SARH

[Happy Dayz]

I thought there was an announcement for the SARH project today. Anybody heard any news?:confused:

[diginagain]

Here you go. (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/TransportDepartmentToProcureNewCivilianUkSearchAndRescueServ ice.htm)

Appeared on ARRSE at 11:30, thanks to our RSS feed from the MoD.

[melmothtw]

Search and Rescue Helicopters - News - Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/greening-20111128)

[NUFC1892 Mk2]

It has been announced internally; the whole shooting match is transferring to the Department for Transport WEF 2016. Reduction in bases from 12 to 10 with Boulmer and MCA Portland losing out and all SAR being carried out by civilian crews. I am sure it will be on the BBC & Sky news feeds soon.

[Fareastdriver]

Looks like Crab will be looking for a job.

I hope this thread will be a constructive one and not full of snide gloating comments addressed to him.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I hope this thread will be a constuctive one


Permission not to hold my breath Sir...

[Courtney Mil]

And that means Bristow will be providing our CSAR, under fire, all weather, far-flung, etc, does it?

Before you say anything, I know.

[xenolith]

Or, indeed, from him!

[Clockwork Mouse]

It could also be seen as an opportunity. Relieved of the heavy task of rescuing civilians, the RAF could develop a long range CSAR capability.

[Dangerous_D]

Very timely announcment. As right now They're out in the Irish Sea still searching for the missing crewmen from the sunken Swanland cargo vessel.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Yes DD, but is that really a proper military task?

[Red Line Entry]

Genuine question, why is it a short sighted decision? Why should Defence provide this service when the vast majority of SAR's 'customers' are civilians? After all, the police always pitch up to military accident sites, but that's no argument for having civpol work for us!

[orgASMic]

It is proper military task? Of course it is a proper military task - MT2.1 Military Aid to the Civil Authorities and, arguably, MT2.3 Integrity of UK Waters. MT4.1 Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief might be stretching it a bit far, as that is overseas contingency tasking.

Why should Defence provide this service? The MOD has thus far kept its own SAR services in order to recover its own valuable assets in the event of accident. The requirement endures but the number of military callouts is few, so the irreducable spare capacity is used to aid the general public (people get saved + SAR crews get real on-the-job training = everybody wins) on the understanding that the military gets first refusal should the need to prioritise arise. Imagine the (entirely justified) outcry if military SAR assets were sat on the ground when a civil need arose because the one GR4 airborne at the time might need support.

The vast majority of SAR's 'customers' are civilians. The amount of military activity in the UK is now so low that the MOD can possibly take the risk of handing the task over to the DOT, accepting that we are no longer prime inter pares and will have to wait our turn should a military requirement coincide with a civil one. Someone will have done the sums and decided that the risk of relying on a civil SAR service is acceptable in terms of response time and availability balanced against the through life cost of procurring and operating a replacement for SeaKing.

[Mach Two]

Spot on, Sir! Our SAR is there for military use. Picking up civvies is a bonus - good training, good PR, saves lives. And this all makes our SAR crews absolutely top notch. To pick up on Courtney's slightly tongue in cheek comment. I really want well trained, well practiced military SAR crews doing my CSAR.

[pr00ne]

Mach Two,

What on earth are you talking about? SAR a military task? Look at what they do day in day out, that is NOT a military task!

The Sea King force is not a CSAR force, it has never been deployed as such in its history. On the most recent case of the RAF/RN requiring a CSAR capability, off and over Libya, CSAR was provided by two USAF HH-60's deployed from Lakenheath to HMS Ocean.

This is a good economic decision, enabling the RAF to disband three more squadrons (22,202 and 203) shut down SARTU and do away with a complete fleet support and maintenance cost.

Retaining three squadrons, a dedicated training organisation and an entire aircraft inventory just because once or twice a year it MIGHT pick up an ejected pilot was a huge waste of scare resources.

Perhaps now the RAF can afford a dedicated and appropriately equipped CSAR squadron, or are they still going to have to give away all suitable a/c for that task to the CHF?

[Biggus]

I'm sure that the SAR experts on here can correct me, but my understanding is as follows:

The UK has agreed under international treaty (Chicago convention 1950s springs to mind) to provide SAR provision within a specific geographical region. This is the responsibility of the department of transport. The DofT then delegates this task internally, which is where the MOD comes into the picture. Post WW2 it was the military who had a robust SAR organization already in place, for the rescue of downed aircrew, and with helicopters in their infancy, only they were really capable of providing the coverage required to fulfill our international commitments. The rest is history....

Standing by to be corrected, informed, hopefully in a constructive way....

[pr00ne]

Biggus,

That makes perfect sense in terms of a historical explanation of why we had a military SAR force in the first place, thanks for taking the time and trouble to post, it puts the current situation nicely into historical perspective as to why it came about.

Absolutely no sense in it continuing like this though.

On a slightly different point, looking at the retained 10 bases, is it just me or is that a HUGE area between Lossiemouth and Leconfield with no coverage?

.

[orgASMic]

I am not sure that there is "absolutely no sense" in maintaining the status quo but, with the amount of military flying going on in the UK these days, there must be a break-even point approaching. If the DOT is going to provide an equivalent service to which we have access, then someone in MOD is going to come to the conclusion that a bespoke service based on a military helicopter is luxury we cannot afford. The loss of the capability will be bad in many ways but I guarantee that many of the crews will find themselves in Coastguard uniforms or transferring their skills to the SH Force, carrying on the in the finest traditions of the SAR Force.

As for CSAR - no chance. MOD will not stump up the resources in pers, airframes or raw cash, IMHO.

[Mach Two]

pr00ne,

SAR is a military task regardless of what they spend their time doing - and I have always fully acknowledged that the vast majority of rescues are non-military. Once it's handed over to someone else, it will cease to be a military task.

orgASMic,

I agree, I don't think we'll ever get the funding for dedicated CSAR, so we'd better not go anywhere without the Americans. We did look at it once or twice in recent years, but it's not going to happen.

[Flarkey]

Aren't the wokka boys effectivly doing CSAR at the moment in Afghanistan with the MERTs? Yes I know there is much less 'search' and the ranges are much less, but perhaps their roles could be formalised and made a bit more permanent. Maybe funding could be found for a specialist SF SH CSAR/MERT flight at Odiham once we pull out of AFG?

[Red Line Entry]

I can see the argument on both sides, although I would be surprised if the "military get first refusal" point is valid.

Perhaps someone can comment from a position of knowledge, but surely in the case of 2 incidents at the same time, allocation of SAR cabs would be decided on the balance of need (much like medical support) rather than 'military outrank civvies'.

