email protected]]

so why not funnel the Money to an existing proven provider. - the RAF you mean;)

Auto hover modes are great for getting people out of the water or using a hover trim facility for the winch op to 'fly' the aircraft but bugger all use for decks (except little ones that you treat like a big drum anyway).

Unless a full S92 bid to cover all the SAR flts is submitted and accepted, winchops and winchmen of the future will have to endure the 1.4m high cabin of the AW 189.:{

[onesquaremetre]

Police, hospitals, doctors, firemen, ambulance, military, binmen, schools, highways, coastguard and many more have been done at the knees. Tell me why SAR is more deserving than a cancer unit or a childrens ward?


[S92] airframes are around $35 million (in SAR fit)

Accepting that times are a little tight for George Osborne and the rest of us, do we really need to purchase helicopters that cost £22 million? I'm no accountant but if we bought the Lada rather than the Lexus, would that not free up funds to ensure that sufficient training hours are available each month for all aircrew to maintain the skill and competence levels that the people of Britain have come to expect? Defence procurement has a history of late and over budget projects, due in part to boys wanting the best toys on the market. With such constrained finances and with the contract only being 10 years long, shouldn't SAR-H avoid falling into the same trap and just get something good enough to do the fundamentals? The core requirement of the project is that civil aviation successfully takes over SAR from the military. Does it really need to be with the smartest new toy in the shop?

[jimf671]

£22 million? Chickenfeed.

5 x £22 million plus spares plus 5 x £15 million plus spares. Still chickenfeed.

Airframes aren't the big issue here.

[jayteeto]

Ambulance service now buying Skodas.

[TipCap]

Nothing wrong with Skoda's. I got an Octavia Estate and its great :ok:

[jayteeto]

I know, they are the same as Vw's, I was highlighting that you can't always have the BMW option........ you just have to live with what you get......
Ambulances up here used to be Mercedes Benz. Now they are Ford and even worse Fiat, often breaking down. The crews just come to work as normal and do their best to go out and save lives with what they have......

[[email protected]]

The core requirement of the project is that civil aviation successfully takes over SAR from the military. Does it really need to be with the smartest new toy in the shop? the core requirement was to produce a service that was no less capable than that which it replaced - that requirement is being compromised on a regular basis because no one seems able to build anything better than the Sea King for all-round UKSAR.

[Helimed24]

Can someone please confirm that CHC have only pulled out of long SAR (option 1) and they are still in the running for short range SAR (option 2)?

Merry Chrimbo!!:ok:

[Hompy]

Merry Christmas, one and all!

It's all a bit of a farce, isn't it, this discussion about economics and SAR? Do we really need any SAR helicopters at all, economically speaking? How many specialist children's units could we buy for the price of the complete SAR operation? Why not get rid of it altogether? Put the money into road ambulances or volunteer MRT or RNLI stations? How many lives will be lost as a result? I doubt there would be many.

Yes, I know, thousands of people winched, blaa, blaa. But, realistically, how many of those would have died without a helicopter ie been rescued by other means? How many of those rescued had inadequate equipment or skills to do what they were doing? How did our great nations survive before the second world war when there were far more ships and no helicopters?

My point is, what are we doing getting rid of a SAR bidder based on PRICE when PRICE is the one thing that doesn't make sense when talking about SAR? All that will happen with a cheaper service is the personnel operating the machines will have to put up with equipment less than the best available, with less training time than possible on less pay. Reducing price will reduce quality, there's no doubt about it.

Why can't the UK government choose on quality, especially for what is by its nature, a highly 'inefficient' rescue service?

People who talk about Brunel and Telford with their chests puffed with admiration and pride often forget that many of their most amazing projects were economic disasters.

And a Happy New Year!

[Thomas coupling]

Senior pilot must be on a spot of leave - we need to merge these threads SP?

Helimed - CHC didn't pull out??? They were told to pull out because their prices were too high.

500: There won't be additional trng for the RN/RAF after UK SAR goes civvy. RN training for SAR goes with carrier ops - the end. It has nothing to do with a European mandate for each country to provide civvy SAR.

Someone also said there would still be an element of RAF trng going on after long SAR: No there won't be any training for RAF crews (there could/should be some for third party like algeria and others using Griffin/109 etc). But RAF SAR trng for RAF pilots will be as dead as a dodo.

Puma for SAR - c'mon lads, wake up. This is the 21st century. It's bad enough 'trimming down' the new SAR service (as some would say), but for christ's sake, chucking in a 30yr old airframe to boot, which has absloutely NOTHING in common with maritime ops is taking the pi*s. And don't blab on about glass cockpit and upragted engines and this and that. The airframe is ergonomically unfit for (sar) purpose.:hmm:

What is happening as we speak is the 'advisers' to the Government [DfT and RN] will be topping and tailing their operational requirements (probably by the year end) and then the government will move the goal posts to ensure the short list fit as neatly as possible into the real requirements which are jobs for the industry here in the UK, bargain job lot purchase prices for tranches of the contract (spares / maintenance, etc).
Now who are the government most in favour of:
Bristows (US owned):
The Bristow safety vision, Target Zero. It aims to achieve Zero Accidents, Zero Harm to People and Zero Harm to the Environment. It goes beyond Safety Management Systems to involve Safety Culture & Safety Leadership.

or

Bond[Uk owned,Avincis].

Mmmm, six of one, etc. Until:

Moody's downgrades Avincis Mission Critical Services Group, S.A.U. to B2 from B1; outlook negative (http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Avincis-Mission-Critical-Services-Group-SAU-to-B2--PR_261975).

Cameron ain't going to like this. Will he take the risk that 6 or 12 months into the new contract, the successful candidate goes ti*s up???

I don't think so.

Bristows - :D:D:D:ok:

[jimf671]

Remind us TC,

1) How many contractors were chosen for GAP?

2) Who does SAR maintenance now?

[500e]

TC
500: There won't be additional trng for the RN/RAF after UK SAR goes civvy. RN training for SAR goes with carrier ops - the end. It has nothing to do with a European mandate for each country to provide civvy SAR.


So there is ongoing training for Mill SAR, I never said additional money for RN RAF I said why split a budget as you say RN training will still be require, personally I don't care who pulls me out, RN RAF Civy SAR but why split budget so both ways are loosing out.
We have seen some real good examples of the government privatising services with poor results, & escalating cost, some on balance sheet other off, train Co. walking from franchises, Old folk homes leveraged beyond belief, want another chair in the office that's another on cost. The cost pushed forward for someone else to worry about, why should Civy SAR be any different.
The company's are clever at leaving themselves a loop hole to crawl out of, a cynic maybe but tot up government waste :sad: Give you a start Computer contracts :{

[[email protected]]

500e - you don't seem to understand what TC is saying - the RN will provide SAR from their carriers, wherever in the world they may be - not in UK. They will only do a the minimum amount of training required to call themselves a maritime SAR asset - again not extensive or enough for UK SAR.

