The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

[Thomas coupling]

AW are in bed with the M0D, therefore the UK government. Every stop will be pulled out to establish Yeovil as the production line for the 189. It is estimated that there will be atleast 15yrs work if this 'perceived' demand comes off. Therefore it is essential that the 189 is selected. The government have already poured money into AW, 46 million about 6 weeks ago to 'stop' them leaving Yeovil because of a lull in activity and recently another 256 million to continue with the SeaKing maintenance scheme.
Now if that isn't enough emotional blackmail, I don't know what is.:rolleyes:
There is no conflict of interest viz a vie Long SAR because BOTH applicants are advocating the 189 for short range SAR.
If I was a gambling man - job done!

[jimf671]

I am 90% convinced that 189 is what we will get for Lot 2. That also means 80+% of Scottish MR. I joke about how many paramedic-qualified midgets there are out there so I know how easy it is to snipe and get a cheap laugh. What else is there out there anyway that's better from an SAR standpoint. However, even if it costs every MRT in Britain 30 sets of knee pads and we can't lean over the co-pilot's shoulder to help him nav, there is also good news.

4000shp and resulting modern performance keeps our guys a lot safer when being flown in to those interesting tight spots. Hoping for greater agility than from the S-92 (92 not bad, just BIG).

I am looking forward to helping develop 2 door working. Twin hoist to modern standards. Big sensor/nav display right next to us in the back. Possibly more floor space than min for Lot 2 so more use for deploying and recovering search teams than might have been expected. Decent comms and full nvg.

21st century SK? Close. At least 21st century Wessex with bells on.

[jimf671]

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, ...

By the time everything is fully rolled out in 2017, the S-92 will have 10 years of UK SAR flying behind it.

Worth something.

[TwoStep]

Apparently the bidders have been told to consider 'UK industrial dynamics' when choosing their platforms, worth bearing in mind that choice of aircraft is still really actually down to the bidders, Bond or Bristow. Potentially hundreds of jobs hang on their shoulders.

[[email protected]]

The AW press release says assembled not built so the important jobs will still be in Europe.

The 139 wasn't proven in SAR before it made it to gap-SAR - it was poorly introduced with inadequate FCS modes and lighting and the cabin is too small for a great many UK SAR tasks (not to mention needing the rearcew to be on their knees all the time - and there was no icing clearance either.

The 139 hasn't been a success in UKSAR but, because it was showcased as such, it has persuaded other buyers to take it on - what they subsequently think of it I don't know but for this country it is not suitable.

The 189 is the same aircraft with a plug in the fuselage to make the cabin longer, not higher or wider, so any limitations will be the same.

It might just save the rearcrew having to stow all the SAR role kit down the tail boom but that is it.

MRTs will struggle, stretcher entries will be difficult, 2 stretchers will be very tight, ECMO and babyvac incubators won't fit, it still won't have decent ground clearance for sloping or rough ground landings - the list goes on but we won't have a choice.

It is not a 21st century Sea King or Wessex - it is an executive transport aircraft with a SAR role bodged into and onto it - at least the Sikorsky products have decent sized cabin where the real work of SAR is done.

The S-92 isn't too big for the mountains - it's dimesions are not dissimilar to the SK/S61 which have proved themselves over many years in the harshest of environments.

I am under no illusions that it is what we will get and that we will get on with it regardless but let's not pretend it is either the best choice or the saviour of AW at Yeovil.

[snakepit]

Crab,

I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed and rejoice at your change of tack from bashing the civilian SAR operators. Why the sudden change?

Possibly you have considered that however well intentioned your comments maybe they are often taken as derision of anything non-military!
Maybe someone in the military has expressed concerns that the same comments could be painting the rest of the military in a bad light and potentially hampering their future prospects in the civilian market?

Whatever the reason switching to bashing the aircraft manufactures instead just proves how so many years of life blinkered in the military can give some people a very negative outlook. Everyone in the military has had reason to moan at poor kit quality but rarely does the fault lie any further than MOD procurement. You are of course entitled to your opinion but anyone expressing their views in public should be prepared for the law of unintended consequences. That could be as simple as depressing a workforce (at Yeovil) who have actually got something to look forward to in the downturn, something we should all be happy for and applaud! Remember that if it’s the choice of redundancy or more work, the workforce at Yeovil will very happy about the potential of the AW189 assembly line and not telling AW to get stuffed because its not forever! The fragility of employment is difficult to fully express to someone still in the mob.

Regardless of your experience on the AW139, there are many crews, who actually operate it, that have found it a very good SAR aircraft. Does it have limitations? Of course! But it met the requirements of the contract (yes we all know there were some teething problems, not all of AWs making, please lets not do that again) and continues to do so.
So if the AW189 is chosen it too will have to meet the requirements of the contract let by our government! Will it have limitations when set against a bigger aircraft? OF COURSE! But I think it’s logical to assume that the government does not require a larger aircraft in lot 2, and therefore whether or not it would be better or nicer to have a bigger aircraft that is not what is required. Will there be teething problems if it is the AW189? Definitely, because that’s normal in a new aircraft type but it’s also the only economical way to achieve progress.
In addition, any aircraft that is chosen will have to meet the exacting specifications of the technical requirements of the contract, set originally with the help of SARF military SMEs! In other words the aircraft are, straight from OEM, going to be able to do everything that has been asked for. Almost designed for the job you could say! What other SAR aircraft can claim that? All military SAR aircraft were adapted for the task after becoming surplus to operational requirements.

So IMHO without an embarrassing U-turn from the government, which would leave the country with no SAR cover at the military bases in a few years (there is no military plan B, there is no MOD money for a plan B, there is no military appetite, albeit at senior level, for a plan B) UK SAR is going to happen! Are there some potential down sides to UK SAR? Sure, but there are loads of positives too so just think of them and smile, or worry yourself to an early grave! The fact is that the whole of the UK is going to be covered by a fleet or 2 of new helicopters to keep us all safe for the next 10 years ☺

My own philosophy is that you cannot make a difference by complaining, but you might make a positive contribution if you get stuck in and help out.

[jimf671]

So Bristow replied to your application then Crab? When you moving to St Mawgan?

92 is good and it is big. Its power is reassuring (more so when in it rather than underneath it).

There will be no all-92 contract and the 189 is what is out there. Compared to squeezing guys into a 350 or 135 it's a dream and it has loads of power.

I tried to raise the incubator point with an SAS guy last spring but I am not sure if that has been acted upon.

[[email protected]]

Snakepit - well that's all OK then, sunshine and roses for UKSAR forever and jobs for life at AW - how fantastic.

Yes we will just get on with it but - why spend billions of taxpayers pounds on something that is not as capable as it should be?

Despite your assertion that the 189 will have been rigorously assessed, it will only meet the terms of the contract that have been stipulated - that is a very different thing from being selected on its suitability.

If the contract doesn't specify cabin size, ability to fulfill ALL current UK SAR tasks or a multitude of other factors, the aircraft will be chosen because of the contract spec (potentially poorly written and also modified by political pressure). That is NOT the same as being chosen because it is a good SAR aircraft.

It always amuses me that so many here think that a life in uniform means comprehensive institutialisation which removes the ability to think, read, understand or be otherwise cognisant of how the 'real' world works.

I can't possibly know how industry works (I clearly don't have any friends or family in industry because I am in the military), I can't possibly understand the fragility of employment outside our cossetted little military world (just remind me how many industries have lost the numbers to redundancy of the armed forces over the last 20 years of peace dividend) and I can't possibly empathise with those working at Yeovil because I don't work there.

All fundamentally fatuous and flawed viewpoints but, because I dare to question if SARH, in both its previous and now new guises, are the right way forward for UK plc and don't accept at face value what is being forced onto the country at a time of economic hardship - I am the one at fault because I have worked for the same employer (and served the UK taxpayer) for over 30 years. Dear oh dear:ugh:

Govt spending on infrastruture to create NEW jobs is a good way to drag ourselves out of recession - Govt spending to replace something old but of top quality with something new of lesser capability (except that it goes a bit faster) that actually reduces the number of jobs in that sector, is not.

Fewer SAR flights, far fewer engineers and management - no new aircrew jobs as they will be filled from existing mil and civ posts - and a temporary reprieve for a few people at Yeovil. This conjoined with fewer coastguards (to improve efficiency!!!) is a retrograde step for air, land and sea safety in the UK.

[Thomas coupling]

Oh, C'mon Crab, you've heard this before and you'll hear it again:

There isn't a SAR designed helicopter anywhere in the world - why not? Because there isn't the demand for it. The closest anyone has ever got with it is the DoD, Canada who are (and have been for what seems to be an eternity) still struggling with trying to modify an off the line production model to fit (more closely) their SAR needs.
Unless someone can go to an OEM and ask for AND PAY for hundreds of SAR airframes, no-one is going to build one.
So (and this is where your lack of commercial experience shows a little) the manufacturers make what they think they can sell the most of: A generic airframe with limited future proofing capabilities. Make it too future proof and they won't have future customers!
It is simply the most sustainable route to profit. Like it or lump it, profitability is the ONLY way to go in civvy street, there are NO other mandates.
Now let's try to understand why the 139's and 189's and S-60's of this world are so damn successful. Yes you've guessed right: they can be modified cheaply and quickly to "best" fit (not replace) the design you are after.

The AW139 order book is....wait for it.... 30 months long:eek: Now why is that?

So can everyone move on with the right or wrong a/c. Whatever is chosen - will NOT be a SAR designed OEM model...the end!

Secondly, we all agree (don't we???) that whoever staffs the new a/c - are perfectly capable and competent - we've thrashed that to bits - yes? Good.

MRT's remain the same exceptional standard - no questions there - good.

What's left to discuss? ;)

[jimf671]

What's left to discuss?

The capability of the customer?

[jimf671]

... why spend billions of taxpayers pounds on something that is not as capable as it should be?

Well, first of all there is "The Abbey Wood effect". The other AW.
I defined this elsewhere with the following example: "infantry clothing and equipment is purchased by people who haven't been out in the rain for over a decade."

Best know for the effect on defence procurement but the MoD is not the only department at AW and the same effect exists elsewhere and in other departments.

Secondly, when we look at the alternatives, they tend to be unworkable.
- All S-92 fleet: too expensive, otherwise it would be offered and nobody thinks that has happened.
- NH90 with High Cabin Variant: only joking!
- MI-17: ... NEXT!
- S-61T: no, because AW will tell HM Gov they can do it better, which they can't.
- EC175: smaller than 189 (http://media.univ-lyon1.fr/iea-dhm2011/abstracts/2166.pdf) and bidders appear to have examined and rejected it.
- Bell 525: too late, too unproven.

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

Better order 5 x AW189 then, plus between 2 and 4 spare aircraft depending upon how confident you are in a new design.

[Hedski]

A government minister was quoted as saying that only those who bid with the AW189 for lot 2 would have any chance of success, ties in really. Not sure was the cabin of the EC175 going to be much bigger? Ground clearance on both is an issue no doubt. Once introduced the new type will be adapted, or procedures will be so the task will be completed by smart thinking and innovation on the part of the crews, CRT or MRT members. May take some time though. Hopefully those involved will get together and endeavour to make a success of it despite the likelihood of government penny pinching possibly ruling the selection process....:ugh:

[jimf671]

Once introduced the new type will be adapted, or procedures will be so the task will be completed by smart thinking and innovation on the part of the crews, CRT or MRT members.

'Once introduced' is a bit late.

Bristow's S-92 have started arriving. As soon as they are ready to fly we need to get Aux CG , MRT and RNLI crawling all over them and talking to the contractor about developing the procedures for operating with 'Ground/Maritime Emergency Service Personnel'.

When the first SAR AW189 is delivered to the contractor, maybe next year sometime, the same thing needs to happen. Sooner, if possible. If AW want that aircraft to be a success then they need the service using it to be fully ready on DAY ONE with everyone ready to work together. The way to achieve that would be to have the 189 touring lifeboat stations, MR bases and Aux CG stations as soon as the flag drops at the end of April.

[[email protected]]

TC - well you tell me why AW can extend the length of the cabin to produce a 'new' helicopter but not the height?

If you want a 'family' of helicopters with different but complementary capabilities, then surely that is the way to get more custom rather than less. Just making each one slightly longer so you can wedge a couple more seats in is just lazy (and obviously cheap).

Do all those VIPs want to sit in low-slung seats with minimal headroom or would some of them prefer a better option? 1.4 m cabin height is too small and smacks of a lack of imagination amongst the manufacturers and their designers.

As I said before, AW had the perfect opportunity to create something that would not only satisfy the corporate customer but also become the de facto medium SAR helicopter. all they had to do was make it taller - please don't tell me that is rocket science in the world of helicopter design since others seem to have managed it quite easily.

Perhaps it is because the Italian part of the company won't listen to the UK part where design is concerned.

[llamaman]

Crab,

How tall a cabin is your requirement? If you want something where all rear-crew can stand without stooping you are talking about a very big cabin therefore a very big aircraft. We don't need a fleet of very big SAR aircraft; you might argue that the two-type solution offers greater flexibility. How much first-aid/winch operating demands the need to be stood at full height? The AW189's spec will (if selected) bring a lot to the party, unfortunately doing star-jumps in the cabin won't be one of them. And no, I don't work for AW, just a realist.

[Vie sans frontieres]

And no, I don't work for AW, just a realist.

And definitely not a crewman. :ugh:

[[email protected]]

llamaman - presumably you have had some H and S advice about lifting - the old 'lift with your legs not your back' sort of thing?

Now try lifting even a 12 stone patient on a stretcher (let alone a bariatric casualty of 20 plus stone) whilst kneeling down. Does that explain the issue with cabin height?

It just wouldn't be allowed in a land ambulance yet, despite aircraft of the size of the SK/S61/S92 being available and eminently suitable for ALL UK SAR tasks, you and others see it as the right way forward for SARH.

They have to buy ambulances of the right size to do the job, why not select the helicopter in the same way? When we are already talking billions of taxpayers money, why are we quibbling about a few million to go for an all - S92 fleet?

Politicians have been fawning and fighting over Westlands for many years but they are making a mistake if they influence the SARH process just to gain political kudos.