Thus in practical terms, would it matter any difference to the ejectee bobbing up and down in his dingy?

[TheSmiter]

Like Biggus, I'm no SARH expert, although I do have a little bit of FW SAR experience, and therefore retain some interest in this issue. I have no problem with this proposal which I'm sure will save a lot of cash together with plenty of distressed sailors and a few airmen. The cabs will be more modern and arguably more capable than the venerable SK and the crews will be of the same high standard - indeed I'm sure a sizeable number will simply migrate across.

However, in breaking the long standing link between the military and SAR operations
My Rt. Hon Friend the Defence Secretary has agreed that the new contract will provide a search and rescue capability provided by civilian crews, enabling our Armed Forces to focus activity on their front line operations.a few genuine questions come to mind such as:

1. Where does this leave the long term future of the ARCC?
2. Where in this statement is SAR coverage for the FI considered?
3. Does this de-linkage of SAR from the MT set weaken the argument for a future high end RMPA.

As far as CSAR goes , I'm sure this is being considered as we speak. It will be, won't it?

NUFC I am sure it will be on the BBC & Sky news feeds soon. Err, as of 1556L no and no. Far too much celeb 'news' on the wires today to be bothered with insignificant announcements such as this. Although quite surprised they haven't picked up the very obvious link between the rescue last night and the future of the Valley SAR force ie PW :ugh:
PS well done to all the crew, I'm sure the conditions weren't pleasant.

1629L There (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-15926403)it is - BBC got there in the end and no mention of PW shocker!

[Jayand]

Smiter, what makes you so sure the servivce will be of the same high standard? when a civi company is involved every penny will be counted and have to be accounted for, crews will do much less training between jobs to keep the costs down, flying hours will be limited and I doubt very much the crews will be as current.

[green granite]

Surely, assuming the Navy gets it's new fixed wing carriers it will need an on board SAR helicopter service to rescue any downed air crew in mid ocean?

[snaggletooth]

So who will cover MPA? SH/CHF/CHC? Not an insurmountable problem, but one that isn't mentioned in today's announcement.

Edited for spelling and pedantry.

[grandfer]

I haven't seen whether the "Daylight hours only " SAR service for certain SAR Flts. eg. Chivenor will still be on the cards after 2016 .:confused:

[TheSmiter]

Jay, I said the crews would be of the same high standard - obviously an assumption based on historical norms and the racing certainty that current RAF /RN SAR crews will be leaping across. Incidentally, given that fact, how are Manning / Drafters planning to manage the orderly transition from Mil SAR to Civ SAR assuming their existing personnel will be champing at the bit to grab a seat / strop on the future capability?

Whether the SAR service remains the same, I leave to those who have direct experience of both Mil and Civ. The present MCA (CHC (http://www.chcsar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=30)) contract with S92 and AW139 appears very capable (yes, I've watched Highland Emergency!) and I certainly wouldn't want to argue on this forum that they fail to match military standards. You may disagree?

Granite, the Skimmers I'm sure will sort out their own SAR winching arrangements as they currently do. Whether or not they'll need it for any carriers is a moot point and I'm not going there for fear of awakening some sleeping Prune dragons. :eek:

[Seak1ng]

So what is happening to the RAF Mountain Rescue Service?

Surely that would free up a lot of money and people to concentrate on the front line...

[Fareastdriver]

Once upon a time Every U/T helicopter pilot went to Valley and did the SAR winching course. On an SH Squadron some used to practise if they were the only rotary facility available, ie Belize/Harriers. I, being the only person who had done the Valley course became, with zero further experience, the winching instructor, just in case we had to fish a Harrier pilot out of the Oggin.

I would expect, both Naval and Land based, that the basic training would be incorporated to cover such an eventuality. That is different from a full time SAR cover.

[pasptoo]

Could all those discussing CSAR vis SAR please look up some definitions for CSAR. :ugh:

Currently the SARF do not provide any CSAR what so ever, nor are they capable of such either. (in coming, no doubt).

This is going to no doubt turn into the standard bun fight that seems to develop any time the Mil vs Civ question is raised. Can't wait for the fun to start :}

[llamaman]

Can we please put the SAR v CSAR argument to bed. Those that have been involved in both SAR and SH will tell you that the only real commonality is in the titles.

Good point from prOOne re. Lossie/Leconfield gap although the DofT Contract Notice stipulates operations to continue at or 'within the vicinity' of all current locations bar Boulmer and Portland (both to close in 2015). Could see the aforementioned bases moving south/north respectively?

More in-depth reading here for those interested:

UK Search & Rescue Helicopter Service - Publications - Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopter-services)

[Bismark]

CSAR, such as it is, has been the preserve of RAF and RN SH since about 2005/6. It was never the preserve of RAF SARF.

The RN will still require SAR at sea as they have always done and, until CVF arrives, the capability will continue to be covered by front line RN helos at sea (viz this year's GAPAN trophy). The shore based RN force has always been on the back of the sea requirement, unlike the RAF SARF, and is why it comes as little overhead to the RN.

So long as CVF gets a single engined jet it is quite likely that there will be a SAR reqt on CVF....but this could be done by contract (as could the VERTREP requirement).

A very sad day for both forces but the writing has been on the wall for years.

[[email protected]]

Apparently the FI will continue to be RAFSAR until 2016 and thereafter tbc.

The loss of 3 Sqns and nearly 200 aircrew seems to be popular amongst the beancounter fraternity - few of the pilots (except the young thrusters) will go SH and there are no WSOP jobs for Radops and winchmen in the 'real' RAF.

One wonders how low numbers in the rotary world can be allowed to fall before critical mass is reached, especially once the withdrawal from Afghan takes place. Nothing for the Apaches or the Chinooks to do in UK, CHF back to exercising in Norway to justify their existence, the AAC trying to find a use for Wildcat; more cuts to military helos I would suggest, unless we find another country to invade!

[Bismark]

Crab,

I am sure the maritime contingent capability will find plenty to do as the cruise the oceans in their naval task groups - much as the RN has done for centuries. Of more concern is the impact of a "quick in, quick out, no casualties" philosophy for the Army and rump of the RAF - tough times ahead methinks.

Re the SARF - not the beancounters, it is the justification for it to be a military capability that was the challenge. My view is that it still should be, but it is only an emotional argument. The same goes for the RAF MR teams - why military funded when the civvies are just as capable.

[Climebear]

Seak1ng

No mention of what is happening to the RAF MRS. It wouldn't free up many people at all as only about 30 are full-time (8 on each of the 4 teams and some in the HQ); the majority of these are liable for op deployments in line with their peers anyway. The vast majority are part-timers in 'day jobs' who fulfill there MRS duties (2 weekends out of 4 training and 1hr NTM during the week) in addition to their primary duties. To put it another way, the permanent staff cadre or the MRS is roughly the same size as the Band of the Adjutant General's Corps (or many other military bands).