The military training system (DHFS) encompasses SARTU and as such all mil crews will receive some BASIC SAR training ie hovering over the water in Holyhead Harbour and some mountain flying - again insufficient to be regarded as a proper UK SAR asset.

The SARH contract will have to generate its own training system unless it takes on fully trained and current crews from existing civ or milSAR flights.

[500e]

Thank you Crab.
So the Mil will have its own downgraded service in both scope & training the rest an unknown civilian service, that may or may be as good as previous.

[[email protected]]

That pretty much sums it up and is mostly why I have been against the whole plan from the start - and why so many don't like my posts - because they refuse to face the truth.

[Rigga]

500e - For me, you have hit the nail on the head.

Using the earlier Ambulance analogy: You cannot compare a Merc to a Skoda or a Skoda to a FIAT. All may do the same job, but in slightly different ways. All are likely to be successful and all may be subject to failures in various modes. The drift from the original thread is a pointless and circular argument.

Crabs' main argument seems to be that, because no-one makes S61's anymore, the current service cannot be replaced like for like. I agree.

But just who is trying to replace the current service? Answer: Nobody.

Any private company worth its weight will not bid to use the present systems or even properties unless there are freely given for the contract (check out BAE's maintenance manpower and facilities and AirTankers rent free location for instance). And even then they will cost it all up properly and (if they have any sense at all) without any costing information supplied from MOD.

Different platforms have different training needs, crew needs and operational properties and capabilities. None will be the same as the old S61's.

The current system is going to die off. Get used to it. A new system will either be as good as the old or near enough to work in some fashion. It will not be military and it probably will not fly the same way as the military does now, but it will be the new system and Crabs is possibly unlikely to be a part of it.

[detgnome]

The SARH contract will have to generate its own training system unless it takes on fully trained and current crews from existing civ or milSAR flights

DfT specifies the previous experience requirements for pilots and rearcrew. You can argue whether they are 'fully trained', but assuming a new type for most, then there won't be any that are fully trained...but I don't think there will be much ab-initio training going on for pilots.

It's worth remembering that the 50hrs for training is specified by DfT, not the bidders ('twas 70hrs under old SARH). The bidders will do whatever you ask, no less (that would trigger a penalty) and no more ('cos that costs money). Specify the contract correctly in the first place.....

[[email protected]]

Crabs' main argument seems to be that, because no-one makes S61's anymore, the current service cannot be replaced like for like. I agree.
it has nothing to do with the fact that no-one makes S61s - it is all about capability and the new service is supposed to be at least as capable, not near enough to work in some fashion.

This whole process has already cost the taxpayer a great deal of money, if it does not offer the required level of capability (and the DfT really don't understand that word in the SAR context) then what is the point? Why replace a system that only needs new aircraft with a whole new service - it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The oil and gas industry has shown how the helicopter operators will cut each other's throats to get the contract and then squeeze the pips out of the operation to make a profit - why should we be surprised if those same operators apply the same modus operandi to SAR?

Contractor Owned and Military Operated new aircraft (to the right spec) would have been a far better option in the first place and cost considerably less than this ongoing fiasco. Unfortunately, empire building and politics have got in the way!

Those of us in the mil who end up in the new service will be no less dedicated and professional than we are now and will bring a great deal more to the party than many of the naysayers believe.

[Rigga]

"Those of us in the mil who end up in the new service will be no less dedicated and professional than we are now and will bring a great deal more to the party than many of the naysayers believe."

Will any mil personnel end up in the civil SAR service? Likely as EX-mil personnel I'd think.

I also think that no-one goes out their front doors in the morning to do a bad job - not even a theif goes out to fail. And the attitude you portray here to non-mil aviation is both haughty and deplorable.

[jungliebeefer]

I have to agree with Rigga's sentiment. Crab it seems that you refuse to accept that any organisation could possibly provide a service as capable as the RAF. Having worked in or around all current providers of SAR in the UK I can state that they are all equally capable. All three current providers share one valuable asset - aircrew both front and back who are dedicated to this most honourable of tasks.

The impression you leave on this network is that of an individual who
believes that the RAF SAR Force is a far superior practitioner of the art than any other organisation is or could be. This arrogance immediately turns many away from your other better presented and valid points.

You have no experience of operating in the civilian SAR world, yet criticise it from a distance. Ultimately the success of future SAR will not be down to the aircraft or the SOPs used (RN, Civ, RAF they all work), but will be due to the hard work and fortitude of the pilots and rear crew that man it. Whether they come from the RN, RAF or a Civ background is unimportant - as they do now, there hard work will forge future success.

In any process such as this there is always a place for constructive discussion - this is how the future shape of SAR will be decided, unfortunately you are now coming across as arrogant and wishing to be a part of the problem as opposed to the solution. I realise the issues (many you have raised), but none are insurmountable and having left the military I realise that the civilian solution is equally viable.

JB

[pitotprobe]

Hear, hear JunglieBeefer!

[[email protected]]

the attitude you portray here to non-mil aviation is both haughty and deplorable. as ever the crab bashing desires outweigh the reality of what I am saying - I have been very clear several times that I do not regard civ SAR crews as inferior in any way shape or form - I have criticised some of the capabilities that some have claimed for some civSAR platforms.

I have also criticised the process that has taken us through one failed competitive tendering farce and is now moving towards a lowest possible bidder for the second. Can you really believe that the way we are going is best for UKSAR?

I am too old and cynical to believe the glossy brochures and the snake-oil sales patter of how everything will be just wonderful if you trust the market to produce the right solution.

[jayteeto]

I have saved lives using an RAF Puma in winch fit. They provided SAR cover in Belize for years and minefield extraction capability in Kosovo. It wasn't the best platform but it did the business. The winch lived inside the cabin and was wound out at scene. Many people owe the Puma, don't knock it.
It isn't the answer, but it shows a job can be done with non specialist kit.

[jayteeto]

Plus it got places a darn sight faster, albeit with cock all fuel endurance. are the new engines more efficient?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

If that isn't a vote-loser I don't know what is


Eh?? Outside our tiny forum, hardly anyone cares about SAR. 90% of the population have never even seen a SAR helicopter, let alone needed to be rescued by one. Of all the problems facing the politicos (and the general population), SAR-H is a tiddler so don't expect them to care!

If there are no votes in defence, there are certainly no votes in SAR!


you just have to live with what you get


Sad but very true...

[500e]

Rigga
I do not think anyone at the sharp end will do anything but their best & more, but training is to be cut, trust the bean counters as said to do no more than contracted.
Are the contract terms correct, so many have been a shambles with companies running rings round government procurement, and apparently little or no will to pursue short fall.
I think people should read Crabs paragraph!
The oil and gas industry has shown how the helicopter operators will cut each other's throats to get the contract and then squeeze the pips out of the operation to make a profit - why should we be surprised if those same operators apply the same modus operandi to SAR?
Now where is the thread regarding crew remuneration ?