[griffothefog]

SAR aircraft.. Go to scene, save life, now not ancient military aircraft.... Who cares what shape as long as it carries out primary task. Simples....:ugh:

[llamaman]

Crab,

Thanks for the condescension.
It's a proven method to lift fairly heavy weights with bent legs and a straight back; every weight-lifter I've ever seen ends their routine in that manner not stood up straight. By the way, I thought you deemed the S92 unsuitable due to a radar not fit for purpose? Or are you finally learning that EVERY aircraft demands some form of compromise?

[Thomas coupling]

Jim671: presumably u r ARCC? Doing what you suggest by sending reps from ground teams to size the operation up is totally unworkable: Irish parliament comes to mind! RNLI??? Give me a break guvnor - we'll end up with hot water dispensers in them all cor blimey! MRT's: since when did they get a look in? Volunteers mainly! Leave airborne SAR to the world of aviation.
PS: There will be 2 types of aircraft: long haul and short haul [S92 and AW189] Trust me - look into my eyes:suspect:

Crab: You're being facetious now! All S92 fleet??? Massive overkill. Just like the military EH101. Too big to do the small jobs and too damn expensive. In addition what happens if they experience the 225 effect or closer to home perhaps, one of them has a dicky fit with its OSTG?? Fleet grounded because they are all the same?? Best bit of common sense that Son of SARH allowed for was two types.
And you are clutching at straws when you think corporate clients want to be driven around in white vans! Compact, slippery, cheap to run and sleek is what the elite require, not a bread van.
Give the helicopter designers some credibility, they are quite clever chappies after all: They do sit down and design the most optimised airframe that they think the market is after, you know.......or they'd be outta business. The problem for them is that SAR aint sexy;)

[jimf671]

Jim671: presumably u r ARCC? ...

No. MRT (Comms Offr) plus defence experience (mil and contractor) plus industrial purchaser of helicopter time in remote and craggy places plus several years doing merchant marine procedures (SOLAS, MARPOL, comms).

... to size the operation up is totally unworkable ...

No again. SAR is a collaborative venture. All of the team need to understand what is going on. See CAP 999, 'Ground/Maritime Emergency Servcie Personnel'. The system, as now, depends on briefing and training BEFORE the event. There are THOUSANDS of volunteers and part-time participants in UK SAR and they all need pre-trained.

... Leave airborne SAR to the world of aviation ...

At IKAR Air Commission 2012, a Norwegian member encouraged members not to fixate on the helicopter as the only rescue solution.

Gonnae no dae that TC.

... There will be 2 types of aircraft: long haul and short haul ....

Been whisked around the NW Highlands in a number of craft including 350, 365, SK, S-61 and S-92. I did notice a slight difference.

[[email protected]]

llamaman- I'm not sure what point you are trying to make regarding lifting - you seem to agree that lifting is done with the legs (not possible when you are kneeling down which is how you have to be in the cabin when it is 1.4m high).

If you are suggesting that rear crew live their lives in a 'clean and jerk' style squat and then try to shuffle around the cabin to position the casualty, you are even further off-piste!

The S-92 does fall short on the radar issue but when push comes to shove you have to make SOME compromises but a small cabin is a very poor compromise - a radar is needed on a few rescues - the cabin is used in ALL of them.

TC if I were suitably monied I would travel in a decent sized cabin (EC175 springs to mind and still sleek and fast) not lying on the floor (almost) in a 139 - choices are available;) Ask the pax who had to escape from the 139 that went down in HK Harbour how easy the cramped cabin was to escape from.

Helicopter designers design what they are told to design and try to make the manufacturing process as simple (therefore cheap) as possible - hence the 'family of 1-9s' doesn't make them good helicopters or fit for purpose though.

Unlike car manufacturers who make what their customers want, helicopter companies sell what they are prepared to produce and the customer has to like it or lump it.

[Adroight]

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/world-asia-21226178 >

The 139 hasn't been a success in UKSAR but, because it was showcased as such, it has persuaded other buyers to take it on - what they subsequently think of it I don't know but for this country it is not suitable.

What is so special about 'this country'. The Aussies have been happily using the AW139 in a combined SAR/HEMS role for years. In fact in the past few days EMQ (civilian type chaps and chapesses) have hoisted hundreds of people from rooftops in flooded Bundaberg and elsewhere in Queensland during the worst floods in living memory. Queensland alone is 7 times the size of UK.

Oh I see....it is not quite Boscastle or NVG mountains with 360 degree radar.

[llamaman]

Crab,

I'm much closer to the piste than you might imagine. My point was that a tall cabin is not a pre-requisite for an effective SAR cab. Your car analogy is lame; clever marketing and branding ensure that people want their products. They then price and manufacture with profit as a priority.

Are you really convinced that the nature of UK SAROPS warrants a fleet of S92s (or similar)?

[jimf671]

... What is so special about 'this country'. ...

LATITUDE

A lot further from the equator than the 45° used in the definition of hostile environment and extending as far north as the most northerly parts of Antartica are south. The most southerly point in Australia, since you use that example, is 39°S, with the northern equivalent latitude being Mallorca or Corfu.

SRR AREA

About 15 times the size of this tiny little country's landmass.

[[email protected]]

Adroight - our search and rescue region is 1 million square miles - we have 68 Million people and an enormous amount of coastline to look after. Add in varing environments from the North Sea to the mountainous areas of Wales and Scotland and the mobile and ever changing weather systems and the UK, as whole, presents more variations on SAR missions than most other countries.

llamaman - we don't need all S 92s since some locations won't often need the range or carrying capacity but to limit the working area in the cabin short changes both the crews and those they rescue. Someone will have to consider what aircraft they will use for ECMOs and other med transfers that require more space in the cabin - they won't get done by AA (too small) and it might mean diverting a S92 out of area - so that won't happen either.

No lesser capable a service was what was touted at the beginning, but that isn't what we are going to get, despite all the blather about faster helicopters.

[NRDK]

:D great idea:ugh: obviously the powers to be picking that one have never had to carry out protracted sarops using large MRT numbers. Moving them all about with limited fuel capacity & ready use dumps, is going to be fun... not!

Loads of power though with the 189, offset by the twitchy AW189 ride in turbulence, bound to give the winch man some wild rides.:ok:

[jimf671]

... offset by the twitchy AW189 ride in turbulence, bound to give the winch man some wild rides.

Do tell us more.

I am used to being safer on the wire than in any country on earth. If that is about to change then I'd like to know all the details.

[pitotprobe]

Oh JimF, do back off a bit and relax old chap:

1. You're on an aircrew forum.
2. The majority of SAR jobs don't involve MRT.
3. Even when MRT are involved, they're not part of the operating crew; not even supernumerary. Passengers with good intentions.
4. How do you think we manage to cope winching somebody off a trawler? Pitching seas and, heaven forbid, the little Frenchman hasn't done his Stage 1 drills!

[jayteeto]

Ahhhhhh, ECMO............... Don't worry about AA being too small, that is about to change in many areas. AC are being requested with a specialist fit. Bigger ac.

[lowfat]

Crab
I liked your comment about cabin size and reference to land ambulances, using that logic can you explain why and how the air ambulances cope with their patients? Also how they justify EC135 ?

[jimf671]

Oh JimF, do back off a bit and relax old chap: ...

Pitot

1. OK. (ref recent ''... safer on the wire than in any country on earth" = massive respect.)
2. ACKN. (Seen all the DASA & MCA numbers.)
3. Concerned with justification for exemptions as in CAP 999 and applying to all GMESP.
4. See 3.


Train hard, fight easy.

[IFR Piglet]

I’m informed that originally the DofT would have preferred the single fleet of S-92s but since changed their minds on the basis of cost. The country needs to tackle the deficit and it has to come from somewhere.......perhaps too much reality for some to cope with? The bonus of a dual fleet has already been pointed out several times and is indisputable.
Crab suggested the EC175 over the AW189 after whingeing about/observing the lack cabin space in the AW189. The S-92 has a wonderful cabin but it’s not perfect either.......anyone over 6ft will not be able to stretch - in accordance with modern company health and safety policy - prior to conducting the stretcher entry. The company can’t fix this problem by merely employing folk shorter than 6ft (with properly fitted personal issue Alpha helmets) as this would be deemed positive discrimination. So we find ourselves in a less than perfect world and I like Crab feel a growing need to get hysterical!!!!!.......I just cannie take it anymore.......Oik! Oik!:}

Below are a couple of links to provide info on internal dimensions for the EC175 and AW189. The suggestion of the EC175 over the AW189 due to cabin space looks slightly flawed. I personally don’t know of a small type in existence that will allow average dimensioned people to “walk about” inside.
My main concern is that the DofT have the detail of their contracts really pinned down as they will get exactly what they pay for and that the OEMs be held properly accountable for any shortfall in spec/perf. You would also have to consider that locating a smaller aircraft near locations in the UK where there is a greater likelihood of interaction with an MRT is less than ideal. I wonder if this was even considered.
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonline.com/files/fileadmin/template/main/pdfs/ec175.pdf
AW189 | AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/product/aw189)

P.s. Anyone with close links to current civvie SAR north of the border might recognise someone in the EC175 link. The boys done good!!! Well done.:ok:

[SARowl]

About as much use as the Lynx as well!


Crab, just because it's not an RAF type?

If you're going to land a helo on the back of a Frigate/destroyer at night, in shi**y weather, you want to be flying a Lynx - no other will do the job as well...

[[email protected]]

SARowl - the Lynx/Wildcat is the de facto choice for frigate ops - it is its usefulness in the land based role that is very limited - it is a specialised platform and the RN have only got it (Wildcat) because the Army have agreed to order so many more (with no real role other than to justify the AAC as a Corps) - the limited production run for either Lynx or Wildcat just for RN use wouldn't have been viable.

IFR piglet - if you read what I wrote, you would see I was comparing the 175/139 cabins in a VIP/corporate role in terms of headroom, not the SAR role:ugh:

I was the one who made the point about the validity of 2 fleets on this thread some time ago so I don't need reminding of it - it is a good solution providing BOTH fleets are fit for purpose.

pitotprobe - nice try at a wind-up but no-one could be that ignorant.

[Sanus]

IFR - Thanks for the links.

I now find myself agreeing with Crab. AW189 cabin height only 4 ft 07 in!

It's OK for HEMS but too low for SAR. Maybe AW will provide a chiropractor with each aircraft?

Cabin Dimensions:

Width 2.4 m / 7 ft 10 in
Height 1.4 m / 4 ft 07 in
Length 3.4 m / 11 ft 02 in

[snakepit]

Re the cabin height discussion,

Has anyone asked the CHC boys at lee and portland exactly how many back injuries they have had in the last 5 years due to cabin height? As the 139 is the same 1.4m high as the 189. I would love to hear if anyone has the answer?

Too low for SAR! what information do you base that on when the 139 is being successfully used in this country by the MCA. Broad sweeping statements that are clearly utter rubbish do not justify any argument.

[jimf671]

Based on the conversation I had about this, I get the impression that, in the 139, concerns about cabin height are somewhat overshadowed by the floor space issue.

[Mr Whirly]

Snakepit: I think maybe you and others are missing the point. It seems to me as a humble observer that crab and jimf671 both regard this stage of the SAR-H process as a vital opportunity to campaign for excellence in the service provided, rather than accepting a merely adequate solution. Once this window is closed and the new contracts are up and running the chance will have gone to change anything, and we'll all be stuck with what we get (and serve us right if it turns out to be less than ideal!)

[snakepit]

Mr Whirly,

Thanks but I understand entirely whats at stake and the point of some peoples thoughts. I only partake to correct a few bits of blatant missinformation and gossip where I can which is fun and passes a few moments.
I haven't missed the point of crabs and others attempts to change the future or hold on to the past. Both pursuits have merit in that they demonstrate the depth of feeling and passion and I share both. However, I am a realist too and whilst it would be nice to believe that the members on this forum can alter the process because we had some magical answer that no one else can see, it just simply isn't the case.
The powers that be in the MOD as I have already said don't have the money or the will to be involved in SAR anymore and nothing will change that. As nice as it may be to believe the Seaking could solider on ad infinitum it just isn't going to happen and nor would it be cost effective. So an alternative has been sought that will provide new equipment across the board, something that the current military system cannot do and thats just a fact as much as it may be unpalatable.

Is it the best process delivering the best solution? Before you answer that I suppose you have to define "best process" and "best solution". But again though we can all banter about it all day long the process is a government one and I sure they don't give 1 hoot for our opinion and the solution they will get is the one they (the DofT) are asking for. The fact is the final bids are in already so we cannot change either the process or the outcome. So there are only 2 options left, get busy living or get busy dying.

[IFR Piglet]

Mr Whirly:
I don’t think that people are really missing the point......I think most of us realise the country are sourcing a SAR solution that it’s able to afford at present. Do you buy a Ferrari every time you need a car for getting from A to B?....or do you like me charter a Saturn 5.


IFR piglet - if you read what I wrote, you would see I was comparing the 175/139 cabins in a VIP/corporate role in terms of headroom, not the SAR role
Crab:
You’re quite right I didn’t pay your post my fullest attention.......................pardon my piggy!
For this thread (and much too late anyways) what’s missing is a poster that operates the AW139 as a SAR crewman. If the AW139 is a real dog of a SAR aircraft they should say so. Perhaps the lack of a response in support of the AW139 already dose? Or maybe it’s adequate for the job it’s employed to carry out. I don’t have a bias and wish – like crab – that the British public get the best solution available. Frankly there isn’t an alternative to the S-92 that provides the same ergonomic benefits and therefore you’re wasting your breath touting the benefits of a mixed fleet if a deal breaker is a cab less roomy than the S-92. An EC175 or an AW189 is much better than nothing should the rest of the SAR fleet be grounded.......right? Or would you still advocate an all S-92 fleet?
On the subject of cabin space:
I wonder how the USCG has managed all these years with the HH-60 JayHawk. Did they get their SAR solution wrong? They’re not exactly roomy and they don’t even have a 360 radar........but do they get the job done? Perhaps all this time they’ve just been.............lucky!
So why didn’t Sik offer a SAR variant of the S70? To pricey perhaps or do Sik think it’s too god damn small? See the attached link for the approx internal dimensions of a SAR aircraft operated by the USA. Quick somebody give me a high five!!!!
http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/Attachments/Mission%20Downloads/S70-060_IBH_TI.pdf

[Thomas coupling]

Snakepit - the voice of a realistic observer if I may say so! Well said, but falling on deaf ears I think.