If the decision was taken to disband them then something would need to fill their APCM role. They provide the crash guard for the first 24-48 hours enabling the nominated Station to generate its PCM capability. I can't see a civvy MRT hanging around too look after a pile of smoking (and dangerous) wreckage. So long as military APCM remains a military responsibility, the RAF will need to generate teams of people on short NTM who can deploy rapidly and be trained and equipped to operate in some arduous conditions (crashes have a tendency to happen in some remote places).

[Load Toad]

If it is a military operation - it handles civilian emergencies out of humanitarian, training, PR & economic sense.
If it is a civilian operation - what does it do if a shooting match is going on?

[drustsonoferp]

Surely the argument for RAF MR is based around it being primarily a way to handle ac rescue, which happens to be very good at rescuing folk in wild areas who need assistance.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the civ MR teams have any experience/expertise in handling ac crashes, which is RAF MR responsibility from initial search, cordon and control etc. RAF MR was formed after embarrassing performance at the likes of the Beinn Eighe Lancaster crash, not to look after mountaineers.

Whilst given the right contract and personnel I can accept that SAR is perhaps equally good whether mil or civ, I don't see that volunteer civ MR teams will ever make a serious move towards the requirements of mil air accidents.

Edit:Climebear - your post didn't initially appear as I wrote, I wouldn't have repeated it had I been able to read it

[Madbob]

How much rtoation of experience happens in the rotary world between SH and SAR crews over time. Is is a case of once on the SK fleet you generally stay there, or do the Puma/Merlin/Wokka mates cross over?

If I was an SH bod I think that after multiple tours to dangerous sandy places, I'd be glad or a change either as a QHI at Stawbs or at a pretty coastal location such as Chivenor :ok:.

All good I would say for long-term retention and for cross pollenation of ideas/knowledge/experience.

I'm therefore not in favour of going civvy with SARH and makes me think that it might work with the military-trained cadre "inherited" at the start, but how will the long-term training happen for future generations of SAR crews when this has gone?

MB

[airborne_artist]

Someone's been smoking something:

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8921347/Navy-and-RAF-search-and-rescue-privatised-despite-Prince-William-objections.html):

"Tim Ripley, a defence analyst for Jane’s Defence Weekly, said the cut would have “serious implications”. “The most significant impact will be on the ability of the UK military to respond to major emergencies at home. The Sea Kings are the only military helicopters held at high readiness, in large numbers, to respond to a natural disaster, nuclear accident or major terrorist incident.”"

[Mach Two]

Good spot, Airborne Artist.

When Justine Greening said,

The aircraft would form a modern fleet of “fast, reliable helicopters” that would lead to “major improvements in the capability available from the present mix of helicopters

I guess she means "to replace the slow, unreliable old ones we make the military struggle on with."

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

How much rtoation of experience happens in the rotary world between SH and SAR crews over time. Is is a case of once on the SK fleet you generally stay there, or do the Puma/Merlin/Wokka mates cross over?


There has been quite a lot of movement between the green and yellow fleets - in both directions - in recent years. There are various individuals who did a first tour on SAR who are now flying Chinook, Puma, even Apache.

Unfortunately, this only came about after many years where very few people were prised out of a SAR slot, with the consequence that not many SH guys got a 'rest tour' on SAR (unlike the RN); a recent SAR Force Cdr recognized that this was wrong, and did much to address this (including getting SAR Force aircrew involved in MERT amongst other things), but the damage was done and the MOD decided that there was no justification in hanging onto SAR for rest tour purposes

[Mach Two]

Very useful post, Torque.

[Could be the last?]

So when is the last RAF Seaking/SAR OCU?

[Bismark]

Torque,

a recent SAR Force Cdr recognized that this was wrong, and did much to address this

er, I don't think so. The cross-pol started following the first study into UK SAR (predecessor to SARH) which showed that there was no operational justification for the yellow SARF. The "..if we don't get some cross-pol going (as the RN has always done) we will lose any position in future SAR...sort it!" happened. The SARF tried to break into MCT and all sorts of other activity in order to justify itself.

Re MR teams....if they are needed for post crash work why not make this a RAF Regt task?

[Courtney Mil]

By MCT do you mean maritime counter-terror or is it something else in this context?

[[email protected]]

As for a 2-way street between SH and SAR - all but 4 of the 28 Sqn rearcrew applied for SAR pre-select last week! Now let me see how many SAR rear-crew are clamouring to go SH.......errrrrrrrrrrr.

There seems to have been a fairly major influx of Puma pilots into SAR in the last few years as well - most definitely not matched by those going the other way.

Some who hankered after SH but were posted SAR have got their wish to go green but not many seem to enjoy it - SH is good for promotion and medals but that is it.

Now the decision has been made on dates and full civilianisation just watch the number of SH guys trying to get SAR slots in order to gain kudos for their subsequent CVs to the winning bidder!

[Bismark]

By MCT do you mean.....

..................Yes

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Bismark,

Maybe I attributed slightly too much to one individual, but he certainly did a great deal to try to show the potential benefits to the UK of keeping SAR military. Whether you feel that that was self-justification for its own sake, or a genuine attempt to offer extra capability with the existing set-up (which won't be achievable with purely civ SAR), depends on how cynical you are!

And to whom do you attribute the "..if we don't get some cross-pol going...we will lose any position in future SAR...sort it!"? The SAR Force has had very few supporters in high places for some years, so I doubt that anyone in the MOD or high up in the RAF initiated this! Most of the energy came from much lower down the hierarchy.

Crab,

I never said that lots of SAR people were clamouring to go SH (though some are!), nor did I specify pilots or rearcrew, nor enjoyment levels...but the fact is that there is more cross-pollination now than there was 5-10 years ago. I don't have exact figures to hand (nor do you!) but let's face it, it's been pretty hard to get a Puma slot recently because they have stopped training people of any background! So it's kind of inevitable that the number of people going Puma - Sea King has exceeded those going in the reverse direction.

TOTD

[Bismark]

Torque,

Think of a recently retired ex-SARF Cmd who retired then came back in as 1* DCmd JHC.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Bismark,

Absolutely right (and I know who you mean!) - but let's face it, even a 1* is small fry compared to the people actually making decisions about where to go with UK SAR. My point was that it's only at Gp Capt level (or thereabouts) where the push to show the merits of mil SAR originated.

TOTD

[Bismark]

Question:

If new SAR service is based at current military locations who will man the ATC during airfield closed hours? e.g. Culdrose is fogged out most of the time and SAR usually launches at night and in bad weather. Culdrose has no ILS.