[detgnome]

I also think that Jungliebeefer has summed it up rather well.

[cyclic]

I have criticised some of the capabilities that some have claimed for some civSAR platforms.

Crab, you have also criticised crews directly. This is where your reasonable argument falls down.

[[email protected]]

Crab, you have also criticised crews directly I may have done early on in the original SARH process but I also apologised for some unfounded criticisms I made.

Again, criticisms made were in reference to claimed capability vs actual training - I am cited for being arrogant but so many claims were made that we over-trained and that the same capability could be maintained with little or no training because experience was strong, that I had to call foul because it isn't true.

Give a top quality winchman 2 years of doing minimal training (especially in the water at night) and then see how poor he is - he is still a winchman and can straighten the wire but his actual (as opposed to presumed) skill levels are very much lower. If you want to accept that lower level of ability then that is up to you but don't pretend it doesn't exist.

We can all believe that we don't experience skill-fade and we can kid ourselves that we will just man up and get the job done when the time comes but in our game, the only way to reduce risks and maximise the safety of both the crews and the survivors is to train hard and smart - and that costs money.

[jungliebeefer]

Crab,

The right quality and amount of training will be crucial to the success of future SAR, a point that you have articulated on many occasions. However, what makes you think that civilian aviation will not allow the right amount of training. The amount of training available to both MCA and JIGSAW crews is certainly in line with that available when I carried out RN SAR (3-4 hours per day with content decided by a/c captain in conjunction with crew).

So the question is what makes you think that there will be a significant reduction in training available within the new SAR force - the precedence seems to point to this not being an issue.

JB

[Gene Genie]

JB, it's written into the contract that the hours for continuation training are 600 per unit annually. That's to include dunker and pilot IF, and it's on the DfT prospectus that's had a link posted previously.

If the current CivSAR hours were available, we'd be delighted. That's not the case, and why the concerns have been raised.

Gene

[[email protected]]

And that's without the increase in training required for the NVG stuff that isn't completed at the moment.

50 hours per month amongst 5 crews = 1.6 hours a day/night. Assume 10 of those 50 hours is IF for 10 pilots, that leaves 40 per month or 1.3 hours per day for decks, wets, sits, PLBs, NVG, mountains, radar letdowns, FCS procedures, hi-lines, RIB transfers, MRT exs, lifeboat exs, windfarm exs etc etc etc.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem here. And, since we are clearly at the bottom end of the price scale, there won't be any luxuries in the training package.

It smacks of something that has been cut to the bone by beancounters and those that have no understanding of the real demands of SARops.

[Gene Genie]

Just realised, it's pilot simulator time not IF. What's left up top is blond...

Gene

[Vie sans frontieres]

1.3 hours per day for decks, wets, sits, PLBs, NVG, mountains, radar letdowns, FCS procedures, hi-lines, RIB transfers, MRT exs, lifeboat exs, windfarm exs etc etc etc

Half of which will be spent in transit to and from the training location.

Where are the remaining bidders planning on locating their central training establishments? For the original SAR-H, Valley was chosen to fulfill this role but this was obviously for just one provider. If the contract is split between the two remaining bidders, can we assume there will be two separate SAR training schools? Will there be an external standards set-up to ensure they sing from the same hymn sheet? Is that the CAA's role? :confused:

[Spanish Waltzer]

Vie,

If you're not planning on employing abinitio crews then there is no need for a school at all. Pilots will require some previous SAR experience and will be given type conversions as required. Rear crew the same. In the unlikely event that some basic SAR training is required then it can either be provided at the location or, more likely, out sourced to a commercial trainer. Moreover once sufficient crews are employed and trained what role would there be for any dedicated school?

The CAA will simply ensure that the providers SAR AOC defines minimum training requirements and/or experience levels. Have a read of CAP 999 for more info.

[Vie sans frontieres]

You're being a little optimistic there Spanish Waltzer. If a central training school is unnecessary, why did Soteria have it in their plans?

From the look of it, co-pilots won't require previous SAR experience and the winchman a minimal amount. Merely converting to aircraft type isn't sufficient to prepare an individual for what is required on a SAR shift. For that you need a conversion course and dedicated hours doing specific flying and sortie management exercises. The inevitable turnover of staff through retirements, injuries and job changes at ten different flights would ensure there is always a requirement for a conversion course for newcomers and as we all know, the drip feed of experienced SAR operators from the military will soon dry up once the military relinquish the task. Providing sufficiently standardised SAR training locally doesn't sound possible unless it is provided by a mobile training team who ensure that all are taught identically and trying to achieve that futher robs hours from the existing crews who, as has been discussed, will be surviving on the bare minimum of hours.

[[email protected]]

Vie, Soteria were looking at the 25 year contract which did require some self-generated training scheme as the pool of experienced operators would eventually dry up.

This 10 year contract could just about get away without a full-on training system and just do what was required on the flights - the following 10 years however........but that will be someone else's problem and everyone is too concerned with the short-term view.

The next question to be asked is what will be the public's reation to all the bases being changed and many communities losing their 'local' SAR helicopter? If Chivenor, Portland and Boulmer are anything to go by there will be a lot of flak in the press and many more questions in the house.

If, as rumoured, the Culdrose flight might move to St Mawgan and Chivenor to Swansea, Valley to Caernavon, Prestwick to Glasgow, Lossie to Inverness, Lec to Humberside and Wattisham to er...Wattisham, you will be replacing purpose built SAR flights with portacabins and just make life completely miserable for those that have to work there, especially for overnight accommodation.

I know, man up, it's the future and it's cheap:{

[Vie sans frontieres]

Ten years is a long time and as you've stated, it doesn't take long for skills to fade if a chap is remaining in the military but not in a SAR role. Without a common training regime delivered by instructors subject to external standardisation, a postcode lottery of styles of rescue will surely result. This may not be such a big deal for the chap being rescued but for external agencies such as RNLI and MRTs it's a big problem. They already have to put up with the RN, RAF and MCA doing things in slightly different ways. Throw in an inquest, fatal accident inquiry or similar where a lawyer uncovers the confusion caused by different operating practices and suddenly the public's faith in SAR will be severely damaged.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Problem: Overnight accommodation.....Solution: live at home. Oh and bring in packed lunch so no need for full catering facilities either. C'mon crab stop comparing everything to your coveted world. It's the actual service provision that needs to be no less capable, not all the cosy extras that the mil provide with associated hidden costs. And yes that may mean if you want a job with the new contractor you may have to actually move home!!

Vie...you call it optimistic, I call it realistic ;). The other difference with the Soteria plan was that there was a steady throughput of mil crews that would need converting and training. The new plan does not have that complication.