Surely amongst many of the commentators here there must be an understanding of how these contracts play out - please tell me you aren't all green behind the ears????

This contract isn't based on holistics, it isn't based on a scientific research programme of the most optimised solution for UK SAR. It is "just" another government contract designed by governmental servants. It's like, say the HS2 project, a new runway and so on.
Anything that is dispensed by government already has a semi hidden agenda. The essence of the suggested programme is NOT the main issue. It's all about brownie points/assisting and supporting the economy or the currency or the politics of the country.

The 2 men dictating this project: One a Navy Commmodore and the other a senior DfT official will listen primarily to what is best for the country first and then look at what is best for UK SAR second. Please tell me you realise this - yes?

The job is a done deal. The DfT brief is: what can we do to maximise jobs for the Uk workforce for the optimum price (in today's climate).

All we can do here is second guess the outcome based on this remit. Thus I surmise S92's and AW189's first and foremost. Secondly, I will commit to it being Bristows (due to the profit warning on Avincis). Thirdly, I will conclude by saying that the winning bidder will be invited (no competition) to sweep up the Falklands (separate) option for an attractive sum. If they say no, then the existing contractor will probably be invited to stay on.

In summary:
NO-ONE cares about cabin height at the end of the day. It's a pathetic argument to put fwd. It is not a tie breaker. The cabs that have been put fwd for selection will fall within the 'acceptable' government limit.
JOE public - don't care a hoot about any of this. Not one hoot. Couldn't care less if UK SAR folded tomorrow. SeaFarers might be concerned but that's about it. How many people would die next year if SAR wound down completely: 100? 200? A pittance in the great scheme of things. 233 died last Monday in a night club in Brazil!
It's a pure luxury that we are having UK SAR and all the 'blather', froth, emotion is going to do nothing to change this for what it is: just another bleeding government contract. Let's be grateful for small mercies: It won't be a PFI :eek::eek::ugh:

HEMS the world over are using some of the most compact airframes available - with great success. The 117, 135, 145, 902, 355,139 attest to that. Makes you think the 189 is a cavern compared to these!

[Vie sans frontieres]

So in summary, a degraded level of service is acceptable. Thanks for clearing that up TC.

[IFR Piglet]

Thomas:
Good post and ditto; but how do you know Avincis are the lowest bidder? Why not Bristow?

The only company that really knows the true cost of modern SAR is CHC, and according to the rumour found out the hard way.:{

and in summary:
You can't keep everybody happy.

[Hilife]

No high fiving for you today Piglet I’m afraid, as even if Sikorsky did float the idea, the H-60 is not an EASA certified platform, so a non-starter from the word go.

However, I agree that the Jayhawk would have made a great Lot 2 solution and is highly regarded on the other side of the Pond, although I’m not so sure what our Old World crews would have made of operating without floats.

[IFR Piglet]

I’m not so sure what our Old World crews would have made of operating without floats.

Perhaps why Sik couldn't float the idea? Sometimes pointing out the obvious isn't a bad thing.......so they forgot the floats. I'm sure that could happen to any OEM.

[Thomas coupling]

VSF: What qualifies you to 'assume' the future Long SAR will be degraded, then?
Surely that is a very subjective response?
Degraded where? Why?

Modern safety systems. Fact.
Faster response times. Fact.
Cheaper to maintain and operate. Fact.
Currently being flown and accepted globally. Fact
Same quality of staff (don't even go there, or you'll get a: :ouch:). Fact
Lots of civilian jobs available. {No mil will be hurt in the making of this project!}. Fact


So, based on facts only - where will it be degraded?

[snakepit]

IFR
I think most of us realise the country are sourcing a SAR solution that it’s able to afford at present. Do you buy a Ferrari every time you need a car for getting from A to B?
And you are comparing and S92 and AW189 against a 1970ish Seaking? Exactly which one do you think is the Ferrari?

Vie sf
So in summary, a degraded level of service is acceptable. Thanks for clearing that up TC.
I think if you read the post in question he did not say anything of the sort. Merely that the country will get what the government deems acceptable at a price it wants to pay because there is no alternative. Why do you infer that he is personally responsable for what is happening because he is stating the truth?

IFR
but how do you know Avincis are the lowest bidder? Why not Bristow?
I am not sure he ever said or inferred that? He did say that their (bond) parent company (Avincis) was under a profit warning. A totally different issue as to who may or may not be the lowest bidder for the UK SAR bid.

[MightyGem]

a degraded level of service is acceptable
He didn't say that, but it's probably inevitable. Just read the NPAS thread on UK Police Air Support.

how the air ambulances cope with their patients? Also how they justify EC135
HEMS: aircraft, small, because that's all they can afford. One patient, generally on a stretcher, usually in a stable condition(AFAIK, I'm sure jayteeto will correct me), terrain and weather usually fairly benign(day vmc, non mountainous, overland).

SAR: often multiple casualties, various injuries needing attention, extreme weather and terrain(plus over water), long transits.

Obviously something a bit bigger needed.

[[email protected]]

It won't be 'degraded' because no one will be allow to say it has been degraded - that is the same reason that no-one here who is 139 rearcrew posts - its the sort of thing that gets you sacked if the management find out.

So, once the contract is in place there will always be positive PR from the contractor, the MCA and the govt because no one will be allowed to admit mistakes had been made.

The crews putting their lives on the lines will have to put up with the terms and conditions and especially the equipment they are given.

TC by your logic you must fully agree with NPAS then since it is 'cheaper' and what the govt wants, despite great concerns from the operators that the quality and effectiveness of the service is being reduced?

[jimf671]

Degraded where? Why?

Modern safety systems. Fact.
Faster response times. Fact.
Cheaper to maintain and operate. Fact.
Currently being flown and accepted globally. Fact
Same quality of staff (don't even go there, or you'll get a: ). Fact
Lots of civilian jobs available. {No mil will be hurt in the making of this project!}. Fact

So, based on facts only - where will it be degraded?

Good one TC.


Where will it be degraded?

There is a long way to go yet (30th June 2017). Lot's of work and lot's of collaboration is necessary if this is going to be a world-class service.


"Honi soit qui mal y pense"

[llamaman]

TC

Same quality of staff (don't even go there, or you'll get a: ). Fact

A bold statement methinks. Have you seen the minimum hours requirements for potential Co-Pilots and Rear-Crew? I think there is plenty of scope for debate on that one.

[IFR Piglet]

Snakepit:

Forget about the Ferrari and consider "the country is sourcing a SAR solution that it’s able to afford at present". My Ferrari comment was possibly an unrefined way of making the same point after Mr Whirls last post. The only thing I would like to add is blah blah blah.

I am not sure he ever said or inferred that? He did say that their (bond) parent company (Avincis) was under a profit warning. A totally different issue as to who may or may not be the lowest bidder for the UK SAR bid.You have a point there.....albeit an unlikely one and I will have to fish some place else....Cheers!

[snakepit]

Crab,

You accused me of rose tinted specks?

The crews putting their lives on the lines will have to put up with the terms and conditions and especially the equipment they are given.

After 22 years in the military never once did i see a piece of equipment or terms of service change in regards to actual need except in times of war under UOR!
Where is the alpha helmet after 15 years? How can a steel karabiner cost 20 times what it should after 10 years of waiting. Don't try and hold the military up a a bastion of all that is good when things at home are in such disarray! Even a full and frank report by Betts made no change except for cherry picking.
Please wake up!

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: NPAS:
I hope you understand that Long SAR Vs NPAS is comparing oranges with bananas!

NPAS remit is to take an existing structure and nationalise it. The governments SOLE advertised objective was to save £15 million. Nothing else. Slash and burn. I would agree the service here is most certainly 'degraded' (Even the most stalwart are beginning to smell a rat)
Long SAR is a complete ground up systemic review of the operation. Modernisation / optimisation / commercialisation. The opposite of nationalisation. The opposite of NPAS.
I haven't lost sight of what I said in my previous post where I commented on the politics of this process either.
Compared to SARH where it was COMO (predominently) and by definition prohibitively expensive (because any mil input is going to cost an arm and a leg); Long SAR (COCO) is surely the better option for the tax payer.

Britain has to accept it can no longer flash the cash. We are on the verge of losing our triple A rating and everyone still wants their gold plated pensions.

Britain will get what it can afford - let's work together to minimise the withdrawal symptoms.

JIM671: June 2017???????

[jimf671]

JIM671: June 2017???????

Yes.

The Gap contract runs until 30th June 2017. On the 1st July 2017 the Main contract starts at Stornoway.

[Hilife]

Yes.

The Gap contract runs until 30th June 2017. On the 1st July 2017 the Main contract starts at Stornoway.

Do pay attention Jim. The OSD for the entire fleet of RAF/RN Sea King Mk 3/3A and Mk 5 (I suspect Mk 7’s too) helicopters is scheduled by 31st March 2016, which would bring a new meaning to GAP SAR by your accounts.

Allowing for commencement of the base transitioning, the first of which is scheduled for around April 2015, I would suggest that the first of the winning bidders UK SAR platforms will start arriving in-country around December 2014.

[jimf671]

The final base to transfer to the main contract will be Stornoway.

Main contract operations are scheduled to start at Stornoway on 1st July 2017 and only then will contract implementation/transition be complete.


I would suggest that the first of the winning bidders UK SAR platforms will start arriving in-country around December 2014.

I expect Highland sunshine to warm Italian Aluminium maybe a little earlier on that contract timescale.

[[email protected]]

TC they are not as different animals (NPAS and SARH) as you believe - they are both state functions where aircraft and crews are provided by a civilian contractor and they are both about saving money and empire building.

On one hand you have senior police chiefs and on the other the chief CG - they are equally ambitious animals and all want to be seen to save money without anyone noticing a reduction in service capability.

The CG have tried for the last 10 years to build themselves into the 4th military service with the sort of extensive air power boasted by the USCG.

Not only are they prepared to compromise on the air capability for the sake of control, they are also pursuing the 'less assets give better concentration of effort' bollocks that is closing many CG stations.

It's not about what the country can afford - the govt are still spending money like water but they don't see police and SAR as important in their bigger, grander, 'posturing on the world stage' view of the world.

If you believe all the PR from DfT and MCA about how good this is all going to be, just because they say so, then don't be surprised in a couple of years time when we in the SAR world (I know no-one cares about us) will be saying the same as those in police aviation or Virgin trains after the recent contract fiasco - "hang on there's something wrong here" - as it will all be too late to change.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Then have a read of Nicholas Saxton's book "Treasure Islands - tax havens and the men who stole the world".

This detailed insight into the history of corruption in government and finance is eyewateringly sad insofar as those countries who count themselves as leaders of the free world are in fact the worst proponents of financial chicanery and depend on their lack of transparency to survive.

Which governments are top of the list in this respect, you may be surprised to learn that it is the US and the UK.

If you want to understand the SAR-H programme in a context that embraces 'the big picture' then I recommend you read this book but be sure you are sitting down as you will be learning some unhappy truths about the way we do business.

G.

[212man]

'less assets give better concentration of effort'

I think that's 'fewer assets' - clearly not a Waitrose customer......:E

[[email protected]]

clearly not a Waitrose customer I am but I have to assume that not all the posters here are ;)

If I selected 'pedant-mode' every time there was a spelling or syntax error on pprune I would have doubled the number of posts I have made:)

[Mr Whirly]

I do all my shoppin in liDl'Ls but theres' nothing wrong with my speling or gramer ;)

[jimf671]

"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again."

[onesquaremetre]

Reading through the comments section, it looks like the public have made up their mind.

[Flounder]

Bill Whitehouse, chairman of the British Cave Rescue Council, said: "There's concern whether the smaller aircraft will be able to do everything the Sea King can. Obviously there's nervousness when you see change coming. We're happy with what we've got."

Surely the smaller helicopters will be more effective in the cave rescue scenarios they seem worried about. It must be tight for a Sea King in a cave system even with NVG and a 330deg radar?

(Also worried about HRH being out of a job. How will he pay the bills?)

[jimf671]

More balance.

Privatisation of UK's search-and-rescue helicopters raises safety and job fears | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/31/search-rescue-helicopters-privatisation-fears)



However, it is a pity they did not have sufficient petrol money in the budget to get far enough north to go out with teams who have worked with both military and civilian crews in the mountains for over 20 years.

[[email protected]]

That Grauniad article seems to cover most of the concerns - and highlights that the MCA and DfT are sitting there with their fingers in their ears going 'la la la'.

Training hours are going to be the really big issue - as everyone has got tired of me saying:)

[Hedski]

That's because the training hours are not an issue on the MCA flights and there's been no indication of a reduction as far as I can see.

Always good to see a well informed well written article in the rags....:ugh:

[[email protected]]

training hours are not an issue on the MCA flights and there's been no indication of a reduction as far as I can see.
that's not what the DfT site says

2.2.2.2.1 The Contractor shall ensure
that a total of 50 flying hours per month
of SAR role flying training is completed
at each location.

2.2.2.2.2 It is anticipated that all training
hours should be consumed within the
month. If this cannot be achieved a
maximum of 10 hours can be carried
over to the following month at the
contractor’s discretion. Hours in excess
of this limit must be agreed with the
Department.

2.2.2.2.3 In the event that monthly
flying training targets are not achieved,
the Contractor shall ensure that such
shortfalls are averaged out over the
year.

[pitotprobe]

Targets not limits?

[[email protected]]

Oh sure, because a contractor who has had to undercut competition by 20% is bound to give stuff away free that isn't specified in the contract:ugh:

1:35 per day per SAR flight - of course that's enough training - how could I have been so stupid???????

[pitotprobe]

They didn't undercut - they had no idea what the others were bidding. Sensible process.

I might be splitting hairs, or being naive, but it's '50 hours of role training' - doesn't include transits in my book. Taking it even further, jobs aren't 'training'....