Is this an issue?

[Tourist]

Culdrose does have an ILS..... and is almost never fogged out beyond rotary operations.
Who is spreading this anti Culdrose cr@p?

You can always get in to Culdrose no matter if it is Red/Red. The only place better in bad weather is Prestwick!

Plus the duty air trafficers will man ATC. It is their job!

[Biggus]

Bismark,

The same people who currently man ATC during closed hours at Boulmer(*), Chivenor, Leconfield, Lee-on-Solent, Portland(*) and Stornoway perhaps....









* - Yes, I know these locations are closing!

[Bismark]

When did Culdrose get an ILS it is not listed in my flight manual?

Will Mil ATC cover OOO for civ SAR if so who pays?

Will civ SAR grub it back into Culdrose?

Is Portland etc night SAR?

[Biggus]

Portland isn't 24/7, but certainly operates at "night" at certain times of year, and outside of the general opening hours of most small airfields.

The rest in my list are 24/7 - I was trying to illustrate a point...

[[email protected]]

Errr - don't need ATC to use an ILS, DH for cat 1 is min of 200', Culdrose weather often Red so well below ILS minima - only recovery option is internal aids radar to visual at coast.

Does RN SAR cab actually have an ILS???

Culdrose has a poor weather factor whether you can recover by grovelling or not.

[Biggus]

My point (to Bismark) was that many of the current SAR bases don't have the luxury of an ATC set up such as that enjoyed at Culdrose, but still seem to be able to cope more than adequately........

[tucumseh]

Sorry, my internet connection has peaked at pre-dial up speeds so I don't know if this has been posted. Extract from official blurb.





QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Will this mean that DfT will take full responsibility for UK SAR?
Yes. The DfT will take full responsibility for the SAR-H procurement with immediate effect and for the operational SAR helicopter service upon the retirement of the final Sea King SAR aircraft in 2016.

Did the review look at the possibility of extending the life of the Sea Kings?
Yes this was considered, however, even with such an extension, the Sea Kings would not be able to provide the long-term SAR service for the UK which SAR-H, based on a modern fleet of aircraft, will deliver.

Why change, when the existing service is doing a good job?
While we recognise that the current UK SAR helicopter providers deliver a first-class service the fact remains that the Sea Kings are reaching the end of their useful life and MCA arrangements are forecast to end in 2017; they therefore need replacing. This is an opportunity to bring together the service provided by MCA and MOD, ensuring a high standard of UK helicopter Search and Rescue is maintained well into the future.

Is SAR being privatised?
No. Control of the UK SAR service delivered by the contractor will continue to be managed by HM Government, including control of the tasking of the service carried out by the Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre.

Will there be a decrease in the level of SAR service when the new service is established?
The future service will continue to meet the full UK national SAR requirement and be at least as successful as at present; providing the UK with an excellent SAR helicopter service with the ability to save lives well into the future

How will you transfer from current operations to the new service?
There will be a phased transfer to the new arrangements, with the Sea King SAR aircraft being progressively retired during 2015 and 2016 to ensure continuity of an effective UK SAR service. The contractor will then assume operations in relation to the MCA capability when their arrangements end.

Will the tasking of helicopters for each rescue be passed over to the SAR-H Contractor?
No. HM Government will retain overall control and tasking of the service.

[hval]

What I heard a few years ago, and what was restated last weekend is that MRT is to be civilianised.

The date this was/ is to occur was tied in with the privatisation of SAR. This does not mean that the dates for privatisation of SAR and MRT are to be the same.

[[email protected]]

Unfortunately the RN ATC and command structure seems to think that helicopters can't possibly fly without ATC!

Biggus, you are right but not many SAR bases go Red as often as Culdrose.

[Tourist]

Crab and others.

No, RN SAR cabs do not have ILS, however, the replacements will.

Red does not mean below precision approach minima for a helicopter. Red at Culdrose in particular means that some area of the airfield is red. You can always come up over loo bar or up the Helford depending on the wind direction.

771 launches without atc being in the tower all the time.
The replacement could do the same.
Civvy police helicopters operate from Culdrose without ATC, as do the gliding club etc.

Can any of you show me figure that show that SAR from Culdrose is stopped by weather more than any other base?
No?
Thought not.


Is this an example of early political manuevering against Culdrose?

[Bismark]

Oh dear, I should have been more clear. What I am getting at is "What is the military overhead, post 2016, for enabling 24/7 civilianised long range SAR from a mil airfield?" Will DfT pay this?

[airborne_artist]

[email protected] wrote:

Culdrose has a poor weather factor whether you can recover by grovelling or not. Have you got stats for that, showing how wx has affected SAR launch/recovery? Factor in the location and I'm certain CU makes sense.

[Tourist]

Why should there be any overhead Bismark?
The duty personnel are already there.
There is no requirement to close up ATC before launching the SAR. They often do, but on a shout the SAR goes before the tower is open.

[[email protected]]

Red does not mean below precision approach minima for a helicopter. Red at Culdrose in particular means that some area of the airfield is red. You can always come up over loo bar or up the Helford depending on the wind direction.

So which 'precision approach' are you using to specific parts of the airfield that are not red? What you mean is you grovel in because you can't use the PAR as it is below minima. If that is your preferred technique then everyone can get in everywhere regardless of the weather, you just hover taxy until you see dispersal.

I would be interested to know if the present CivSAR crews are allowed to rtb that way.

Penzance won't be a poor weather option unless you plan to do your shopping at Tescos at the same time;)

Some people seem very sensitive to the future of Culdrose - the same people who were being smug when Chiv was faced with 12 hour ops or even closure???

[I'm Off!]

Tourist,

Afraid Crab@ is right, you're talking out of your hoop. Red conditions will be only be declared if cloud and visibility fail to criteria for a higher colour state. And if they fail to meet higher colour state minima then it means that the weather is below precision approach minima at CU. For example, what is the lowest DA/DH for an instrument approach to CU? And what would the weather have to be for it to be declared colour state Red?

If you choose to get around that with low level landfall approaches then that is another thing entirely because you are not flying an instrument approach.

[Tourist]

Minima for PAR in a seaking = 150' last time I looked.
Red means cloudbase below 200ft



Also, at DA/DH you must be able to see the "required visual references", not, I repeat not, be clear of cloud. The required visual references include runway lighting which can be seen through a lot of cloud.(especially if you fly high all the way down the approach so that MAP is over the runway itself. It has to be pretty thick to not be able to see vertically 150':E)

An airfield will declare colour code red if the cloud base is below 200' in any sector. Culdrose has 6 runways. It is very common that one of the available ones will be usable even if the others are not. At Culdrose, the red colour code which you may see on your brief at your own airfield far away is often caused by fog funneling from either the Helford or Loe Bar and only impinges on one area of the airfield. The other areas are often available in beautiful VMC. Many is the time I have landed on 30 in sunshine to meet a solid wall of fog half way down the runway.