Local MR, CG or RNLI teams will very quickly get experience and yes even training with their local helicopter. Different procedures may only become an issue during major incidents when more than one asset is on scene. But that's not that different today - as you already point out the RAF, RN & MCA all do it slightly different and the guys on the ground cope admirably. I think you should give them a little more credit.

[llamaman]

Quote:

Without a common training regime delivered by instructors subject to external standardisation, a postcode lottery of styles of rescue will surely result. This may not be such a big deal for the chap being rescued but for external agencies such as RNLI and MRTs it's a big problem. They already have to put up with the RN, RAF and MCA doing things in slightly different ways. Throw in an inquest, fatal accident inquiry or similar where a lawyer uncovers the confusion caused by different operating practices and suddenly the public's faith in SAR will be severely damaged.

A little overly dramatic I think.

You could argue that RN, RAF and MCA being merged into one service might actually standardise things a bit more given robust enough SOPs and training directives. I don't buy the requirement for a common training regime either. The current (military) system delivers crews at a fairly basic standard; they then develop on the various flights under the tuition of QHIs and QCIs who will inevitably have their own slightly different styles driven by personality/local operating factors. I don't think that subtle differences are a 'big problem' for the RNLI and MRTs. As long as they're capable of steering a boat on a certain heading/speed or able to make a grid-reference for a pick-up then the bit where their job involves a helicopter will work just fine.

Quote:

The next question to be asked is what will be the public's reation to all the bases being changed and many communities losing their 'local' SAR helicopter? If Chivenor, Portland and Boulmer are anything to go by there will be a lot of flak in the press and many more questions in the house.

You could argue that some communities will be delighted to gain a 'local' SAR helicopter. This really isn't an issue on a national scale so long as the coverage works. The flak in the local press will soon die down and I think you'll find Cameron has far bigger questions in the house to concern himself with. I know it's a big deal to those of us directly involved and a handful of on-side locals, the other 99.99% of the population really couldn't care less. The only time any of this would become a major political issue is if there were a large scale disaster with numerous lives lost and the SAR cover was not adequate. This could have happened on any of the days in recent history where the 'on-state' picture around the UK was poor. It may happen in the future due to inadequate training. Management types call this 'risk'.

Quote:

If, as rumoured, the Culdrose flight might move to St Mawgan and Chivenor to Swansea, Valley to Caernavon, Prestwick to Glasgow, Lossie to Inverness, Lec to Humberside and Wattisham to er...Wattisham, you will be replacing purpose built SAR flights with portacabins and just make life completely miserable for those that have to work there, especially for overnight accommodation.

Make life completely miserable, really! How much do you need to be comfortable? You might even find that some comfortable beds get installed!

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a travesty that the Military are losing SAR. However, it's going to happen and it might not necessarily all be bad. Just different.

[Vie sans frontieres]

The current (military) system delivers crews at a fairly basic standard

That's the point. They're at the same basic standard certainly as far as the ouput from Valley is concerned. If the personality/locality driven styles that you describe are allowed to develop without basic skills having substantial commonality and an independent standards unit in place to stamp out unsanctioned deviations from SOPs, who knows what disparity in operating practices might exist after ten years. It sounds like chaos theory!

[jimf671]

Oh and bring in packed lunch ...

There you go Crab. No more RAF packed lunches with kiddie crisps and cereal bars made from cornflakes and araldite!

[[email protected]]

However, it's going to happen and it might not necessarily all be bad. Just different there's no doubting it will be different but I wonder how many of those who want the jobs we have in the locations we are in will be terribly disappointed with what working for UKSAR on a shoestring will actually be like.

Miminal and temporary infrastructure, few perks and minimum flying hours for training, I suspect the shock might be just as big for those coming from existing civSAR flights as from the mil ones. Add in the pecking order of seniority within the company and the individual pay scales depending on how good a bluffer you are and it all makes for a jolly time.

Mobility of the workforce is one thing but if you have to live near your base then you have your other half to keep happy - what is the schooling like in Caernavon for instance? How much will you have to pay for a house in Aberdeen? Or St Mawgan?

Sadly it is all in the lap of the Gods (or rather the civil servants who think they are) and even if it doesn't work very well, the MCA PR machine will make it look like it does:{

We're all doomed!!!;)

[4thright]

What is this nonesense about poor accomodation under the new contract? Anyone ever been to Lee or Portland, never mind the refurb at Stornoway? Seems to me the MCA dont believe in portacabins, tents or any such rubbish, and we can expect new accomodation that is up to the latest environmental, HSE and other legal standards. Wonder how long it would have taken the MoD to sort that - look at Chivenor!
Looking at the DfT requirements documents, there's a whole section needed on any bidder's infrastructure response. Not sure that indicates any intention to go cheap!
Sorry if some of you ex-mil guys who may get employed in the new service may have to move to some different places, if as the guessers suggest there will be new operating locations, but I don't believe that's going to deter anyone who is worth employing.

This debate is now verging into seeing demons for the sake of demons - or just Crab in wind-up mode?:ugh:

[jimf671]

I do think that there will be a few different locations. I also think that this is what will wake Joe Public up to what is happening. Prepare for several months of mis-reported rubbish in the press about misunderstood basing decisions during spring 2013.

However, here and elsewhere, I think the location card is over-played.

[Flounder]

never mind the refurb at Stornoway?

Missed that one last time I was there? Sumburgh maybe?

[4thright]

Suppose it depends which decade you were at Stornoway, Flounder.:)

[Flounder]

Depends what you consider a refurb I suppose. Christmas trees and tinsel don't count in my book...although it does look jolly.

Budgets what they are, tinsel might be all we can look forward to when it comes to upgrading equipment.

[4thright]

Jimf, I agree. Looking at whats going on near me on the South Coast and the rubbish that gets reported we can only imagine the drivel that will be forthcoming.

No doubt some MPs will chip in as well around the country, and as usual completely miss the truth for the sake of a few goody points on their "vote for me" credentials.

All that matters for basing other than they have suitable infrastructure to cuddle the helos and personnel is that they are spread across the country to provide an equally responsive service to any UK citizen anywhere. Within reason and sensible cost of course and perhaps a bit of sensible bias where we know there will be quite a call on the service. Sorry Crab but there has to be a cash limit in any era and many taxpayers if they were ever really to take an interest might ask why they are already paying so much for loads of helos etc that dont do much for 90% of the time.

Unfortunately, SAR helos carry similar emotional baggage to the ever so precious NHS and local hospital closures or service changes although only to those near where they are based.
IMO the media so often miss the point and the media only throw fuel onto the fires rather than try a bit of objective analysis and proper journalistic reporting. So much ill informed drivel gets written about the impact of any change whatever it might be. No doubt we will even read of wasting money on "dangerous US choppers" instead of the "trusty (heavily unserviceable and out of date) Prince William Sea King".