More revenue for hours in excess of the target? That's how it works elsewhere (with an upper limit). Crews are encouraged to fly more :)

[Spanish Waltzer]

On the subject of this 20% difference between the CHC bid and the nearest rival - which caused DfT to remove them from the process, is anyone able to shed light whether this was on each of the bidable lots or just on one? If just one couldn't CHC have continued to compete in the other lots?

Still seems incredulous that CHC were such an order of magnitude different to the others....or is there more to this than simple maths?

[[email protected]]

doesn't include transits in my book. yes you are being very naive - at what point do you think the clock would start?

[pitotprobe]

Or you're being overly cynical?;)

[jimf671]

Or you're being overly cynical?

Perhaps not.

It's been very difficult to get the MCA side and the military to talk the same language on anything so that we could find out what has changed and what will change in the future.

The monthly SAR stats are the best example: no chance of comparing like with like. Criticised for these obscurations in the 2001 provision and coverage report. Unchanged 5 years later and criticised again in the 2006 report. Unchanged now. Useless.

It's the same with things like training hours. If someone can get MCA and MoD to speak the same language then your AFC is in the post (air force chocolate).

[No Vote Joe]

The points being raised about CHC being undercut by it's rivals, therefore they are doing it on the cheap, are a bit wide of the mark.

OK, it appears that there were only 2 bids for Lots 1+3, but there were 3 for Lot 2. So CHC would have been 20% more expensive than both of the others to get excluded under the 20% clause. Surely the other 2 couldn't both be wrong?

Did CHC actually want it in the first place?

[snakepit]

Come on all you grown ups out there:

Hands up everyone who thinks CHC were going to do loads more than the ITT asked for and that's why they were justifiably £600,000 more expensive!

And now hands up everyone else who lives in the real world and thinks CHC were going to offer exactly what the contract asked for and pocket the rest!

Why does anyone think that a massive commercial company were for some reason going to do loads more than required and put their bid at risk by being super expensive? IMHO they bid what they thought the government were prepared to pay and got caught out by 2 companies prepared to cost it properly. Just a guess mind!

[terminus mos]

Pitot

.I might be splitting hairs, or being naive, but it's '50 hours of role training' - doesn't include transits in my book. Taking it even further, jobs aren't 'training'....

In some SAR contracts, a training credit is given for time on scene on real jobs.

I think that with an experienced crew, it is fair enough if administered correctly. As a soon to be client of a SAR service using 225 (maybe) or 92, we contractually allow the operator to use the full 50 hours, any discount against jobs is the operator's call.

[Flounder]

With the current tending topic training hours it would be interesting to see where we are now.

What are the current monthly totals, or annual to allow for seasonal variations, flown by RN, RAF & MCA crews? What is the breakdown between training/SAROPS?

Might help to have a start point prior to the change to 50hrs per month.

[No Vote Joe]

I believe the RAF guys can fly between 3 & 4 hrs per shift training, which equates to about 90-120 hrs per month.

I don't think they always do (although I did hear a quote of "2hrs day, 2hrs night, whether the rearcrew need it or not!"), but it's available if they feel the need.

[Flounder]

Not planned flying hours, actual. I'm sure a plan of 120hrs (for the base, not the individual) a month will experience some reduction due to jobs, maintenance, weather, crew unavailibility/ground based training.

So actual stats for an RAF/RN/MCA crew.

I'll start you off...

MCA pilot: 250hrs in last 365 days of which 190hrs training, 60hrs SAROPS (no sim time included which is another 12hrs annually).

[jimf671]

... it would be interesting to see where we are now. ...

Nice one Flounder. Getting MoD and DfT to speak the same language has been a challenge for some time. When we've got to the bottom of the great training hours mystery maybe we can start on the great SAROPS mystery, as highlighted in the 2001 provision and coverage report and unresolved as far as I know.

[Flounder]

It has gone a bit quiet hasn't it....

[jimf671]

It has gone a bit quiet hasn't it....

Do you think it was something you said? :oh:

[cyclic stop]

Has anyone hered of the proposed Emergency Air Responce working group? This is just a snip of it

UK Search and Rescue Strategic Committee. The UK Search and Rescue (UK SAR) Strategic Committee is an inter-agency

national forum established in 2000, with responsibility for advising on the structure, scope and framework of the organisation of UK SAR. The

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]primary objectives of the Committee are to develop criteria for the coverage, responsiveness and availability of SAR services, to promote

[FONT=Arial]effective and efficient co-operation between government departments, emergency services and voluntary agencies for the effective provision of national SAR services. The Committee‟s remit is to offer views to ministers on improving SAR capabilities and the effectiveness and
co-operation of SAR providers. The membership of the UKSAR Strategic Committee is confined to those departments with strategic and policyresponsibilities for search and rescue and to national organisations that contribute significantly to UK SAR.

1.2
[SIZE=3]UK Emergency Air Response Working Group. The UK SAR Strategic Committee agreed to the formation of a „UK SAR HEMS

Working Group‟ in late 2011 in order to examine the interaction between SAR and Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) aircraft. However, it was soon recognised that the Group‟s work should be broadened to embrace other emergency air response operations. The Group therefore adopted the title of the UK Emergency Air Response (EAR) Working Group in order to better describe its composition and functions.

The membership of this Group was drawn from organisations with responsibility for providing medical services, search and rescue, fire and rescue services, police aviation and aviation legal compliance matters, including the following:

Association of Air Ambulances (AAA)

Association of Ambulance Chief Executives

Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)

British Association of Immediate Care (BASICS)

Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA)

Civil Aviation Authority

Department of Health (DH)





– Co Chair

Department for Transport (DfT)

HM Coastguard (HMCG)

Ministry of Defence – Air Rescue Coordination Centre – Co Chair

NHS Commissioners

NHS - Resilience & Preparedness Implementation

National Police Air Service

Scottish Ambulance Service

Assistance has also kindly been provided by the Association ofChief Police Officers Scotland (SAR Portfolio)

[Flounder]

Come on, Crab. You're never off this thread.

What were your totals for the last year? Training and ops?

[[email protected]]

Because I am in a travelling training and examining job my totals are not representative of a line pilot. However I think between 250 and 300 hours is about right with the amount of SAROps in there being variable depending on how busy your flight is - Chivenor and Valley did over 300 jobs each last year whereas Wattisham was under 200.

Most RAF crews will fly a good proportion of those 4 hours available each day so even if you took out 30 days to weather and serviceability (which is a lot) you still end up with each flight getting through over 1300 hours per year.

[NRDK]

Crab, seems that you do about the same number of hours per year as the Civilian SAR unit that has the longer jobs and perhaps 50 more than the quieter ones. Training & ops taken into account.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Very scientific. QED. :D

[[email protected]]

However, since both sides of the mil/civ SAR fly a similar number of hours (training and ops), the new contract will still nearly halve the amount of training hours.

Flounder flew 190 hours of training last year - under the new contract, that would be a third of the total for the whole flight. Assume that 2 pilots get the full training together and there are 5 crews - at Flounder's present rate that is 950 training hours for a year - SARH is mandated to provide 600.

So what training is going to be cut? Both the mil and existing civsar seem to agree on what amount of training is required to do the job - how have the MCA and DfT been able to cut a huge swathe through that with no actual knowledge of the task?

I fear that Jim is right and tasks like lifeboat and MRT exercises and any other sort of valuable liaison flying will just disappear. But even if you get rid of those tasks, 600 hours is simply not enough to maintain competence - it might give a technical currency but that is not the same and it will come back and bite someone in the arse.

[Vie sans frontieres]

To vainly quote myself

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.

Not particularly scientific either but a reasonable attempt to calculate what awaits us. It's just not enough. Which bean counter decided this and more to the point, who the hell advised them that 50 hours per month was sufficient?

[Mr Whirly]

Is this why the CHC bid was so much more expensive? As a company already providing SAR and aware of the needs, did CHC cost in the training it knew to be necessary rather than the training minimum as specified?

(Leaving aside, of course, the conspiracy theory that CHC didn't want this job anyhow. I'm wondering why any company might go to the enormous trouble of putting together this kind of bid with no intention of winning the contract at the end of it. I know I wouldn't. Unless perhaps I wanted to provide the DfT with some kind of benchmark of good practice - a noble aim, but a little unlikely in the current economic climate!)

[Sevarg]

Crab, when I was on civ SAR, over 10 years ago, it was 3.5 crews per base. Have things changed? Or is 5 crews a mil thing? What's the crewing with CHC?

[jimf671]

I am not sure like is being compared with like here.

Perhaps different approaches to crew roles in military and civilian aircraft will have a effect on how training hours can be used and this should be represented in the comparison. Bond, Bristow and CHC have all done UK SAR so there should be example out there.

ITT Schedule 2.1 Specification, addresses Training for SAR organisations and
emergency services at 2.2.1 and for Aircrew at 2.2.2. Schedule 2.3 asks for different type of training for aircrew and mentions initial, on-job-training and continuation training, then synthetic and live training.

I suggest that aircrew training and SAR organisations and emergency services training have a big overlap. Although it does not explicitly state it in the ITT Schedules, initial and continuation training will be necessary for both.

So the 50 hours, is that Aircrew Continuation? And On-the-job? And this includes synthetic? Probably a yes. What about the rest?

[Support Monkey]

Sevarg - EU working time directive limits crew to 2000hrs/year

365x24/2000 = 4.4 crews

SM

[Sevarg]

SM, On the face of it yes but back then it was 1300 to 2100, then standby at home till 0800 till 1300. 13 hrs at work 11 standby. If 35+ days holiday are factored in it gives, for round figures 1400 duty hrs plus what ever is given for the standby time. The amount of night call-outs were low maybe only 10% giving interrupted standby.
I must say that in my 5 years with BHL on SAR the only crew I remember running short of hrs were the winchies and that was due to them standing extra shifts so others could get time off to get off the island.
As I say I'm well out of it now and not up to date so open to correction, so what is the actual crewing with CHC in Scotland and Lee?

[Art of flight]

Is the 50 hours training ringfenced for actual training? to give an example, NPAS (police) have very little allocation of training hours. The assumption is that the crews will gain almost all of their 'training needs' on the job. In fact the only training hours mandated are 4 hours annually per pilot for simulated instruments, along with 2 hours with a TRI testing and a further 2 hours base and line checks.

Now I accept that police flying and SAR flying are worlds apart at the delivery end (police crews will routinely do many jobs per shift), but with moves towards empire building in the future, management and regulators will push to use SAR jobs as training time just as police flying does.

[jimf671]

... ... and regulators will push to use SAR jobs as training time ... ...


Really? With 2 AOC to maintain, crews of four to keep in-date and thousands of part-time and voluntary members of partner SAR organisations to pre-train in order to comply with the SAR AOC?

I shall be fascinated to learn how this is possible.

[snakepit]

Jimf671
ITT Schedule 2.1 Specification, addresses Training for SAR organisations and
emergency services at 2.2.1 and for Aircrew at 2.2.2. Schedule 2.3 asks for different type of training for aircrew and mentions initial, on-job-training and continuation training, then synthetic and live training.

I suggest that aircrew training and SAR organisations and emergency services training have a big overlap. Although it does not explicitly state it in the ITT Schedules, initial and continuation training will be necessary for both.

So the 50 hours, is that Aircrew Continuation? And On-the-job? And this includes synthetic? Probably a yes. What about the rest?

You appear to have a copy of the ITT Jimf671 so I am surprised that you need to suggest anything as surely it is in the ITT in black and white? If it does not state that there is a big training overlap between aircrew training and ERT training then I would suggest there is not going to be one and furthermore, that there has been a reasoned decision that there does not need to be one. After all even the military only conduct familiarization training with RNLI, MRT etc approx once a year per unit.

Maybe you could provide us all with the details from the ITT on the 50 hours and clear up your own point, instead of making suggestions and trying to get a bite! Because if it says 50 hours aircrew flying SAR role training that each unit is required to complete, then it is NOT on the job and does not include synthetic nor does it include RNLI, MRT training. Simples ek :ugh:

[jimf671]

Yes, I have the ITT zip file that is at the top of the DfT web page and it is the September one. There will have been a few changes in the final one but it has not been made public. I recommend a look at the DfT documents to anyone who has an interest in this. The Specification (previously Technical Requirement Matrix) has a respectable amount of detail. Even there, it is believed that there are other issues that have been thrashed out in the 'Boot Camp' but don't appear in that version of the customer's documents.

I expect the matter of continuation training for SAR partners to be addressed in the final arrangement. I expect there to be a number, though I am not completely certain, and I do not know what it is.

Where I think some difficulty lies is with initial type training. This is the matter of introducing the new service and its equipment, and doing initial pre-training to replace normal air transport passenger briefing, as mentioned in CAP 999. It applies to land and maritime alike and includes thousands of people.

Beyond the pre-training issue is its important effect on public relations, management and reputation. After the Guardian articles last week, thousands of broadsheet readers now think their £2bn to £3bn is going to be spent on rubbish. Proper open government and the DfT/MCA having the bidders and contractors on a longer leash would have meant that certain people would have had a better grasp of the facts and those article might have had a significantly different flavour.

Below that small tip there is a very large iceberg. If the DfT/MCA don't get a grip then, during the first five or so years after award, the management, at both the customer and the contractor, will be spending a ridiculous amount of time trying to sell the idea of the new service to the public and press. This will be time that would be much better spent on effective transition management and improving the service.

And I'm not trying to get a bite. There are a small number of issues that still need sorting. I and others will keep plugging away until the right answers are forthcoming.

[pitotprobe]

Jim

I think you've hit the nail on the head in your earlier posts: there are thousands of MRT members, some of which might occasionally see a SAR helicopter. There won't the will or the way to give them all comprehensive training on the new machines.

I'd suggest that the teams which currently work the most frequently with the helos will get some Stage 1 drills early on but the other teams will have to wait. Same goes with the RNLI / MCA / Cliff Rescue guys. I honestly don't think that this is a major issue; famil training will be a nicety not a necessity.

The S92 was introduced to Shannon in June last year and, like any asset, can be called to an incident anywhere in the country. I could be wrong, but I don't think they've managed to exercise with every MRT in their own patch let alone up in Donegal. Not a gold-plated Rolls Royce solution, but, guess what? It's working!