The ability is grub in with relative ease is not irrelevent. You cannot make a low level landfall approach to Newquay in the same way. The cliff makes it a little more tricky.:uhoh: Culdrose is very nicely placed in terms of options. The Lizard gives both an easterly and westerly "grub" option depending on the wind. One side is invariably clear.

Are you telling me that the modern Seaking replacement will not be Cat II anyway?

The proof is in the pudding.

It has been posted on here that Culdrose has a poor weather factor which makes it unsuitable for SAR.

Normally the burden of proof would fall upon the postee to back that up with some stats.

Show me a list of SAR bases and jobs lost due wx please or stfu.

[[email protected]]

Also, at DA/DH you must be able to see the "required visual references", not, I repeat not, be clear of cloud. The required visual references include runway lighting which can be seen through a lot of cloud.(especially if you fly high all the way down the approach so that MAP is over the runway itself. It has to be pretty thick to not be able to see vertically 150')

I bet your IRIs are going to love that one - how are you flying a precision approach if you ignore the glidepath which would normally give your MAPt (assuming 150' DH and don't forget your HTA) at 1/2 a mile?

I also think you might find not many of your RN standards would agree that looking down through cloud at the lights is within the spirit of 'required visual references'

If that is your idea of safe operation then I can only conclude that you are a bit of a gash operator.

PS Cat II ILS is as much to do with the ground installation as what is on the aircraft.

PPS - I said Culdrose had a poor weather factor, not that it precluded SAROps - how many times has the airshow been washed out there and how many non-SAR RN aircraft have had to divert because of poor weather?

[Bismark]

Tourist,

You are getting very sensitive. No one has anything against Culdrose excepting to identify if there are any changes to operating with a Civ SAR as opposed to mil SAR. If there is no ILS then there is no unmanned option for precision approaches. If the Duty people (ATCs, AOOD, Duty LtCdr F) etc are only there to cover the current SAR commitment then that will be an overhead if they are reqd for CivSAR. For example, I believe at Yeovilton, if there is no night flying programmed the Duty ATCs go home and the only airfield duty staff are at the fire station to cover an establishment fire not to cover non mil flying.

No agenda just curiosity.

[Tourist]

"Airshow washed out" and not fit for SAR are two entirely different things.

Airshows require 1000s of feet for a half decent show.


Speaking for myself, I have only once ever diverted from Culdrose, and that was fixed wing. Even the Hawks diverted that day:eek:



"I also think you might find not many of your RN standards would agree that looking down through cloud at the lights is within the spirit of 'required visual references'"

I think they would be unhappy about the "high on the glidepath" option hence the smiley, but would be perfectly happy with the required visual references, because those are the rules in black and white. They don't say "clear below the cloudbase", they very clearly state "required visual references" and then say what they are in great detail. They are written like that for a reason.

To be fair, I may be/am a bit of a gash operator, but at least I know my basic rules and weather limits, unlike some on here talking about it not being possible to legally recover a helicopter by precision approach in red.....

Bismark
There is an ILS like I said before:rolleyes: 771 just don't use it, and DLCF etc are not just there for the SAR by any means. ATC may be different, but are not required for launch anyway.

[[email protected]]

If you want to be clear about the rules then consider that unless you have the required visual references by the MAPt, which will be 1/2nm for a PAR with a 150' DH you must go around.

Poncing about deliberately high just to get visual with the lights is not legal - just gash! As you say, the rules are written that way for a reason - to stop idiots who think they are clever, crashing trying to get down in out of limits weather!

[6Z3]

There are no cloud/viz conditions at Culdrose that would preclude me from launching on a SAR mission. The wind strength/direction might, ice might. What is relevant before launch is that there is a suitable destination to land any casualties that have been picked up; the challenge of the Met conditions at the rescue site is also relevant, but would not prevent me from launching.

Having successfully delivered the casualties to an appropriate destination (which could be Brest, if that's the only viable destination), the SAR mission is over. If Culdrose is RED/RED the crew should not return to Culdrose. Indeed, on occasions having recovered casualties up Carrick Roads to Treliske hospital, we'd call for the groundcrew to re-cock the aircraft at Treliske, and the aircrew would declare at Alert to RCC from Treliske until Culdrose clears (which could be a day or two later), crew changing as required at Treliske.

Tourist, grobbing into Cu over Looe Bar, or up the Helford, is no way to fly an aircraft that has already finished its SAR mission and is merely returning to base.

[Spanish Waltzer]

we'd call for the groundcrew to re-cock the aircraft

is that because the aircrew are too busy being re-cocked by the nurses... ;):oh::mad:

...sorry should add and doctors to remain E&D current :ok:

[Ticked all the boxes]

There is usually a south westerly wind at CU. In my experience of flying SAR missions out of there I found the North coast normally had a higher cloud base due to the effect of the land lifting the cloud base sufficiently enough to allow an approach into Newquay. I have diverted into Newquay on a number of occasions having failed to get in on a PAR to CU. Yes there are several runways but they are not all down to 150 feet DH. I have no proof to hand that Newquay weather is better than CU, just my own experience. If I had a choice I would move the future SAR base to the North coast and use a new ILS into Newquay and/or pay the civy ATC to man out of hours.

[Bismark]

Tourist,

Out of interest on which runway is the ILS and when did Culdrose get it? I have my flight manual open in front of me and no ILS is listed for any of the runways at Culdrose(whereas the one on 27 at yeovilton is). Nor does the on-line TAG data list an ILS.

What is DLCF there for if it is not for SAR? There is no station based OOH DLCF at Yeovilton if no flying is programmed.

[Tallsar]

Fascinating ( and to some extent revealing!) as the discussion about CU's weather factor is, there is one main reason behind the "vicinity" option against each of the present SAR base locations.
In part it recognises that politics will no longer allow any contractor complete freedom to base any future SAR helo organisation where they wish, be it the optimum disposition to deliver the new service or not. However, it does recognise that in some (note some) cases, the costs of ownership to the taxpayer in staying put may outweigh all the other factors, including some of the politics. This happened during SAR-H where despite political insistence that all 12 present bases had to remain the same, all the bidders finally got the message through that Prestwick was very expensive to keep going for 25 years, certainly as compared with the other 11 bases. Hence a compromise was reached where bidders could propose a move to a more cost effective location nearby.
The new competition has now encompassed this across all 10 remaining bases following pre competition discussions with industry. Bidders are unlikely to propose moving "down the road" unless there is a clear value for money reason to do so. Amongst a variety of factors, considering comparative implications of the local weather factor will no doubt be part of the decision.:)

[Tourist]

Crab

As I made clear, there was a smiley for a reason, and why don't you answer my points?