CHC can afford tinsel? - so thats where the 20% goes then!:)

Ah Well - back to the supper :ugh:

[[email protected]]

Don't confuse what has been on offer with previous contracts with what might just come on the 'lowest bidder' contract since the MCA don't care what happens with accommodation as long as they can show pictures of shiny aircraft waiting to save lives at each flight.

Whilst on the subject of cash - how is it that a company who have already been operating 4 UK SAR flights can be undercut by 20%? Surely they should have a good idea of what it will and won't cost to run UKSAR.

Are we going to be faced with a similar comedy to the recent railway fiasco where Virgin had to point out that First had got their sums badly wrong and the contract award had to be reversed?

It is the same contract drones from the DfT who were responsible for that who will be scrutinising and awarding the SAR contract - if they award it to someone who has 'got their sums wrong' we could be faced with a failed service after a year or two, no military option to save the day, and a taxpayer-funded bailout of that mysterious 20%.

Or perhaps we will see the BAE school of contract management - bid 50% of what the contract will cost, identify some errors in the contract spec but keep schtum until it is signed and ensure that any modifications to the contract are subject to the contractor's rates - suddenly a small amendment costs the other 50% but it's not their fault.

[Rigga]

"how is it that a company who have already been operating 4 UK SAR flights can be undercut by 20%? Surely they should have a good idea of what it will and won't cost to run UKSAR?"

You've answered your own question...."What did they base their costs on?"

Ans: The truth, probably - or their willingness to lose the contract...?

[jimf671]

Whilst on the subject of cash - how is it that a company who have already been operating 4 UK SAR flights can be undercut by 20%? Surely they should have a good idea of what it will and won't cost to run UKSAR.

I have bored you all before with what I wrote elsewhere in early 2010. Never mind, here's another gem.

"UK-based helicopter contractors are still smarting over the injury of CHC coming over here and taking the MCA contract from under their noses. Now the same thing is happening with SAR-H. These guys want blood."

[4thright]

Sage words Jimf indeed. Bristow were always going to fight to the death. Conspiracy theorists can and will dwell on CHC's bidding tactics, and often it can be more than meets the eye, especially if you think you are going to lose anyway.
Crab anyone has to admire your stubborn persistence and continued cynicism about the DFT and MCA. Anyone would think you had been working for them. Oh no I forgot, you haven't or you wouldn't be writing on here would you. What I know is that your endless lowest bidder twitterings are not supportable in this case. Government contracts can work that lowest cost way, or by the best value for money approach. By EU law they have to decide which, and my understanding is that the SAR competition is being run under the value for money approach. Of course, no government is going to pay a too high price (CHC?) but neither can the UK government simply go for the lowest tender. If you check out the evaluation rules on the DFT's website (yes I know its sad that I have bothered to) it makes this clear and also is clear what rules are used to eliminate those bidders that are simply too costly. Finally in this day and age it is simply ridiculous to imagine that either remaining bidder will bid too low and undermine themselves and if you think so you simply have no idea how the funding or senior management of the big commercial helicopter companies work these days.:ugh:

[Art of flight]

Just hope this doesn't unravel in the future as the West Coast rail bidding did when someone points out it can't be done for the winning bid. Surely the present incumbent of part of the system (CHC) couldn't be that far out with the figures?

Look at NPAS, the 'savings' are already being revised down by as much as 20%.

[[email protected]]

4thright - it is you who sounds like they work for DfT or MCA - the precious DfT and European rules you promote are the same rules that allowed the West coast rail bid fiasco to occur.

Just because the bid is the cheapest, it does not make it viable or sustainable:ugh:

[jimf671]

It's interesting that the EU Treaty of Rome approach has come up. Also, the approach of the DfT and MCA.

In Sweden, the SMA and Norrlandsflyg situation was largely about the indigenous helicopter market not being big enough. Is the market big enough even in the UK? In this so-called competition, we are left with Bristow and Bond; the usual suspects; and the expectation that the DfT will require a two-contractor solution to provide commercial resilience. In reality, perhaps we're not substantially better off than Sweden.

The MCA won't get any easier to deal with as the years pass. The Weakest Link in this whole matter may appear invulnerable but it is not the case. In a Single Market, what possible reason is there for member states to retain coastguard services? The European Parliament has been asking that question for some time and only intransigence on the part of the Council and Commission has prevented the further development of the EMSA. An empire set to crumble behaves in strange ways.

[onesquaremetre]

The original SARH was usually reported to be a contract worth £5-7bn for 25 years. Let's call it £6bn = £0.24bn per year. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article in the link below but Shephard's estimated £2-3bn (let's call it £2.5bn less the now infamous 20% = £2bn) for just a 10 year contract looks almost as expensive at £0.2bn per year.

Bond, Bristow and CHC shortlisted for UK Long SAR contracts - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/bond-bristow-and-chc-shortlisted-uk-long-sar-contr/)

Wasn't SARH originally reviewed shortly after the coalition came to power and realised that an expensive PFI was going to hoover up the nation's funds for the next 25 years? Apart from the contract length, how is son of SARH any different? £40m difference per year is loose change even for a hard up government. For the extra £40m we could have had Boulmer and Portland surviving and genuine harmonisation across all bases.

[jimf671]

The original OJEU contract notice states at II.2.1), Total quantity or scope (including all lots and options, if applicable), ...
Estimated value excluding VAT: Range between: 2,000,000,000 and 3,100,000,000 GBP.

[Vie sans frontieres]

For the extra £40m we could have had Boulmer and Portland surviving and genuine harmonisation across all bases.

And a training school. :*

[Hilife]

Finally in this day and age it is simply ridiculous to imagine that either remaining bidder will bid too low and undermine themselves and if you think so you simply have no idea how the funding or senior management of the big commercial helicopter companies work these days.

Seven years’ ago this month, the MCA announced that CHC had won the Interim SAR-H contract with a mixed fleet solution of seven new delivery S-92 and AB139 platforms, operated from four UK bases with some 100 front and rear crew, engineers and support staff too, for a period of 5-years’ and all for just £100m.

That’s an awfully low bid, so I suspect CHC gambled that winning Interim SAR would place them as the front runner for the 25-year SAR-H contract, and it paid off (well almost) as they were the operator for the winning bidder, Soteria.

The original SAR-H PFI was to find the most 'Economically Advantageous’ bid was it not, and it was rumoured that Soteria was not the cheapest bidder. If correct, one has to assume that the IPT believed that they offered the most credible low risk solution, but not the cheapest.

UK SAR aside, it appears to have been a good year for CHC in the O&G sector, so a couple of strategic and commercial thoughts come to mind. However, I cannot help but wonder if the cloud that has been left hanging above CHC’s head these past 2-years’ played a part in some way. I mean, were they ever in with a realistic chance of coming out on top, or were they just strung along to keep another strong bidder from having a clear advantage prior to the final stages and thereby destroying any chance of a competition?