I also don't believe there is big overlap between aircrew training and SAR organisations / emergency services training. Compared with operating the machine, getting to and from the scene / hospital etc, the winching is a very small part of the job. Much the same for the MRT members I'd suggest. That's not to say that the exercises wouldn't be valuable; just not as critical as you seem to think.

[Thomas coupling]

Jim, I am struggling to understand how there are "thousands" of MRT members. How many teams are there (non mil?).
P2probe is right, there is no guidance on extraneous ground troop training. The project is all about aerial support for national search and rescue missions. The air ambulance and police fraternity don't cross pol with ground troops, so why is SAR any different.
At the end of the day, aerial SAR and ground troops have the same aim but there isn't a correlation for training needs.
How often / what percentage of operational tasking requires trained MRT's to be in attendance? [Mountainous regions and long established Misper's is all I can think of].
Training thousands of 'supporters' is not a practical nor essential proposition.

[Vie sans frontieres]

sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".

[Thomas coupling]

Oooh - touched a raw nerve did we.........

When and how often do the civvy SAR operators train with MRT's. They do but not often.
When are MRT's needed: Let's see:

Mountainous areas. Tick.
Misper's Rural areas: Tick.

How many jobs per annum are in the mountains/misper where MRT's are called upon? 10%, 20%.

How many SAR cabs cover "mountainous regions".
Remove military SAR who have a dedicated MRS empire and there's not much territory/need left is there?

[There will always be a place for volunteer MRT's. No-one is suggesting otherwise. But they are autonomous units who can function without helicopters. To cross pol with any available aerial units is a big "bonus" nothing more nothing less.
Why - therefore should/must the government accomodate their training needs under this particular contract???].

[jimf671]

TC, there are about two dozen civvy teams plus police and RAF with 1000 members in Scottish MR. Then there are the following.

Welsh MRT
NI MRT
English MR
ALSAR
Cave Rescue
Auxiliary Coastguard
RNLI
Independent lifeboats

The lifeboat crews generally do not require passenger pre-training in the way that MR and others do. Just because the Aux CG work for the MCA doesn't mean the MCA can remember who they are. :eek:

[jimf671]

... I honestly don't think that this is a major issue; famil training will be a nicety not a necessity. ...

It might not be an issue from where you sit but from a 1960s design to a modern helicopter is a big step up in downwash. On a mountain ridge, heavy downwash can result in fatalities and has done recently in other territories. There have been lesser incidents in the UK. Downwash danger in MR is a current IKAR Air Commission issue.

Encouragiing all sides to think about procedures for downwash mitigation has been one of my themes for some time. I know that the Stornoway guys have been giving this stuff some thought and there are people in offices in Dyce who understand the issue.

Purely on the basis of downwash, I have heard people saying that the S-92 is completely unsuitable for mountain rescue. I am sure that there are people saying similar things about maritime rescue. People do not understand that they are safer in an S-92. You have to get out there and educate them before the press get to them or there'll be hell to pay which will make your boss and his boss very unhappy.

Then there is the 189 cabin height and double doors. WARNING WARNING! CULTURE SHOCK ALERT! Where's the mute alarm button? It's that page with Training Scedule on the top.

[Manchester]

Sounds to me as though new helicopters might improve the gene pool

[snakepit]

Jimf

I'm sensing some empire building where none is required. Rotorwash is NOT a new issue and I think you will find that all parties are already aware of it, but thanks for the reminder!
Nothing you have suggested so far justifies your claim that there is a major shortfall in planned UK SAR training for those ERTs that might occasionally see a SAR helicopter never mind actually get to be a passenger in one. You seem fond of quoting CAP 999 SAR where you will find that a SAR passenger should be briefed on the following:

4 SAR Passengers
4.1 SAR passengers are to be briefed on the following, wherever possible and relevant:
a) familiarisation with the helicopter type(s) operated;
b) entry and exit under normal and emergency conditions;
c) use of the relevant on-board specialist medical equipment;
d) the need for the commander's approval prior to use of specialised equipment;
e) method of supervision of other medical staff;
f) the use of helicopter intercommunication systems;
g) location and use of on-board fire extinguishers; and
h) use of personal safety equipment.

Note the wherever possible!

Indeed Appendix 1 Exemptions from Regulations in regard to passengers states that:
The Commander may not be in a position to ensure that all
passengers are adequately briefed.

So in effect nothing has changed from the current procedures so can we please move on.

As to taking the public on and convincing them that the new service is good. It won't take 5 years, just the first few rescues should convince them that the cave rescue specialist might not be the best person to comment on aviation issues but when has the truth ever got in the way of a good newspaper story. As to the Guardian readers they will never be happy until the total current military and D of T budget is diverted to the NHS, DSS (whatever they are called now) and europe.

Cabin height, DONE!
Double doors, BONUS! Though I might get confused over which to open eek
Training schedule, there will be plenty for the aircrew and they in turn will pass on anything relavent as and when practical I am sure, but don't expect type rating courses for every MRT, RNLI, ambulance and police officer in the country.

Oh and one last thing.
The lifeboat crews generally do not require passenger pre-training in the way that MR and others do.
What makes RNLI any less deserving of a proper brief when there is the time to give one?!

[jimf671]

... Rotorwash is NOT a new issue ...

Depends where you're standing/sitting. One old sweat involved in aeronautical rescue recently quiped during a discussion of downwash "if you stood under Whirlwind it wouldn't even part your hair". And that describes well the change that there has been across 50 years. For many of the SAR partners, this is a step change in technology, and especially power.


... As to taking the public on and convincing them that the new service is good. It won't take 5 years, just the first few rescues should convince them ... ...

No. Privatised helicopter SAR has been going on in the UK since Marston in 1971. The S-92 has been used in UK SAR since 2007 and done fine work. So when is this magical transformation of public and press opinion due to happen?


What makes RNLI any less deserving of a proper brief when there is the time to give one?!

When we work with them they always bring their own transport. :ok:

[snakepit]

Depends where you're standing/sitting. One old sweat involved in aeronautical rescue recently quiped during a discussion of downwash "if you stood under Whirlwind it wouldn't even part your hair". And that describes well the change that there has been across 50 years. For many of the SAR partners, this is a step change in technology, and especially power.

I can assure you I occasionally hang in the worst place possible and all that is required is a change in SOPs and expectations, its not rocket science. You cannot argue for better lift capacity and increased safety and still expect whirlwind rotorwash!

No. Privatised helicopter SAR has been going on in the UK since Marston in 1971. The S-92 has been used in UK SAR since 2007 and done fine work. So when is this magical transformation of public and press opinion due to happen?

Are you actually suggesting that the public and press don't appreciate and respect Lee, Portland, Stornaway and Sumburgh? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

When we work with them they always bring their own transport.

I'd love to see the lifeboat in the mountains! When we work with them we do the same for them as we do for the MRT and if they become a passenger they deserve the same service as we give you! It was your comment.

[jimf671]

... I occasionally hang in the worst place possible ...

OK, OK, I see it now. "No stick no vote." Just different corners of the same page then. :ok:

Are you actually suggesting that the public and press don't appreciate and respect Lee, Portland, Stornaway and Sumburgh?

No, but 42 years on we still get stuff like the recent Grauniad articles. And if the articles weren't enough, some of the website comments were pretty awful.

... if they become a passenger ...

Please educate me if I am wrong but I estimate that this is considerably less likely than on MR jobs.
[And we have mountains right beside the sea in the NW Highlands.]

[Thomas coupling]

Jim, you're hi-jacking the thread to some extent.
Ground based rescue teams do not need advance training with SAR ops. It is a luxury and doesn't /won't form part of the overall plan - neither financially nor operationally. If necessary - brief them at scene like we have done for decades.

There is nothing to learn?? Downwash? Whats there to brief? Go under the disc and its windy. The end. The only important thing to do is to ensure the crewman/woman on scene, grips the rescue team on scene early, and briefs them away from the chopper.
It might seem/sound simplistic...but guess what...it is! The problem is: several 'entities' have built empires around/on this subject. As I said before, they are a valuable contribution to some emergencies and the country is far better off because of your contributions. BUT there is too much 'noise' made about cross pol training between both parties. It is not essential; nice but not essential.

The other thing to remember is that if one lives and functions outside this Search and Rescue 'bubble'...ie: joe/joanne public...they DON'T CARE. For the same reason that they don't care that the AA is the 4th emergency service????? (Is it?).

To this day your neighbour and my neighbour STILL know nothing about SAR, absolutely nothing (unless someone they know has been rescued by them which is probably 0.001% of the population). They know some aeroplanes are yellow, some white and red, some grey and red. Do you think the public will flinch if there is no training for MRT's? Government reflects this therefore.

If there was a SAR tax/insurance...then matters would change significantly :eek:

Let's stick with the juicy operational bits about this contract, eh?

[Vie sans frontieres]

Ground based rescue teams do not need advance training with SAR ops

If necessary - brief them at scene like we have done for decades

There is nothing to learn

Whats there to brief?

I rest my case. :hmm:

[snakepit]

Vsf
In order to rest your case you have to actually make one! Not just cut and past quotes :)

[No Vote Joe]

Jim,

Didn't a lot of civvy teams say the same thing about downwash when the RAF went from a SK/Wessex mix to a full SK fleet? I seem to remember a lot of gum bashing going on around Leuchars then! Hasn't seemed to be a problem as far as I can see?

[snakepit]

Meanwhile anyone seen the papers today?

[[email protected]]

What, the story about the new Findus product - Champion Lasagna Sauce
(sung to the tune of Champion the Wonder Horse for those old enough to remember)?

[snakepit]

Groups vie for search and rescue contract - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e2b7052-704f-11e2-85d0-00144feab49a.html#axzz2KJaVtcxY)

[pitotprobe]

Your best comment yet Crab!!!;)

[[email protected]]

Should the UK SAR deals be confirmed, AgustaWestland will build the SAR helicopters at its Yeovil facility, and might consider shifting some production of the oil and gas models there as well. might consider.............yeah right!

Shock horror - UK Govt shores up Westlands again but is surprised when possible jobs don't materialise!

[onesquaremetre]

Interesting angle within two of those FT links

If one lesson is clear from the G4S (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=uk:GFS) Olympic security scandal (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/344a0e3c-d001-11e1-a3d2-00144feabdc0.html), it is that private companies should tread warily when bidding to run high-profile, high-risk services that governments might ordinarily handle. A botched job could throw up as much grief as a security breach at the Olympics

“This is a trophy contract,” says Mr Tusa at Echelon.
But a trophy contract with risks attached: “Once a capability becomes contractorised, the public becomes more critical and demanding,” he says, adding that the government is asking a lot of companies both in terms of complexity and efficiency. “This is very high risk if something goes wrong.”


Was the Olympics originally a trophy contract for G4S I wonder? Is it really worth the risk?

Then in another article

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 how many 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.


If this kind of prediction has already found its way into the wider public domain, what hope is there that it will become anything other than another Olympics when the lesser product that some foresee becomes reality a few months or years down the line? :confused:

[Hilife]

As I understand it, the AW189 is the civil variant of the military AW149 (this being a stretched AW139) and like the AW139, the fuselage is being built by PZL-Świdnik in Poland, so not sure as to which part in percentage terms of AW’s claim that “The AW189 Search and Rescue variant is being designed, developed and built in the UK” reflects the truth?

To quote AW’s CEO Bruno Spagnolini. “Only full final assembly of SAR-configured AW189s will be established in the UK should the aircraft be selected for the Long SAR requirement.”

Just what does ‘full final assembly’ actually mean, SAR completions and a lick of paint perhaps?

[dascanio]

Hilife,
From official AgustaWestland press release of last July:

"AgustaWestland’s Yeovil facility has already been playing an important role in the design and development of the AW189. Activities undertaken preliminary design of the overall architecture; design and development of dynamic components and vibration analysis. Manufacturing activities for the development aircraft have included critical components such as rotor blades, gearboxes and drive shafts"

[jimf671]

So AW are multinational. So the Italians are good at some bits, the Brits good at others and the Poles good at other bits.

The aircraft will be a little bit Italian, a little bit British, and a little bit Polish.

In the case of the UK SAR Helicopter Service, the press releases have been a little bit Italian, a little bit Polish and a BIG bit of British. Meanwhile in Italy ...

Oops!
AgustaWestland deal: Finmeccanica CEO Giuseppe Orsi arrested for paying bribes to sell choppers to India (http://www.financialexpress.com/news/augustawestland-deal-finmeccanica-ceo-giuseppe-orsi-arrested-for-paying-bribes-to-sell-choppers-to-india/1073056)

No, this new joint British-Polish helicopter ...



(I declare that this post was written while sipping Italian coffee from a PZL-Swidnik mug and that there is no conflict of interest.) :-)

[Thomas coupling]

Surely this cannot be true:eek:

An Italian boss suspected of corruption...surely zees eez a meest ache - no?
Unheard of.

The boss of Agusta Westland on the fiddle - apparently they found a spare AW101 in his garage???

[jimf671]

Surely this cannot be true

An Italian boss suspected of corruption ...

Shocking! What will Silvio think?

Will he want a cut?


(Only asking.)

[[email protected]]

It won't make any difference because there are those (including the MCA and DfT) who think the answer to everything is technology - even if they don't understand it.

Apparently there are those who still think you can search into wind in a big sea state to locate a casualty with a weather radar just because it is new and shiny! Quite how the new technology sees through the big walls of water in a SS 6 plus is something of a mystery - but not to some, they know that because it is new it must be better:ugh:

We will get what we will get and just have to make the best of it.

[NRDK]

Pray tell, when was your last search in SS6+ and what was the target?
Better still did you find it? :ugh:
120 degrees will do, it has to since the country doesn't have the spare zillions for your wish list yellow dream machines.
You won't need the radar in SH......rubbish in the mountains anyway:8

[[email protected]]

NRDK, you obviously don't understand the question either. There is a very good reason why we search crosswind in a big sea and that is because the target can be hidden in the troughs. The same is true of visual searching.

The advantage of the 350 radar is that you don't have to point where you are searching so you can fly your search box in almost any direction and still look effectively for the target.