How come you did not know that a DH of 150 feet is possible in red?

Where are you getting your "culdrose has a poor weather factor for SAR" data from?

Are you giving up on all your arguments and just digging at the one point you think you have leverage?

6Z3

I have no argument with any of that, though missions are not always over after the first drop off.
I am merely trying to argue that Culdrose is not bad for weather. Which it isn't.

Ticked all the boxes

I call walt.
Your terminology is wrong for a SAR boy.

[[email protected]]

Tourist, I am well aware of 150' DH being available in Red conditions but Red is defined as below 200' cloudbase not below 200' but above 150' and more often than not Red conditions are a result of advection fog which gives cloudbases in the SW well below 150'.

I suspect I could ring the met office at Culdrose and find out exactly how often it is in Red conditions every year but I spend most working days looking the RCS and MOMIDS which show exactly what a poor weather factor the place has.

How come you did not know that your great idea about fudging required visual references is illegal - how did you not know what a precision approach is actually all about?

If I am digging at one point - it is your credibility to argue anything to do with SAR because you don't seem to be able to do basic aviation safely.

I suggest you stop digging.

[jEtGuiDeR]

Out of interest on which runway is the ILS and when did Culdrose get it?ILS is on Rwy 30 and was installed earlier this year

Yes there are several runways but they are not all down to 150 feet DH.That's changed, all the PAR minima (minimii?!!) are now 200'

[Tourist]

"fudging required visual references is illegal "


Yes it is, but obeying them to the letter is not, in fact it is recommended.
It is rather worrying that you do not understand what both the letter and the meaning of the minima rules are.

Can you honestly tell me that you go around off a precision approach because though you can see the required visual references you feel you are not clear of cloud?



"but Red is defined as below 200' cloudbase not below 200' but above 150' and more often than not Red conditions are a result of advection fog which gives cloudbases in the SW well below 150'."


Ok - so now you admit that your earlier statements about not being able to make a precision approach in red are bollocks. What you should have said is that sometimes red will be too bad to make an approach. A very different thing.

You have also made a new statement.

"more often than not Red conditions are a result of advection fog "

Go on then. Rather than firing off statements, give me some data to support this.


"but I spend most working days looking the RCS and MOMIDS which show exactly what a poor weather factor the place has."

As I said earlier, watching from afar can give a very false impression. Your experience of Culdrose weather is down to watching a colour code on MOMIDS. Gosh what depth. The only true judge would be the data showing that Culdrose loses more jobs to weather than others.

Data that you have been ominously silent producing.....

[high spirits]

Im sure I'm not alone in thinking that crab and tourist should just meet on Bodmin moor having downed several cans of 'wife beater' and go for all out windmilling.

(otherwise, this p!ssing contest between 2 military aviators is quite embarrassing??!?)

[llamaman]

Well said high spirits. This thread should be seeing an informed debate on a major change to the way the UK conducts SAR Operations. Not a willy waving contest between two aviators who were obviously bullied at school.

[Tourist]

"informed debate"

Erm...you do know that this is Pprune, don't you?

[Bismark]

Jet,

Many thanks....explains why civ pubs are not up to date.

[llamaman]

Thought that might get a quick response.

[Widger]

Its not often I back up Tourist but...in this case.

The weather conditions in SW Cornwall are subject to many influences due to its position in the Gulf Stream and its general elevation.

In summer months, advection fog can indeed be an issue dependant on the direction of the wind and banks of fog can drift up from the coast over parts of the airfield whilst other areas are clear.

In winter months, Fog is often due to low cloud (warm front) combined with the elevation of the aerodrome, leading to the famed 'gale force fog' phenomena. When this is the case, as Tourist has already mentioned, approaches can be made VFR from Loe Bar or up the Helford River.

Quite often, when a precision approach cannot be completed, Culdrose ATC are able to descend RN helicopters over the sea until they are VFR, quite legally iaw JSP552. the criteria if I recall corerectly are for RN aircraft or aircraft under contract to JSATO, with a units AAIA or Dnager areas, 2 miles clear of the coast for RW or 5 miles for FW, down to 500'amsl. This often allows aircraft to get below a warm front that is causing low visibility over the airfield and navigate VFR to the airfield. The SAR dispersal is slightly lower than the rest of the airfield and it is very much a hop over the fence from the Helford river.

The problem will occur when Civil SAR takes over and the legal application of the JSP 552 rule, which will probably not apply, thereby removing the option of IMC descents over the sea. there is parallel work ongoing however in order to authorise the use of GPS descents to a known point, to enable approaches to aerodromes without ATC services.

Rotary wing operations to Culdrose are rarely interupted. Weather can be a problem for FW, with the higher DH and no VFR option but RW aircraft have many options, including the use of different coast approaches dependant on the prevailing wind. Culdrose is an ideal SAR base as has been demonstrated over many DECADES of use of the aerodrome. Its just not much kop for airshows!

Spelling mistakes are because I cannot be bothered!

[grandfer]

Noted in today's North Devon Journal , that lovely Mr. Harvey (:yuk::yuk:) has said that the new SAR unit replacing the current "A"Flt. at Chivenor might be relocated ,when civilianised, to Exeter or another location in the area . I assume to cover the loss of Portland .:mad::mad::mad:

[Tourist]

Thank you Widger.:)

[Ticked all the boxes]

Tourist

What exactly is the right terminology for a SAR boy?! I have fond memories of Culdrose but I do not miss the weather - fact. I also have fond memories of sitting at St Mawgan on the dodgems waiting for the weather to clear at CU. My point simply is that the North Coast will be a better place for the SW SAR base. No civil company will want the long screw driver from CU Wings ordering the SAR cab back as the weather was too poor. Which happened at least twice in my time.
It needs to be set up well away from any Naval red tape.

[Widger]

TATB,

Sorry but I disagree with your argument. Culdrose has more Instrument runway options, more VFR options, is closer to St Mary's where the fuel is located for those very long range trips into the SouthWest and Treliske is an easy transit up Falmouth Roads

Your points about alledged RN red tape are an irrelevance. Equal rhetoric could be levelled at the RAF and the Army!