It will be interesting to see who eventually wins and with what solution.

[TwoStep]

The original SARH was usually reported to be a contract worth £5-7bn for 25 years. Let's call it £6bn = £0.24bn per year. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article in the link below but Shephard's estimated £2-3bn (let's call it £2.5bn less the now infamous 20% = £2bn) for just a 10 year contract looks almost as expensive at £0.2bn per year.

Bond, Bristow and CHC shortlisted for UK Long SAR contracts - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/bond-bristow-and-chc-shortlisted-uk-long-sar-contr/)

Wasn't SARH originally reviewed shortly after the coalition came to power and realised that an expensive PFI was going to hoover up the nation's funds for the next 25 years? Apart from the contract length, how is son of SARH any different? £40m difference per year is loose change even for a hard up government. For the extra £40m we could have had Boulmer and Portland surviving and genuine harmonisation across all bases.

Could it be that the coalition felt the figures thrown around for the original SAR-H were unrealistically low to ensure/guarantee the provision of service required over the time period, hence the seemingly higher amounts for the Long SAR bids.

[[email protected]]

I think there were concerns both over the long-term cost to the taxpayer and the financial stability of Soteria/CHC's banking partners and the ex-RAF footsoldier was a a convenient scapegoat for a contract that neither side could afford.

So, having tried the best value for money approach it shouldn't be a surprise that this time DfT will just go for the lowest bidder(s).

Will the remaining two be happy to divvy it up between them (one long range and the other short) or will one of them produce a surprise (and cheaper) one stop solution at the last moment?

[Helimed24]

Can someone answer my question, is CHC out of the game ie out of all lots or just long SAR?

Happy New Year & fingers crossed to the right decision! :ok:

[Flounder]

CHC are no longer bidding for Lot 1, 2 or 3 in the Long-SAR contract. The 3 lots are the options of the Long-SAR bidding process, Lot 3 being both medium and heavy solutions or one type for all 10 bases.

[4thright]

There are no surprises other than CHC departing so early. Maybe the similar issues are still prevalent within the company that lead them to "be dissapointed" with SAR-H being cancelled.

This competition is still a value for money competition, whatver Crab may like to guess at. Look up the first Industry Day presentation available on the DFT UK SAR web page to confirm.

The 30 year SAR-H PFI (for that what it was in contract terms) was underfunded by at least £1Bn and as far as I know, the SAR-H IPT got a shock from all bidders when the first realistic bid prices came in. Its the reason the Bristow UK Rescue consortium pulled out early. The funds available over such a long period of risk was calculated to be too low to allow any safe prospect of making any money. Its one of the reasons the new contracts are 10 years max to help minimise financial risks to the contract. Its now nearly 4 years since the previous SAR-H bidders calculated their prices and much has happened since. Prices have gone up (think fuel and aircrew pay amongst many things), and will continue doing so unless this project gets sorted by March as planned.

Looking forward to moving to the S92. Culdrose was always fun to operate from!

[jimf671]

In 2001, the DfT issued a contract notice for provision of air-rescue helicopters at MCA bases. The dominant part of the notice read as follows.

"Aircraft Sikorsky S-61N Mk II (or equivalent capacity) with an all-weather, day/night capability. ... hover ... night ... endurance ... hoist ... FLIR ... GPS ... VHF ... MF/HF ... Training sorties required, up to maximum of 45 hours per month."


In 2004, the DfT again issued a contract notice for provision of air-rescue helicopters at MCA bases. The dominant part of the notice read as follows.

"Applicants must also provide, in respect of their company or consortium, FOUR (4) copies of a concise document no longer than 25 single sheets of A4 paper giving all of the following information:- (i) Company details including full company name and address; a contact name (and status); telephone number; fax number and e-mail address; length of time trading; VAT registration number; ... "


I detect a slight difference in approach.

[jimf671]

More nerdy contract stuff.


The GAP (2013-2017) contract notice had the following financial information.

"The total estimated value of the North and South options together is between 200 000 000 GBP and 235 000 000 GBP."
"Excluding VAT"

The GAP award notice had the following financial information.

"Total final value of contract(s) Value: 158 433 543 GBP Excluding VAT"
"NRP10043Lot1 ... Value: 106 570 559 GBP Excluding VAT"
"NRP10043Lot2 ... Value: 51 862 984 GBP Excluding VAT"


The MAIN (2015-2026) contract notice had the following financial information.

Estimated value excluding VAT: Range between: 2,000,000,000 and 3,100,000,000 GBP"
"Lot No: 1 ... Estimated value excluding VAT: Range between: 1,200,000,000 and 1,800,000,000 GBP"
"Lot No: 2 ... Estimated value excluding VAT: Range between: 800,000,000 and 1,300,000,000 GBP"
"Lot No: 3 ... A bid which delivers the service at or in the vicinity of all the bases specified in both Lot 1 and Lot 2.


The old dead LONG SARH contract notice had the following financial information.

"Estimated value excluding VAT: Range: between 3 000 000 000 and 5 000 000 000 GBP"

However, before the process collapsed, figures of £6bn had been regularly publicised and figures of £7bn had started to appear. At least one member of the current government expressed major concerns about cost.

[jimf671]

Seven years’ ago this month, the MCA announced that CHC had won the Interim SAR-H contract with a mixed fleet solution of seven new delivery S-92 and AB139 platforms, operated from four UK bases with some 100 front and rear crew, engineers and support staff too, for a period of 5-years’ and all for just £100m.

(from National Archives website)

Services Contract Award Notice
06/01/2006

II.2.1) Total final value of contract(s) Value 0
OR Lowest Offer
AND Highest Offer to be taken into consideration

IV.1) TYPE OF PROCEDURE Negotiated with a call for competition
IV.1.1) Justification for the choice of negotiated procedure without prior call for competition
d) The works/goods/services can be provided only by a particular tenderer for reasons that are technical

V.4.1) Initial estimated total value of the contract: 120,000,000, currency: GBP, Including VAT: ...
V.4.2) Total final value of the contract:
Value: (Blank! Not stated.)
OR Lowest offer:
/ highest offer:

[Non-Driver]

The key problem with SAR-H was the intransigence of the IPT. UK Air Rescue pulled out for a considerable number of reasons, many of which were deal-breakers. Skulduggery through leaks was way down the list. Just a couple of the nuttier non-negotiable ones were:

The consortium carrying the risk of any Law changes over 32 years (would be funny when you consider who the customer was and who enacts Law changes if it wasn't so untenable);

The consortium agreeing to penalties for non-performance which would bankrupt the company in 9 days in the event of a fleet type grounding (thought possible over 32 years and in hindsight if you'd picked the EC225.......) which had to be backed by parent company guarantees (which none of the shareholders as listed companies would ever sign up to).