Even in a moderate SS, searching downwind with radar is far better than into wind because the radar returns from the sea are reduced but again a 120 radar forces you to point where you are searching.

I won't even go into the advantages of having a dedicated Radop carrying out the radar search instead of the co pilot, especially at night or in IMC. I guess the DfT answer is such searches just won't get done or the asset will be launched knowing that the probability of detection is very low but launching makes the stats look good.

[NRDK]

Sorry, question not answered about the searches.

That said, one would normally fly about during these searches, sector, expanding square etc, radar pointing in the search area as it progresses. Not sure why you think it won't get a look in? Normally does. :D

So what's the next gripe to throw this way in an attempt to keep the 70+ RAF/RN assigned to each SAR unit with their golden mod pensions & perks.
Wish I could have kept them:rolleyes:

[jimf671]

Is it the case that one of the answers to Crab's concern on this one is that the DfT's Specification asks for modern aircraft capabilities and that in SS6 and the accompanying wind you may have limited choice in where you point the aircraft if you are flying an older and curiously much-loved aircraft type?

[[email protected]]

A sector search or expanding square are most likely to be used based a on a known datum - a sector search saturates the datum and the expanding square works outwards from that area.

With a missing or damaged vessel (the type of scenario we are looking at here) where an exact position is not known (hence the need for a search) the CG will normally allocate a search box which will be covered using a creeping line ahead style search - up the stairs and along the corridor, repeat at the other end of the box style if you will.

If you only have a 120 radar, you can only search in the direction you are travelling - if you have a 350 radar you are searching all around. Which do you think gives the best ie most effective and efficient search?

[No Vote Joe]

As I understand it, the issue with the searching is not that you cannot point the radar where you want it to search, because you can, but the thoroughness of the search.

To carry out a thorough search, the best way to minimise the sea clutter is to look downwind, which minimises sea returns. Generally, rough seas are accompanied by strong winds, so looking downwind will require the aircraft to be flying downwind, meaning a much higher groundspeed, and a reduced time searching a specific area.

60 kt airspeed with with a 30 kt wind would mean a groundspeed of 90 kts searching, as opposed to 30 kts if flying into wind/looking downwind as they do now. That's seems quite a difference to me?

[Justintime80]

I did wonder why Mr J Crab was banging on now about the Radar then I read this Bristow Group In The News - bristowgroup.com (http://www.bristowgroup.com/bristow-news/bristow-in-the-news/2013/bristow-unveils-first-state-art-aircraft-uk-gap-sa/) and realized that his other big issue NVG has been put to bed.

[onesquaremetre]

That's a very encouraging sign. I thought that the Gap SAR contract was going to be a goggle-free affair and that NVGs would only be brought in when Longsar became a reality. If Bristows are going over and above the stipulated requirement of the contract (limited overland capability wasn't it? ie no night overland rescue) then that's to be commended. Too many times we read that a company will provide what's stipulated in the contract and nothing more so this augurs well for SAR if Bristows are providing a capability that isn't actually required by the contract.

Or have I got it completely wrong and NVGs have been part of the requirement for Gap SAR all along? :confused:

[jimf671]

You raise a very interesting point osm.

Those in MCA aviation were saying 15 months ago that the Gap spec was similar to the spec for the 2007 contract. Now that the outline kit list is published, we can see that there is a big difference (compared to the CHC aircraft which have some difficulty with seeing and hearing). This difference is not just with NVIS but also the comms spec which is very near, or maybe the same as, the Main contract.

The big question is whether this move forward is actually in the Gap contract or a case of contractor intelligence overcoming customer ignorance.

[Hedski]

Different company different spec perhaps?

Difficulty hearing?

[jimf671]

Difficulty hearing?

There is no HF.

[Vie sans frontieres]

There will be a significant training burden - where and when will the Bristow crews be starting their NVG training? The timescale declared by the Bristow spokesman looked quite tight yet you would have thought that the aircrew would need at least a month away from the frontline to conduct dedicated overland NVG training sorties to get familiar with handling, depth perception, navigation, weather hazards, map preparation, obstruction avoidance etc. Trying to convert to NVGs in the middle of summer could be a bit of a challenge when you've only got about 2 hours of darkness to play with. Will they be heading south?

[jimf671]

BBC News - Bristow Helicopter crews to train at Inverness Airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-21279335)

[Thomas coupling]

VSF: Did you do NVD when you were in the RAF? Can't you remember how any new training was completed.

Options:
You take a floating crew out of the existing roster and train them in NVD ops.
or
You train an existing rostered crew up on the job and immerse them in NVD ops.
or
You recruit a new crew and train them up and then feed them into the roster to replace an existing crew who then subsequently get trained up in NVD ops.

Whats difficult with any of this.

How do you think military crews did it? How do you think the police operations (who don't have spare floating crews) did it?

OSM: Bristows are not doing this out of charity, believe me. There is ONLY one reason for doing this and that is to offset them against Bond who have yet to declare their hand in NVD. Bristow can now prove they are ready for Long SAR.

(Vote TC: your local sciolist:bored:)

[Vie sans frontieres]

Whats difficult with any of this

The length of time it takes to ensure competency and comfort with the new technology.

The extra burden placed on remaining crews who aren't doing the conversion training at that particular moment.

The cost and administrative burden of setting up an alternate training location (please don't try and suggest that thorough overland NVG training can take place in a place like the Shetlands when you're never more than a stone's throw away from the sea).

The difficulty for despatchers in knowing whether today's crew is NVG capable or not.

The usual barriers to training (weather, sickness etc)

The extra serviceable aircraft required to run a long term second line to convert so many crews.

The fact that it'll be summer!

I'm sure there would be more were I not just about to sit down to dinner. :ok:

[MightyGem]

Whats difficult with any of this.
Probably not much if the training requirements are the same as they are for the Police.
Stage 1 training qualifies to fly not below 500'. Consists of approx 1.5 hour groundschool, 3 x 1 hour flying sorties, plus a line check.

After 25 hours flying at Stage 1, Stage 2, operations to ground level training: approx 1 hour groundschool, 2 x 1 hour flying sorties, plus line check.

Edit: Numbers are now correct.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

other big issue NVG




NVGs have been part of the requirement




knowing whether today's crew is NVG capable or not.


Is that like NVD?



70+ RAF/RN assigned to each SAR unit


Your hook needs to be better baited than that! Out by a factor of 3!

[snakepit]

And before there's a pissing contest about who does NVD's better let's remember that it's the military. But that's because they have to dodge bullets, radar and missiles at night and therefore require loads more training than required to use the same NVD's to achieve safe night low level VMC flight to a white light hover.
So please, play nice :-)

[Hedski]

No HF is no issue in the days of SatCom....

[[email protected]]

But it makes airborne tasking of an asset somewhat difficult when the tasking agency only uses HF. The MCA knew this and still procured aircraft without it.

Good to see Bristows taking the initiative on NVD, I'm sure the Stornoway and Sumburgh crews will be very glad of it.

No vote Joe - you are right about needing to look downwind with a radar search - this can be achieved flying into wind or crosswind if you aren't limited to a 120 radar.

[jimf671]

But it makes airborne tasking of an asset somewhat difficult when the tasking agency only uses HF. The MCA knew this and still procured aircraft without it.

Clearly, they thought that they were taking over and all that was needed was Zero. Then came April Fools Day 2010, direct ARCC tasking, and suddenly their spec was useless.


No HF is no issue in the days of SatCom.

One hundred years ago, resilient telecommunication was a battery, an oscillator and a bit of wire (antenna). This remains true today and will be true a hundred years from now. HF is only slightly removed from that basic format and that is why it remains a useful facility in spite of a few annoying idiosyncrasies.

[[email protected]]

And channel zero wouldn't be much use at any great distance from land or way inland - the redeeming strength of HF is its extreme range. The MCA had no hope of controlling Boscastle because it was in a valley and HF was the only answer.

[Arthur0811]

I don't know if it's just me but on the Bristow's news link under the specification for communications it says high frequency, which the last time i looked was HF. Maybe I have miss read it!!

"Multiple communications systems, including high frequency, VHF AM/FM radio, UHF radio, satellite communications, satellite tracking of the helicopter, marine vessel transponder, secure communications capabilities and wireless intercoms"

[jimf671]

Yes. The new Bristow aircraft for Sumburgh and Stornoway definitely have HF.

This is an improvement in the comms fit compared to the CHC aircraft on the current 2007 to 2012/13 contract. These current aircraft have Iridium sat phones but no HF. Since 1st April 2010, they have been tasked directly by ARCC who use principally HF for BLOS comms.

A few years ago there were murmurs about the CHC aircraft getting an HF fit before 2012 (when they were originally intended to move to Ireland). There was a suggestiion that HF was a requirement for the Irish CG contract (Is this true? Not in the Irish framework doc.). There was also talk of digital HF but the dust certainly hasn't settled on the question of which digital implementation for HF will be the future.

As Crab has pointed out there are a number of advantages to HF that are useful for long range sea jobs and for land jobs. That is on top of the resilience and capacity issues in relation trunked radio and satcoms.

[[email protected]]

Having done a long-range job off the coast of Ireland, we were only able to talk to Valencia using HF (250nm out) so I can't see why it wouldn't be a requirement for Irish SAR as well. Once the Irish get their S92s established and the Sea King retires, there should be no need for UK SAR assets to fly to the W coast of Ireland and then out to sea since the native assets will have the same range and capability.

[fisbangwollop]

Come on guys HF is sooooo out dated. Yes I know it is still used with good success but in times of sun spot activity etc it is worse than useless. HF comms gradually being phased out in Oceanic ATC in favour of data link and Sat comms....Surely the easiest solution will be Sat phones? Having worked in Oceanic ATC it would not be the first time that during poor HF conditions the flight crew have phoned the unit on their sat phone making their position reports. :cool:

[Flounder]

Having also done a long range job 250nm west of Ireland we were only able to talk to the MCA, ARCC, engineering, flight ops or Dominos Pizza using the sat phone. We decided not to use the email or text functions as it wasn't necessary.

[Hedski]

So how are said aircraft tasked after 01/04/10 if they have no HF fit?

SatCom or via MRCC if airborne perhaps? :cool:

[jimf671]

With some difficulty at times if one considers that role and callsign do not necessarily correlate with airframe and telephone number. :ugh:

[[email protected]]

Or on channel zero which is what the MCA prefer.

I'm not saying that satphone isn't the way forward, just that everyone needs to be on the same means.

HF is old technology but has a track record that satphone will have to try to emulate - after all, modern technology never goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong.........

[Hedski]

If each machine has a built in SatCom, then number remains the same unless the unit is changed so where's the problem with regards to phone numbers? If the unit is changed due to fault etc. then all those required to be informed would be informed......:cool:
Channel 0 seems to work most of the time with long-range being the exception and then SatCom can be used.
Taskings can and have been received by SatCom direct from ARCC, I see no problems with the exception of unit failure but that happened often enough with HF units where tx were strength 2 on a good day.....:ugh:
Nothing against HF, to have both would be ideal but not having HF isn't a show stopper.

[shetlander]

The current process for tasking MCA helo's, is the ARCC contact the MRCC responsible for the helo, and then the MRCC scramble that helo. The ARCC's role is to allocate the closet unit.

At the moment having no HF in the back of the CHC cabs, works just fine. There has never been a great need for it. Should the winchman require a link call with a doctor then this is possible through the use of the satphone.

In fact i think most current CHC sar flights would prefer not to speak to the ARCC direct. :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

The current process for tasking MCA helo's, is the ARCC contact the MRCC responsible for the helo, and then the MRCC scramble that helo. The ARCC's role is to allocate the closet unit. That is just the way the MCA like it and not the way the rest of the SAR assets in UK are tasked.

Again it makes airborne retasking more difficult especially if you are out of range of FM comms.

In fact i think most current CHC sar flights would prefer not to speak to the ARCC direct. that is a very professional attitude:ugh:

Airwave is actually the way forward and SARH flts will need to accept that technology because it is common to ALL the other emergency services and allows you to talk to the POLsA for a search or the paramedic on scene for actual medical updates on the casualty.

[shetlander]

Airwave is actually the way forward and SARH flts will need to accept that technology because it is common to ALL the other emergency services and allows you to talk to the POLsA for a search or the paramedic on scene for actual medical updates on the casualty.

Agree with you on that one. Airwave is defiantly the way forward and opens up a few possibilities for SAR.

Well having spoken to the ARCC, they themselves agree that HF is a "dying art". The coastguard no longer listen out on 2182 anymore.

As far as I am aware the only helos in the UK that receive tasking's over HF is the mil ones. Yes the Bond helos and foreign sar helos are equipped but they are not tasked over HF.

I have never know a problem tasking a MCA helo over vhf.

[onesquaremetre]

Coastguard chief 'gagged' over search and rescue privatisation | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/19/helicopter-rescue-privatisation-gagging-order-row)

Blue on blue?

[No Vote Joe]

Great piece by The Guardian - Not!

Surely the MP concerned doesn't seriously think that he can make any impact on a contract that's been ongoing for this amount time and with only a few weeks left until announcement and contract signature!

[[email protected]]

No Vote Joe - don't forget what happened to the last version of SARH which had already passed the preferred bidder stage and the East coast train line fiasco which was terminated AFTER contract award and signing.

Hadn't realised the MCA chief was ex-RN, rather explains his desire for world domination and removal of the RAF from SAR;)

[jimf671]

I think it's useful that the Guardian is keeping these changes in the public eye. However, I think that they could do a much better job of it. Unfortunately, this subject has been out of the public eye throughout most of the process and the public have never been treated to a full and frank article on how this came about and what the standard of the service will be. After several recent poor articles on fringe issues, most of the reponse is screaming nutters who understand almost nothing about what is happening.

[onesquaremetre]

As uninformed as the masses may be about the subtle detail of Search and Rescue, what they have plenty of experience of is seeing a previously nationalised service or industry falling into private hands and shortly thereafter, experiencing a notable shift in what is output and/or what they have to fork out for the service - think electricity, think gas. In some examples, previously nationalised services such as British Rail were hardly models of efficiency yet is the general public overwhelmingly satisfied with the profit-driven companies that have replaced BR? I think not.