[Ticked all the boxes]

Ok fair enough. But leave weather aside for a moment. Do you really think a civil SAR company will want to be limited to the opening hours for training in the evenings and weekends that are currently enforced at CU? It would be too prescriptive and how would the Duty DCLF be able to authorise a Civy SAR crew to launch long range or in worse than Yellow 2 conditions? (Can't remember distance exactly). It does not happen at other bases (Wattisham - civy ATC, or Chiv - no ATC). I genuinely believe they would be better placed away from CU where they could run their own operations without being hindered. Exeter or Newquay are better suited in my opinion. There is still the option from Newquay to let down south coast and crawl up to Treliske. Hopping to St Mary's will add all of another 10 mins flying and if your refuelling again there anyway it doesn't make any difference.

[Widger]

As with everything there will be a contract in place between the DfT and the MoD which should resolve many of the issues you mention. Wattisham and RM Chivenor BTW operate under the Military Aviation Regulations regardless of what company provides the ATC and RM Chivenor is now part of the naval estate. Yes, it has no ATC but it does have an ILS, which belongs to the MoD not the DfT

Exeter will be too close to Lee on Solent and too far from the IOS and the South West Approaches. Culdrose has all the support facilities needed, plenty of Hangarage (none available at Exeter without significant cost).

You could put a SAR site anywhere you liked to be honest, even St mary's. The issues are flexibility in poor weather, facilities available, including runways, engineering, met, ops, flight planning, communications, navaids, ATC or not and location, location, location.

Culdrose, I am afraid, ticks all of those boxes (intended!).

(Don't live next to Newquay do you and hope for a SAR job without having to commute to Hellstown?)

[Tourist]

That is exactly the smell I get about Mr Ticked.

Taking the time to register on Pprune just to post about SAR basing?

Vested interest I think, and I do not believe he is ex 771, otherwise he would use different words and know that DLCF does not "authorise" anything even now.

Why on earth would DLCF need to get involved in Civvy SAR ops? If the Police helicopter pops in they don't ask his permision to fly based on the weather!
Why do you think that Wings would have any hold over civvy SAR?

[Ticked all the boxes]

Tourist. I have no vested interest in Culdrose remaining or moving elsewhere. I merely thought it time to comment on something I have knowledge of. I do find it amusing that I still seem to use the wrong language for you. I only commented on the weather at CU as I believed, and still do, that the north coast has generally got a higher cloud base and therefore easier to return to from any jobs. I can back that up with my own experience. Im sure I can even dig out the form R and send it you if you need facts of times I have diverted from CU to St Mawgan. In all probability it will remain at CU but there is no harm debating the other options.

[farsouth]

The problem will occur when Civil SAR takes over and the legal application of the JSP 552 rule, which will probably not apply, thereby removing the option of IMC descents over the sea.

Widger - not sure what the issue is here?? I spent many years doing en-route letdowns to 500' amsl over the sea in civilian helicopters en-route to offshore rigs, and instrument approaches down to 200' radalt. Was not aware of this being restricted to offshore oil related work, but stand to be corrected if that is the case (all I know is that it was legal).

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Spelling mistakes are because I cannot be bothered!


I think you'll find it's spelt 'bovvered';)

[Bigtop]

The colour code debate regarding Cu certainly reveals some insecurities amongst those who clearly hope to step across in their little geographic comfort zones to SAR-H. For many reasons Cu future is secure - SAR or not. But ask yourself this - does MoD realy want civ SAR on any of its real estate. Come 2020 when we may wish to sell off or wind up an establishment the prospect of having to deal with a beligerent tenant / squatter is unpalatable, particularly if they have invested in infrastructure. We (MoD) don't know what the future holds and am sure would be only to pleased to see the competitive bidders propose alternative basing options. For that to be really effective though would commit the process to be handled under Lot 3 bids rather than the spectre of 2 companies running Lot 1and 2 separately.
Incoming...????

[Tallsar]

..... Not just location location, but costs costs costs dear boy!..and if it makes the contractor master of it's own universe, then so much the better.

bigtop... Good point you raise but not so well made.

Any of the Lots will allow bidders to consider relocations in the (politically acceptable) vicinity - interesting that Nick Harvey viewed Exeter as " the vicinity" - someone will suggest Brawdy next!

Your point though about 2 winning bidders each operating either Lot 1 or Lot 2 is perhaps one worth focussing on more rather than a rather sterile debate about Culdrose's weather factor. Some fun to be had there methinks!:ugh::)

[[email protected]]

So, to summarise - the weather at Culdrose is not great but SAR continues there anyway.

many people are sensitive to the possible loss of SAR from Culdrose - now you know how we felt at Chiv with the last contract looming - the fact is that no-one is safe.

Tourist would fail an IRT or civvy IR because he doesn't understand the concept of a precision approach or missed approach point and thinks that the requirement to go around if you don't have the required visial references at the MAPt is inconvenient.

"fudging required visual references is illegal "


Yes it is, but obeying them to the letter is not, in fact it is recommended.
It is rather worrying that you do not understand what both the letter and the meaning of the minima rules are.

Can you honestly tell me that you go around off a precision approach because though you can see the required visual references you feel you are not clear of cloud?

Call me an old fashioned IRE but your views on instrument approaches are rather worrying especially since you have been defending your actions in returning to CU rather than divert.

[xenolith]

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[Icanseeclearly]

lets think about where we can put all these aircraft.

Lossie relocate to Inverness (open 24 hrs and air ambulance already based there)
Prestwick relocate to Glasgow (open 24 hrs and nearer all the hospitals)
Leconfield relocate to Humberside
Wattisham relocate to Southend
Chivenor relocate to Swansea
Culdrose relocate to Newquay
only Military base with no real alternative is Valley.

so the MOD does not need to be involved at all other than valley.

Stornoway remains as does Sumburgh and Lee



I was in the game for 16 years, 8 of which were on SAR and dont really understand why some of you are so stressed about the whole thing, lets face it SAR is a cost the MOD can no longer afford.

I go to Stornoway and Sumburgh as part of my civvy job and spend a fair amount of time with the CHC crews, lets face it the S92 is a very capable aircraft, far more so than the Seaking, the only downside is the lack NVG's but that is not the end of the world (ask all those who flew at Gannet without them for all those years).

They are flown mainly by ex military personnel and those that arent tend to be selected and having flown with them they are as capable as the military pilots I flew with, if not more so (no names!!)

Those that protest too much are institutionised (sp?) and are, in my view, a little scared of making that jump into the wider world - do it its great.

oh and crab I think you will find Tourist has both military and civvy IR's, I spent many many happy hours flying with him, as for his comments its called flexibilty .