This explains why the cost was so high - every commercial company builds in "risk money" according to what they are being asked to sign up to. Even aside the deal breakers above, the general penalty ratchet was enormous and needed so much redundancy of equipment to make the risk low enough that the asset utilisation became not much of an improvement over Mil policy. Also add in the Falklands compulsion and it was easy to see why it was unaffordable as demanded.

At the end of the day a mature commercial operator just looks to make a reasonable market profit of 10-15%, not gouge the customer, particularly on a long-term baseload contract like this. The operations folk take equal pride as their Mil cousins and everyone wants to keep the customer happy. The IPT (and it seems a trait of the Mil procurement world, driven by some mega defence contractors) came from a defensive position first - "we're here to avoid being screwed" rather than letting naturally successful businesses with high service levels get on with doing it their way at much reduced cost through asset efficiency.

[jimf671]

Good post ND.

[4thright]

:DLurving that post ND. IMO its about as spot on as it gets, including the last paragraph. My only addition would be to say that whatever the bidder might add for their risk contingency, its then compounded when the "customer" - particularly a paranoid HM Government one, then adds their own risk percentage on top to compund matters even more. In the midst of this top level and overwhelming financial driver it puts specification issues such as what radar the aircraft is equipped with way down the scale.
Having flown SAR both in the MoD and civil now, I cant accept any suggestion that professionalism or ability to do the job is better in one or the other. However, on balance, and given the above issues, I believe the UK is wrong to commercialise SAR especially as the chosen route doesn't really offer better comparative value. Yes I think I might just have agreed with Crab! Well in that respect anyway.:E

[[email protected]]

Blimey! Happy New Year:)

[Support Monkey]

Extract from the FT

Helicopter rescue bidders cut to two - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/64567204-58c4-11e2-99e6-00144feab49a.html)
The £3bn contest to run the UK’s helicopter search and rescue services (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c9dff9a-dbc8-11e1-8d78-00144feab49a.html) for up to 13 years has been reduced to a race between two operators, after the government threw out a bid that would have cost the taxpayer a fifth more than at least one other.

The Department for Transport told British Columbia-based CHC Helicopter last month that it was no longer in the running.
The company was underbid by 20 per cent by one of its shortlisted rivals – Bond Offshore Helicopters, based in the UK, or New York-listed Bristow Group (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=us:BRS). According to a provision in the invitation to tender, this big a difference triggers dismissal.

One person close to the process said he was surprised by the size of the difference, given that all the operators should be able to secure financing for a similar cost, and that the prices of the helicopters were also unlikely to vary significantly between groups.

[jimf671]

The £3bn contest to run the UK’s helicopter search and rescue services for up to 13 years has been reduced to a race between two operators, after the government threwout a bid that would have cost the taxpayer a fifth more than at least one other. The Department for Transport told British Columbia-based CHC Helicopter last month that it was no longer in the running. The company was underbid by 20 per cent by one of its shortlisted rivals – Bond Offshore Helicopters, based in the UK, or New York-listed Bristow Group. According to a provision in the invitation to tender, this big a difference triggers dismissal.

One person close to the process said he was surprised by the size of the difference, given that all the operators should be able to secure financing for a similar cost, and that the prices of the helicopters were also unlikely to vary significantly between groups.

However, equipment usually represents just 20-30 per cent of search and rescue (SAR) costs, meaning bidders have scope to undercut one another in other areas. They will be looking for savings in the way they run bases, for example, or on whether training is conducted in or out of house and in the way pilots’ employment contracts are structured.

Moreover, because the DfT did not specify howmany aircraft it would require to replace the Sea King fleet retiring in 2016, some operators may have submitted plans that use fewer helicopters, bringing down annual costs.

Louise Ellman, chair of the transport select committee, has previously questioned the lack of public consultation, asking whether the privatisation plans could lead to more deaths at sea. OnMonday, she said those fears had not yet been allayed by ministers. “I amconcerned about howthe service might be affected,” she said.

This is not the first time CHC has come close to, but missed out on, the chance to run the bulk of search services in the UK. It led a consortiumthat was selected as the preferred bidder in a 2010 attempted privatisation. But that process – led by the Ministry of Defence – was cancelled after allegations of fraud; an investigation is under way.

Operating margins for such a service could be as high as 30 per cent, according to Gregory Lewis, an aviation analyst at Credit Suisse in New York. Groups interested in the UK contracts may opt for higher bids because of the level of risk they are taking on.

As well as the right to terminate a contract irrespective of performance and levy unspecified penalties, the government is imposing liabilities – if something goes wrong– at a minimum of three times the contract’s annual revenues, or about £300m, according to the person close to the talks.

That compares with much smaller provisions for rail contracts – although whether rail liabilities were sufficient was one of the questions in the scandal over the West Coastmain line bidding.

“There’s a lot of optionality built into the [SAR] contracts, so bidders will take a viewthat they should be conservative,” the person said.

CHC currently runs some SAR services for the UK government – in Scotland and on the southeast coast. The DfT is expected inMarch to select a winning bidder for the longer contracts, and is aiming for a completely privatised service by 2017.

The three shortlisted operators were selected froma list of 10 over the summer.

[jimf671]

Britain’s Next Search-and-Rescue Helicopters: Civilian Contractors | Defense Industry Daily (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/british-searchandrescue-a-billion-pound-partnership-02271/)

CHC leaves UK SAR helicopter contest | Waypoint AirMed and Rescue Magazine (http://www.waypointmagazine.com/story453)

Aberdeen helicopter firms in battle for billion pound contract | Evening Express (http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3075370)

UK MoD extends Sea King support deal | Flight (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-mod-extends-sea-king-support-deal-380657/)

Minister visits new maritime coordination centre ... (Your new best friends?) | The News, Portsmouth (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/minister-visits-new-maritime-coordination-centre-in-fareham-1-4661905)

[jimf671]

"Instructions to Bidders
Procurement Timetable
Return of final tenders (Phase 4) - - - - 14 December 2012
Sign contract - - - - 22 March 2013"

That's 5 weeks ago today for the return of tenders. Has anyone heard anything?

I am hearing indicators for an end of April signing which is about 5 weeks late compared to the date in the September documents.

[leopold bloom]

I am hearing indicators for an end of April signing which is about 5 weeks late compared to the date in the September documents
What you're hearing is about right, a slight delay. I suspect that the winners will hear the news, unofficially, a little earlier though.

[4thright]

Someone told me that bids had to be in by yesterday on a revised timetable as you are rumouring above.:D

[meanttobe]

From helihub today.

The first of the four Sikorsky S92s arrived at Aberdeen Airport around 2pm today after a ferry flight from Prestwick. Serial 920166 and registered G-MCGA (presumably reflecting the involvement of the Maritime and CoastGuard Agency). We expect the other three will be 920167, 920169 and 920171, and these will no doubt be confirmed as they are delivered in the weeks ahead.