Is it therefore any surprise that when the public is informed of the privatisation of services that are considered by many to be world-leading examples of the craft, they respond unfavourably?

[Geoffersincornwall]

How does it feel to know that the military prefer the continued existence of the Red Arrows to that of MILSAR.

Puts all of our arguments in the shade when the perception in government is that Joe Public CARE about the REDS but care less about the end of MILSAR.

Perhaps we should stop dancing on the head of a pin and just get on with making the best of it?

G.

[[email protected]]

No Geoffers, I think those who KNOW the difference and the issues involved in privatisation should continue to voice their concerns,

Joe Public only knows what the media give them so it is important that the media continue to engage on it.

The politicians have foisted this situation on us and need to be held accountable for it - the cheaper is better dogma has been proven not to work in so many areas of public service.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Why then did the Air Force choose the Red Arrows over the SAR fleet?

Didn't they realise that cost is factor these days? Of course they did but nonetheless a curious interpretation of military priorities.

Believe me if we have an inkling of what lay ahead then we are in for much tougher times and may come to thank our lucky stars that we got off so lightly.

Please feel free to continue the dance. The pin head is big enough for a few more.

G.

[jimf671]

I think those who KNOW the difference and the issues involved in privatisation should continue to voice their concerns

Yes, but your MP can probably only hear those concerned about the issues that were already settled 10 or 15 years ago, or the death throws of the Portland half chopper. Getting issues that affect the value of the entire service heard over the background hiss and din can be a problem. And you thought HF was noisy!

TheyWorkForYou: Hansard and Official Reports for the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, and Northern Ireland Assembly - done right (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/)


... Joe Public CARE about the REDS but care less about the end of MILSAR.

And CSAR, post 2015. What will happen there? I can imagine that five years from now, if anything exists at all, it will be what some RM Capt and a RN Cdr have cobbled together on a carrier with no budget and no kit except what their lads have 'borrowed'. Same old.

[No Vote Joe]

"Why then did the Air Force choose the Red Arrows over the SAR fleet?"

Even if the new CAS is a helicopter mate (but a dedicated SAR basher!"), the RAF is still run for fast and pointy things!

[[email protected]]

Not only that but the Reds are still seen as a valuable recruiting and overseas defence sales tool whilst SAR is non-core (ie not warfighting in Afghanistan) business.

Poor choices by MoD but they spend so much time in-fighting anyway it's not that surprising.

[Hedski]

Think the comment regarding not wanting to talk to ARCC was tongue in cheek. Reality seems to be the other way round, RAF assets self tasking to within 50NM of CivSAR bases and not even informing the flight or the nearby MRCC of their presence for 2 days was just one recent instance.:=

Tasking out of range of FM comms isn't difficult, just pick up the phone....:E

[[email protected]]

RAF assets self tasking to within 50NM of CivSAR bases and not even informing the flight or the nearby MRCC of their presence for 2 days was just one recent instance Any specifics there Hedski?

All SAR Captains can self-task and , if they are already airborne and closer to the job than another SAR flight - they will clear it with the ARCCK - it is more likely that the ARCCK tasked them directly and just didn't inform civsar or MRCC; that is perhaps poor etiquette and out of character but nothing more.

And, straight from the AIP:
1 Responsible Services
1.1 Responsibility for Search and Rescue (SAR) for civil aircraft within the UK Search and Rescue Region (SRR) rests jointly with the
Department for Transport (DfT) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
1.1.1 The DfT is responsible for SAR policy for civil aviation.
Post: Department for Transport, Airports Policy Division, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DR
Phone: 020-7944 4393
Fax: 020-7944 2192
1.1.2 The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) acts as adviser on SAR to the DfT. Queries on SAR for civil aviation, including matters arising
from this section of the AIP, should be addressed in the first instance to the following:
Post: Civil Aviation Authority, Directorate of Airspace Policy, ORA, K6, CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6TE
Phone: 020-7453 6543
Fax: 020-7453 6565
Telex: 883092 - EGGA
AFS: EGGAYFYG
1.1.3 The MoD is responsible for the implementation of SAR services for civil aviation throughout the UK SRR. This responsibility is
discharged through a single Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre (ARCC) at Kinloss.
Post: ARCC Kinloss, RAF Kinloss, Forres, Moray, IV36 0UH, Scotland
Phone: 01343-836001
Phone: 01309-672161 Ext 6202
Fax: 01309-678308/9
Telex: 75193
AFS: EGQKYCYX
Don't see the MCA or MRCCs mentioned there at all:)

I think the Aeronautical vs the Maritime parts of the train set are what the MCA has aspired to control for many years.

[jimf671]

I think Crab is getting to the crux issue that can destory the effectiveness of a potential world class service that is the UK's first planned SAR helicopter service.

The MCA and its MRCCs are not part of the picture in the AIP. The Coastguard is there to provide a UK Govt civilian SAR branding and a management structure for day-to-day contractor relations.

In CAP 999, the responsibilities are those of the air operator and the CAA. The customer doesn't get a say. Either the air operator meets the standard or there is no AOC and no service. So why does the MCA try to get in amongst the training tasks beyond making sure their own people have appropriate training?

[Hedski]

In the instance referred to the asset got airborne 2 days running a much greater distance from the incident than the SAR base that was far closer. When questioned ARCCK first indicated they were training, then the story changed to a tasking. Then the story changed again to a request from the crew to be tasked to the specific incident rather than any closer unit. That was the answer from ARCCK......:suspect:

[[email protected]]

Presumably Lossie - I suspect there must be something that the ARCCK aren't saying but it all seems rather unusual. There are some good operators in the ARCCK but there are also some under training and with little experience of UK helicopter SAROps.

[jimf671]

Were any other MoD aeronautical resources deployed to this incident, perhaps by helicopter?

[Hedski]

Sounds like a high turnover of staff in ARCCK is proving problematic. No other MoD involvement.

[fisbangwollop]

Question.....once the deal is done and all SAR civvy operator will ARCC still be a military facility and carry out tasking as present. I had heard that the plan maybe to relocate to Swanick as have D&D.

[[email protected]]

Fis - yes I have heard that plan rumoured as well - however, there is an 'all your eggs in one basket' argument that goes against that as a plan, NATS, D and D and ARCCK all in one place - it only takes one JCB to cut through the power/comms and you are in trouble.

The ARCCK has a standby facility at the moment just in case and I presume that NATS and D and D have similar contingency plans (or business continuity plans in management-speak) - but blobbing everything up usually only appeals to bean-counters.

The ARCCK is something else the MCA have coveted - it is only 10 years or so ago that they wanted it co-located with the MRCC at Falmouth.

Will the future ARCCK be manned by military or civilian staff? If there is no requirement for mil in front-line SAR then possibly not - that begs the question of who will take on that job. The MCA don't pay their watch managers a lot of money and across the country they are a variable breed - some excellent, some less so.

One could argue that such a national facility, responsible for tasking of all SAR aeronautical assets, should be staffed with well paid and motivated, highly trained and experienced people but we will have to see what actually happens. It is to easy to view the ARCCK as a glorified call-centre which is what the MCA are likely to do given their current plan for reducing local expertise around the country.

Hedski - without more specific info I can't ask questions to give you an answer. I know the ARCCK don't deliberately f888 people about so there has to be an operational reason. Was it night in the mountains tasking? Given the current lack of NVG on civsar, that might be a possible reason for tasking a mil asset over a civ one?

[jimf671]

One of the factors in the future of the ARCC is whether the Royal Air Force will take the wider view of its role of protecting the British people, similar to what might be found in several neighbouring territories, or resist the draw of post-imperialist 21st century ideas like homeland defence and security and just sit on its hands waiting for the next trip to the desert.

[Thomas coupling]

My take on it (no-one else's):
All plans surrounding the ARCC will be suspended until after the scottish referendum. Makes sense.
Secondly IF the plan, then, is to move it (most likely), it will certainly move to MCA head office in Southampton and civilianise it. It is too much an odd ball to be left out there in siberia andrun by the mil. Get rid :)

[jimf671]

Joint working and resilience should be the guiding principles. We could go beyond the Norwegian JRCC model and collaborate across all of these islands regardless of EU member state borders. Operations where the border is almost meaningless, already happen. JRCC in Kinloss, Falmouth and Shannon for instance, staffed by air force/corps, coastguard, police and ambulance, is a possible model.

What do you think TC? Not very British?

[[email protected]]

Trying to get all the emergency services to talk to each other to provide the best and most expeditious response to a situation has long been the holy grail of contingency planners.

But, whilst it works very well once a Silver or Gold control room is established for a major incident, it doesn't work that brilliantly for run of the mill day to day tasks - mainly because of turf-wars, protocols and politics.

[meanttobe]

AW189 beats EC175 in UK SAR contest | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/02/22/aw189-beats-ec175-in-uk-sar-contest/)

[[email protected]]

No surprise there then - so much for competition.

[Spanish Waltzer]

:confused: there was a competition and the 189 won.....simples :D

[[email protected]]

But it wasn't the aircraft that won the competition it was the politics - AW played their favourite card which had nothing to do with the quality of the product and everything to do with empty promises.

[jimf671]

I am sensing a different approach. A large contract lasting many years in recessionary times is a risk management game. The main contract changes the game in a vital way: neither the contract nor the number of bases force two aircraft per base. So it's about one a/c per base plus spare aircraft dedicated to the contract. The S-92 is proven technology with plenty hours including SAR service. Neither the AW189 nor its competitor, the EC175, have operational hours and only a handful of prototypes exist, so they are unproven. Expect more spare aircraft in Lot 2. If the AW189 has more proven technology in vital aspects of the design: job done.

[[email protected]]

Best to ask the existing S92 flights if they need 2 ac per flight or could they manage with one plus a floating spare. If you go for a spare option then you also need to generate a floating crew to position it when required, assuming your crews are pared down to the minimum required to comply with the EU working time directive.

I can see that scheduled servicing is an easy thing to factor in but not having a full time second ac leaves you open to missing availability KPIs in the event of a non-scheduled problem.

[Flounder]

See what happens in Ireland with 5 aircraft covering 4 bases?

If you go for a spare option then you also need to generate a floating crew to position it when required, assuming your crews are pared down to the minimum required to comply with the EU working time directive.

People usually willing to pop in for a bit of OT when something needs re-positioning (another perk for you post-MilSAR ;)) assuming the WTD allows.

[snakepit]

Jim and crab.
Please start looking for the positives and stop just looking for negatives.

From an article that that was posted only 3 pages back from the FT and a quote from AW.

AgustaWestland is gearing up for production of the first civilian helicopter designed and built in Britain for more than 30 years as the government weighs two bids to privatise its search and rescue service that would both employ about 10 of the company’s aircraft.

I'm not a maths professor but I'm pretty sure the 10 aircraft at 5 lot 2 bases equals 2 aircraft per base. Just smile a bit more guys! ;-)

[Manchester]

You're on the wrong thread, Snake. This is the one where Jim and Crab tell us we'll all be doooomed. Wrong aircraft, wrong maker, wrong price, wrong paymaster, wrong Govt department, wrong politics, wrong uniforms, wrong radar, wrong training, wrong base locations, wrong tasking organisation. Please don't let the daylight in.

[snakepit]

Nice one Manc you made me laugh

[Geoffersincornwall]

Of course I smile a wry smile but most of all I sigh a sigh of frustration as all the heat generated by Crab and Jim is a tiny and meaningless tattoo on the backside of a general public that could care less. Nobody can see it and nobody cares.

It wont surprise me if, in 5 years time, the headlines are about how on earth can we afford the luxury of so many SAR assets that sit around all day drinking coffee and planning their next one hour of (waste of time) training. Burning up Jet A1 that costs a fortune and to what end?

The ignorant ones will be crying foul and asking why do they need training, can't we find people who are already trained. If they can't remember how to do their job from one day to the next then they can't be much good can they?

Shortage of cash can turn the average fair-minded public spirited and generous man in the street into a boorish and ignorant self-interested critic of all public spending that can in any way be considered an unnecessary luxury.

The future is not going to offer a comfortable ride.

G.

[Manchester]

I'm sorry Geoffers old chap - it's your age. I remember your father had the same wry smile and dissapointment over you and your plans. It happens every generation. It's called progress

[jimf671]

Snake. I am hoping that this is a place where there are people with a lot of experience who understand most of the issues and where it's possible to come for a view on some of the fine detail that still needs attention. Of course, I expect people to mercilessly take the p155 a lot of the time but I'm an MR guy and a RAF guy so that's not new territory.

10 aircraft? Possible. Not likely. I am expecting a number between 7 and 10 that will probably have been thrashed out with the DfT several months ago.

AW are bu115h1tting, on the basis the bit of HM Gov that supports industry and the bit that buys SAR helicopter services are not able to communicate with each other. AW know what they are doing. They've been at it for decades.

[snakepit]

No problem Jim. You have every right to believe what you want. However, if you're wrong just be big enough to admit it when the time comes. I will continue to stay positive and balance my viewpoint with the facts that are available instead of dishing out constantly negative speculation!

[timex]

The future's bright? We are talking about AW here, have you had dealing's with them before?

Can you remember the WG30?

[fagin's goat]

Geoffers is spot on. The general public have no interest in maritime affairs and it is only those of us close to the action who see it as a priority. SAR is not on their radar...let's hope the privitisation provides a reasonably sound coverage for the UK and some work for us in this industry (at least until I need to hang up my flying boots). Some maufacturing jobs at AW will be trumpeted by ministers as a positive spin-off.

[jimf671]

Yes Timex. Thanks very much for making me think about the WG30. :p


... if you're wrong just be big enough to admit it when the time comes ...

Yes. I have a nice cup of coffee here in an AW PZL-Swidnik mug. Remind me to smash my coffee mug if we see 10 AW189s assigned to Lot 2.

[Thomas coupling]

Jim: Come on now, time up. Time to either stop posting or go to the MRS web site and chat there. You are trying to stop time. Crab makes me laugh (I know him and meet him very often) because he knows where his future bread and butter is and has every intention of joining civvy SAR (and they would be wise to employ his skills too) BUT he keeps whacking the idea that future SAROPs is doomed just like you.

Please think carefully about stalking this thread....it's over it's dead.

The government will NOT allow the AW project at Yeovil to fail. Too many political ideals at risk to allow it to fail.
As was said by fagins goat - loads of jobs everywhere if AW win. THAT IS ALL THAT COUNTS...can't you see. Joe public are worrying about their jobs, not the colour of a helicopter that flies overhead now and again:*

C'mon now...time to hang your loudspeaker up!

[4thright]

:ugh:So only aircrew can post on here eh? I think Jim makes a good point amongst many from my experience. The MCA know nothing about overland SAR nor do they have any legal authority, it has never been part of their MO. Aviation rescue issue is not strictly within their remit either from a legal perpsective. People involved in overland or aviation rescue, never mind any NHS ambulance work that the present mil SAR force gets involved with, are right to have concerns about how the new service will develop and respond to their needs.
While I am sure the aircraft we will get will be very capable, this is by no means the end of it. Many on this thread write as though it is.
While I fully agree that most of the public really have no views on the future of SAR, we the professionals involved are the only ones who can maintain the quality as it moves forward, whatever our role or organisation.
Simply shrugging your shoulders and stating that things have moved on is an abrogation of professional responsibility. They have not moved on yet, and no one can be sure where things will actually end up. The next few years will be challenging for all involved.:mad::hmm:

[[email protected]]

The government will NOT allow the AW project at Yeovil to fail TC, we all know that to be true and that is the problem, by going down this path, an organisation is being created that is too big (and important) to fail.

So, when anything goes wrong, who picks up the tab? DfT which is then passed on to you and me as taxpayers. At least with the MoD as main players, any extra costs came straight from the MoD budget which had already been allocated.

One man's negativity is another man's caution - fools rush in............

4th right - spot on:ok:

[snakepit]

Crab,
Ha ha that's your best line yet. Comparing commercial procurement to the MOD and holding the MOD up as a shining beacon of all that's good and at no cost to the taxpayer. I'm still laughing.
MOD pick up the bill with allocated budgets? Did you join yesterday? Have you seen the latest procurement overspend. The same british taxpayer picks up that tab too!
From this years NAO report:
"The NAO's annual report on the MoD's major equipment projects said the overall costs of the department's projects have risen by a total of £6.6bn and commissions have been delayed overall by 39 years since being ordered."

We could have had 2 UK SAR deals for all that waste but don't worry taxpayers crab says its all free because its "allocated!" He he

[jimf671]

P3. Do tell us which one of the bidders is using a version of CRM where critical enquiry is not welcome?

[Fareastdriver]

I have no involvement in who does what but I’m damn sure the two companies involved (Bond and Bristow) will not want this individual working for them regardless of his experience.

Having spent a considerable part of my life sculling around the world working for different companies I know one thing. Companies do not employ you for what you think; they employ you for what you can do.

[dangermouse]

I recall a poster here mentioned they were undergoing AW189 training, if so could they PM me please

DM

[Thomas coupling]

It was Geoffersincornwall.

[ericferret]

Very true Fareastdriver, but when they find out what you think it tends to affect your position in "the door is that way" queue when it all goes pear shaped.

Two things I have learnt about British managers are that they dont like to consult with the rabble who actually do the job and they don't like to be criticised no matter how justified the criticism.

[Adroight]

I think you'll find that goes for most managers in this industry, British or otherwise.

[SARREMF]

So, I haven't bothered to look at this post for 6 months. Question? Are you all having a groundhog day? Same old same old!

Sorry Crabb, I don't think anything you say on here is actually going to change anything. Some of the posts have highlited some really good points - like actually the boys and girls at the Coastie sites do a perfectly good job and the world didn't stop. That the Gov will be interested in UK jobs and if it can create some it actually should! However, they didn't even have to because the 2 companies chose the 189 if this thread is to be believed. They did so for commercial reasons, yep nasty old commercial reasons. But they still did. So, what now..... I'm off for another 6 months because I KNOW nothing will change from anything I say on here. Happy Easter as I won't be back until summer - if we have one this year!

[[email protected]]

P3 - like the rest of the civsar community, if and when I join it, I will have to remain silent since I know that public criticism is not favoured.

I have received communications from those in civsar in the past agreeing with many of my points and criticisms privately because they are not allowed to do so publicly.

I have been reined in several time by my RAF superiors over some things I have posted on this forum but they generally acknowledge that whilst it may be unpopular, most of what I post is true.

That is where we end up in the commercial world - management that won't listen and no voice to protest - that's a really admirable quality for an organisation.

We had a very interesting presentation about NASA and the Challenger and Columbia disaters from a Cranfield lecturer highlighting how poisoned an organisation can become when the boss is of the opinion that it is 'my way or the highway'. That organisation will eventually fail and it is just a question of what damage it manages to do to itself or other people in the process.

SARREMF - that is what you said the last time just before SARH fell over:)

[Support Monkey]

Anyone know when the announcement is to be made? Rumour that it might be this week?

[Flounder]

Middle of April I heard.

[Support Monkey]

Had heard that one too, but have heard that government are due to sign off this week. Any other sources confirm or deny?

[jimf671]

Based on the process timetable published in the September ITT pack, this week would have brought the 'Notice of Intention to Award Contract (Phase 5)' on Friday the 8th. That presumably means that an award notice would appear on the Office of the Journal of the European Union website on that date. I have checked all UK Contract Award Notices in OJS 48/2013 (Official Journal Supplement for Fri 8th March: insomnia sorted) and there are none for SAR Helicopters.

In December, there was a delay of 5 weeks that occurred at the 'Return of Final Tenders' phase. If that were carried forwards then it would make the Notice date the 12th April. However, that date falls within the Easter Recess of the UK Parliament, so we may be moderately confident that it will not occur at that time.

Sooner? Later? Ask anyone who wants to order aircraft, negotiate ITAR purchases, build bases and recruit staff, if they think it should be any later than it already is, shall we?

[[email protected]]

Rumour is still 25 March at our end.

[Flounder]

£1 in the sweepstake anyone? Monday 11th March to any point in the future, take your pick...

[Spanish Waltzer]

26 march. Day before the politicians disappear on their expense fuelled Easter jollies. All the controversial decisions traditionally announced in this manner so the news is forgotten by the time they come back to work....

[500e]

SW
A Cynic or what

[jimf671]

Unparliamentary language 500e! :)

[Gene Genie]

Can I have a pound on 19 April please? It's just a rumour...

[Hawksridge]

We were briefed last week that the announcement in 'The House' ref contract award, basing decisions, etc, is expected towards the end of April, possibly around the 19th ish.

Is it the same muppets in the D of T dealing with this contract that were involved in the East Coast Mainline railway f##k up? Just wondering......

[[email protected]]

Hawksridge - yes it is the same muppets I believe.

Does anyone know where Bristows are planning to use the 12 EC175s they have just ordered?

[Hedski]

Probably to be used by GOMer's and maybe around Norwich or somewhere warmer...:}

[meanttobe]

BRS 175 are for East Africa and Australia. The winner of Long SAR will be informed on the 26 March. Everyone else will have to wait til 29th.

[4thright]

How quiet this thread has become! An announcement must be imminent yet no banter on here at all.
Hope all those CVs are lined up and ready to post y'all. Fancy South Wales and a shiney new 189 myself.;)

[Thomas coupling]

Announcement will be made on Monday 25th March. It will disclose the winners and also the future footprint of the bases. This is a change to the original in that the base positions were to be disclosed much later on.

My bet: Bristows and their AW189's / S92's and NO MoD sites.....:E

[Ron Fenest]

That is assuming that no other bidders (who are all now fully aware of who has won) don't submit any complaints in the 10 day standstill period that is now in force. If they do then it could be months before any formal announcement.

Lawyers will be working hard this weekend.

[IFR Piglet]

Hi TC,

We at the "coal face" have been told to expect the public announcement on the 19th of april by da management. Could be wrong though.

My bet: the whole process gets delayed again so westminister can buy some deck chairs in time for summer and we all listen (hear) Crab tell us we're all doomed for the next 5 years.............cant wait. :)

Pig

[[email protected]]

IFR - as Ron Fenest says - the decision has already been made and the delay in public announcement is whilst toys are thrown out of cots by the losers and the lawyers earn enough for another ski chalet in the Alps;)

Time to dust off the CVs I guess.

[212man]

the decision has already been made

Rearrange the following letters into the abbreviation of a well known helicopter company - L, B, H.......

[jimf671]

I am running smaller scale public procurement and heaven help you if you award without proper evidence. Unless there is clear blue water between the bidders (is that likely?) what would be the reason for not having a two-contractor solution like Gap that spread the considerable risk.

[snakepit]

Jim671
I am running smaller scale public procurement and heavy help you if you award without proper evidence. Unless there is clear blue water between the bidders (is that likely?) what would be the reason for not having a two-contractor solution like Gap that spread the considerable risk.

As to "clear blue water", unless you are privvy to both bids its a case of "who knows?" but one has to assume that if the result is a Lot 3 solution then there must have been a good reason?

You are assuming that 2 contractors actually reduces the risk but you haven't quantified the "risk" you are talking about, or explained why you think that to be the case?
I am guessing that for every risk you think of against a single contractor solution an equally weighty argument can be made for a single contractor solution. All that said we don't actually KNOW who has won yet or what the solution is so its all just hot air but its passed 5 minutes till the deciding 6 nations match starts lol.

[jimf671]

The risk profile is heavily loaded by insurance and and financing aspects.

The case for Lot 3 is bound to be a purely cost issue and thats not the whole story on something this complex.

[snakepit]

The case for Lot 3 is bound to be a purely cost issue and thats not the whole story on something this complex.

Really, you know that for a fact do you jim? You might be right but the problem with rumours and gossip is that they are just that, and that unfortunately people who gossip rarely consider the "whole story" before bashing away at the faceless people who are often really trying to do their best and cannot defend themselves.

How about we all wait for the official announcement, gather some actual facts and then see if we would have done it any different? Or does that take the fun out of it all ha ha

[[email protected]]

Perhaps Bristows promised something simple like paying their corporation tax in UK:)

[4thright]

The way you write Snake would suggest you were on the evaluation team! This is a rumour site after all. Rubbish posts mix with real gen - fact of life:E:ugh:;)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

so westminister [sic] can buy some deck chairs


Gotta have something to rearrange on the decks of that steamship...

[ropedope]

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Industry/article1230816.ece

AN AMERICAN helicopter operator is set to win a £3bn contract to take over Britain’s search and rescue service.

Bristow, which is listed in New York and based in Houston, has beaten Bond Aviation, a British rival, to secure the 13-year deal. The Department for Transport may announce the decision as early as next week.

The choice of Bristow brings to an end one of the most protracted and controversial government privatisations. Public sector unions fought the deal, citing concerns about safety and the closure of two bases.

The rescue service is currently run jointly by the RAF, the Royal Navy and the Maritime & Coastguard Agency. Prince William is one of the pilots, based at RAF Valley on Anglesey.

Opponents are concerned that a commercial operator with civilian staff would be unable to match the specialist skills of military crew.

Another hand grenade.

[fisbangwollop]

Bristow Group In The News - bristowgroup.com (http://www.bristowgroup.com/bristow-news/bristow-in-the-news/2013/bristows-new-aircraft-uk-gap-search-and-rescue-con/)

Two of the four Sikorsky S-92 helicopters that will service the UK Gap Search and Rescue (SAR) contract for Northern Scotland have now arrived in Scotland and have begun training flights from Inverness Airport.

The new helicopters feature a raft of state-of-the-art technology, some of which has never before been used in commercial search and rescue aircraft, and will enable Bristow to provide unprecedented search and rescue capabilities.

Bristow invested in the latest night vision goggle technology in order to give the Gap SAR crews the very best equipment to be able to operate safely. The latest generation image intensifier tubes used in NVG require an export license agreement with the U.S. State Department.

"Our new S-92 search and rescue aircraft are the first type in Europe to be certified for night vision goggle (NVG) technology," said SAR Commercial Manager Simon Tye. "The technology is essential when responding to night time incidents, particularly in Northern Scotland where winter days are short and operations can extend into the hours of darkness."

In addition to night vision capabilities, other SAR-related features on the S-92 represent the latest and most comprehensive technology available.

“Our new S-92s have improved forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and thermal imaging camera technology for more effective searches,” said Tye, “and high illumination lighting to make winching easier and safer. This will be particularly useful when operating in confined spaces or conducting cliff rescues. The long range fuel tanks will allow us to operate across the vast distances in Scotland we will be servicing.”

The new S-92s are the first aircraft in Europe to be fitted with Trulink® wireless capabilities for communications between the aircraft and crew, while the wireless intercom system now allows winchmen to not only communicate with the aircraft but also to communicate with nearby vessels in the event that they are left behind at the scene. A much improved external public address system will allow the SAR crew to communicate far more clearly with causalities on the ground below.

The medical zone intercom allows the cabin and cockpit to be split into isolated zones, meaning medical teams can work on a patient without the flight crew being distracted. Improved cabin lighting, including emergency white light, will enable advanced medical procedures to be carried out onboard. In addition, the cabins are fitted with 230 volt ac power outlets so that the SAR aircraft can operate advanced medical equipment onboard. Bristow have designed a bespoke cabin layout to accommodate more casualties and medical equipment safely.

Bristow will commence operation of the Gap SAR contract from Sumburgh on 1 June and from Stornoway on 1 July 2013. Two S-92s will be stationed at each base.

[snakepit]

4thright
Ha ha no not at all. My biggest fault in life is that I cannot see gray. It's black or it's white to me. So grand statements without facts or substance from people who profess to know it and claim that they somehow have more facts than everyone else are just irritating.
Gossip on the other hand is fine. Just don't pretend or state that its fact!?

[IFR Piglet]

Its Sunday and I'm feeling lazy...........could someone tell me if 3bn is the value of lot 1 or lot 3? The newspaper article dose not implicitly say Bristow have managed to secure all the work.....though I'm sure its implied.

[Ron Fenest]

It is for Lot 3

[IFR Piglet]

Jings!!

Let's hope there's no confusion over the English and American definition of a billion in their bid!....doh! :eek:

[Ron Fenest]

If you think that is a lot then some other bidders prices would have floored you. Removal of much third world debt springs to mind