[jimf671]

For those of you who have submitted your CV to Bristow and Bond, in the hope of getting a piece of the action, please consider the following.


AIR-GROUND COLLABORATION

The following are the suggested benefits for continuous collaboration between SAR aircraft and MRT during Land SAR operations.

 Contact with the incident location when MRT are already on-scene.

 Access to local knowledge.

 Latest information from the casualty or the casualty's companions.

 Shortening of lines of communication to the primary Land SAR co-ordinating authority (police).

 Allows MRT and police to marshal appropriate resources or stand-down surplus resources.

 In conditions that prevent flying at the incident location, MR resources can be deployed by air to a point nearer the incident.

 Makes additional mountaineering skills available to the aircraft to improve casualty and crew safety during air evacuation from challenging locations.

 When aircraft fuel is low, allows remaining fuel to be used to contribute to the operation so that the operation can continue to advance while the aircraft is refuelling.

[Flounder]

12/00735/SCR_L | Search and rescue helicopter facility, associated with air sea rescue operations, comprising a hangar, workshops and ancillary space within a prefabricated two-storey building, plus associated hardstanding | Search And Rescue Stornow (http://planning.cne-siar.gov.uk/PublicAccess/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MG212SRO04H00)

Anything similar happening anywhere else at present?

[nessboy]

Sumburgh Shetland

[Flounder]

....and Newquay?

PA12/11921 | EIA Screening request for a Search and Rescue Helicopter facility including hangar, workshops and ancillary space within a two storey building plus associated hardstanding | SAR Facility Newquay Airport New Road Carloggas St Mawgan Newqu (http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MFA620FG07600)

[[email protected]]

At Newquay International as well!

Bugger - beat me to it flounder!

[Flounder]

;)

Stornoway & Newquay with 3 days of each other in December 2012. Does someone already know the outcome of the bidding process or is this a precautionary measure to ensure things are moving along. I suppose an application can be easily withdrawn and the cost is peanuts compared to the potential costs associated with delays.

[[email protected]]

It does rather confirm the rumour that SARH won't be operating from Culdrose.

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: If you were a civvy operator, would you through choice choose to operate from an MoD airfield!!!

[jimf671]

Any news of Chivenor or Leconfield?

[[email protected]]

No, but I think neither will stay on MOD land as apparently Defence Estates are very difficult to deal with - there is an empty police ASU building and compound at Pembrey that would probably fit the bill and if the Culdrose flight is relocated at Newquay, it seems likely that Chiv would be moved to South Wales - sadly!

[FiveSevenAlpha]

As things currently stand, the Dyfed Powys ASU is still based at Pembrey. Even if it closes, as proposed under NPAS, would basing a SAR flight next door to an active range make sense?

57A

[[email protected]]

When we go to that part of the world on a job the first thing we do is get the ranges to check-fire if we need to fly through them or route around them if not - the AA and Police do the same so it is a non-issue.

I thought the NPAs arrangements had already been implemented - I must be a bit premature.

[Thomas coupling]

The axe still hangs over DP Police ASU, Crab.

How's this for confidence and a little bit of emotional blackmail:

AgustaWestland Hopes To Sell 200 SAR-Equipped AW189s (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_01_09_2013_p0-532956.xml)

Big fat Lynx, isn't it?

[[email protected]]

About as much use as the Lynx as well!

AW are an Italian company and no-one should believe that 189 production would stay in the UK once the small run for SARH was complete. The AW contract for Algerian training has been closed down now at St Mawgan and any remaining training is probably going to be done in Algeria or Italy.

When an Italian company has the choice between keeping jobs in their own struggling economy and the only slightly better UK one - it should come as no surprise that they will go for the home fixture. A cycnic would say that Finmeccania only wanted Westlands as a conduit to easy government money in UK.

As a stretched 139, the 189 will bring little extra to the SAR party and no-one seems to be buying the 139 for SAR duties - certainly not 200 of them! They have just got the cabin wrong - again!

[TwoStep]

and no-one seems to be buying the 139 for SAR duties

Really? So, UK (FBH/CHC), Malaysia, Sweden (SMA), UAE (UAEAF), Qatar (QEAF), Spain (Salvamento Maritimo), Italy (AMI, Coast Guard), Egypt (EAF), Trinidad & Tobago, Japan, Azerbaijan, Netherlands (Caribbean) Australia, Cyprus, various US agencies haven't ordered the AW139 for SAR?

[llamaman]

Beat me to it TwoStep!

Also, AW have stated their intention to base 189 production at Yeovil, it would make very little economic sense to uproot and move the production line to Italy once it has started. For once it would be nice to applaud some potential good news for British industry (even if the parent company is Italian).

In the current climate any creation of jobs and potential export revenue has to be a good thing. I guess some people are die-hard cynics; sadly, the option to build some brand new Sea Kings in a wholly Brit-owned factory staffed by Anglo-Saxons, using only materials produced in the UK and to be operated only by military crews just isn't going to happen.

[[email protected]]

OK, so maybe they have sold a few then.

As for production - we will just have to see what happens won't we?

Cynical - yes - and usually not without good reason.

[dangermouse]

was that if a UK order for SAR configured AW189s was forthcoming, all SAR configured AW189 for any future customers would be assembled in Yeovil, VVIP and corporate aircraft would be assembled in Italy (at least, maybe in Brazil and Russia and the USA as well?)

SAR is just one role for the aircraft, like AW139, it has more strings to its bow than just one mission.

The reason that the Algerian training contract has finished at Mawgan is that all the aircraft are now in country and the crews trained up, of course future crew will be trained in Algeria.

don't worry, Crab will never let the truth get in the way of Westland bashing. I wonder if he has even seen, let alone flown on a AW189?

DM

[[email protected]]

No, but I have flown the 139 in the SAR role which is, I suspect, far more than you have done DM.

As ever DM, AW's promises will have the devil in the detail and, even by your statement, they are only planning to assemble the SAR variant in Yeovil - just how many jobs will that actually create/save and for how long if the expected number is 200?

It is smoke and mirrors in order to get SARH to act as a product launch (unproven product) for the 189.

[llamaman]

Whatever the detail it could be the first time a civil helicopter will be built in the UK for some time, surely something worth celebrating? As for selecting an unproven product, was the Sea King a proven product when it was selected for SAR duties? No, it was an ASW aircraft that was adapted to the role.

[cyclic]

Play nicely with Crab please as he has issues from his time with the AAC and should be treated gently - PTSD and all that...

[TwoStep]

Wasn't the S-92 unproven in the SAR role until CHC got their hands on it for the interim deal? Seems to have worked out pretty well, clearly the thinking if, "if it works in the UK, it can work anywhere?"