[I'm Off!]

oh and crab I think you will find Tourist has both military and civvy IR's, I spent many many happy hours flying with him, as for his comments its called flexibilty

I'm afraid that the rules regarding precision approaches and required visual references do not require 'flexibility'. I'm afraid that aviation in bad weather can be fairly unforgiving of 'flexibility', and let me assure you that as an IRI and IRE that attitude would certainly not be rewarded in an IR.

[6Z3]

Oh dear!!

The main value of having a good IRI in your midst is to coach the chaps in wise ways to make best use of the worst conditions. The alternative of course is the IRE traffic cop who sees a rule and aims for it.

[Fareastdriver]

the IRE traffic cop

That is the one the a civil aircraft's insurance company listens to. All aircraft are flown within the remit;- IAW the Company Operations Manual.
End of story

[Thomas coupling]

Icanseeclearly: I think, reading between your lines, you have only recently noticed this thread - yes? Otherwise you wouldn't make such a basic statement.
It's not because the MoD can no longer afford it (the money will still come from the MoD's budget even though they are not involved anymore). It's because the RAF don't want to shoulder Mil SAR anymore (and haven't wanted it for years!).

We all know SAR is no big deal - all of us.
Most of us know that 6 months after the transition happens, it will be as if this thread never existed, but currently it is a big deal for all those involved because it affects their futures directly, it affects the effectiveness of the industry for the foreseeable future, blah blah. It can't simply be brushed under the carpet, it is a very evocative subject for many :)

Everything everyone wanted to know about "LONG SAR" is here:

UK Search & Rescue Helicopter Service - Publications - Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopter-services). In particular, read the PQQ.

Enjoy.:ok:

[Tourist]

I'm Off

"I'm afraid that the rules regarding precision approaches and required visual references do not require 'flexibility'"

When you are a little less wet behind the ears, you may learn that Aviation is not about rules and all about flexibility.

We have rules to try to guide us down the correct path, but only a non-aviator believes that everything you may come across is in the rule book. Sometimes you need a little bit of flexibility of thinking.

That is why knowing about little tricks like staying high on the glidepath so you are over the runway at DH is worthwhile. Not because it should be normal proceedure, but because on that occasion when you have no diversion, no fuel left and no other option but a PAR to below minima then it might just save your life.

Incidentally, it was taught to me by an ex boss of trappers who I was crewed up with on the 771. I suppose that by the time you get to that position you have got over your current "shiney new IRI IRE / very excited / rule fascist" phase that newbies such as yourself tend to go through before they grow up and realise that life is not black and white in the SAR world.

Not everything in the rule book is right, and not everything that is right is in the rule book.


Farseastdriver

"All aircraft are flown within the remit;- IAW the Company Operations Manual.
End of story"


Ok, here is a scenario.

You, as a civilian, are flying your shiney new s92 IAW the Company manual etc.

You go out on a shout for a sinking cruise liner on a dark stormy night way out in the Atlantic. You start rescuing survivors in the water. After you have got 10 rescued, you realise because you have done very careful calculations that you have reached max allowable all up weight.

But there are 3 children left in the dark and stormy waters beneath you.


You know that they will be dead before you can return to land and come back to them.

Do you leave them?

Or do you say "sod the manual, I know there is some flex in the weights and I will pick up the kids"?

End of Story?

Do you think the company would thank you for rigid adherance to the rules in that case, or are things never quite so black and white as that?

I have said it before and I will say it again.

Captaincy is the art of knowing exactly when to break the rules, and by how much.

We are again, however, rather diverging from the question of when Crab is going to produce figures showing that Culdrose is a bad place for SAR due wx......

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Ok, here is a scenario.

You, as a civilian, are flying your shiney new s92 IAW the Company manual etc.

You go out on a shout for a sinking cruise liner on a dark stormy night way out in the Atlantic. You start rescuing survivors in the water. After you have got 10 rescued, you realise because you have done very careful calculations that you have reached max allowable all up weight.

But there are 3 children left in the dark and stormy waters beneath you.


You know that they will be dead before you can return to land and come back to them.

Do you leave them?

Or do you say "sod the manual, I know there is some flex in the weights and I will pick up the kids"?

End of Story?

Do you think the company would thank you for rigid adherance to the rules in that case, or are things never quite so black and white as that?

I have said it before and I will say it again.

Captaincy is the art of knowing exactly when to break the rules, and by how much.



The problem with your scenario is you have taken a decision to put at risk your aircraft, it's crew and the survivors based on your "f@ck it lets do it attitude, not saying you are wrong but thats precisely what you are doing.

Taking your scenario a few steps further you stay on station to pick up remaining three kids, 2 are on board and as the third and the winchman reach the door you lose an engine, the other engine works as advertised but because your airframe is now overloaded it cannot fly you away and you all end up in the oggin.....

Still think it was great Captaincy or was it simply taking a chance and hoping for the best. As I said I not arguing with the sentiment of your decision but it does need putting into context :ok:

[[email protected]]

As ever Tourist, you are trying to muddy the waters here to cover your own embarrassment - a SAROP is completely different and I have before and will in the future, be flexible about limits/rules/regulations in order to preserve life.

You made an unprofessional statement trying to appear the SAR hero about a crap technique (and I don't care who taught it to you) to get back to CU, not to save lives.

I have used NVG on a night ILS to see the lights when I had a critical casualty on board.

But that is not the same as your blanket assertion that ignoring your real MApt and positioning high over the threshold just to see the lights is a valid technique in anything but an emergency.

If you want to break the rules then do so sensibly - a low speed PAR/ILS to below your DH is a far better way of getting visual, but only when you really, really have to.

Sadly, you give a poor impression of RN aviation as a whole - which I know isn't justified - but your cavalier attitude to IF is a very poor example to more junior posters here.

[Bigtop]

Fellas - lets drop the sh&t dits on IF and Cu wx and get back to the thread.
TC - RAF don't want SAR - really...?? They seem to have fought a pretty valiant rearguard action to preserve the third leg on their stool.
As to MoD still paying - what are you basing that on?? DfT are on their own now and risk losing money to MoD if the contract inception is delayed.

[I'm Off!]

Tourist,

What Crab said...

And we all know I wasn't talking about an active SAR shout, but a recovery to base on completion. As for me being 'wet behind the ears', and 'shiny new IRI', with all due respect (ie none) you know nothing about me. You shouldn't leap to conclusions. If I was a new IRI would you listen to me? A QHI? Standards? Boss of a Sqn? Shouldn't advice be based on the content of the advice as well as the person it is coming from. Beware dangerous assumptions in an anonymous forum...

And fwiw, in the situation described - poor weather, no fuel and no diversion, I would always stay centreline/glideslope and opt to reduce speed instead. If really in the sh*t, you want to be looking out the window in front of you at the TDZ lights forward and down, not underneath you. Over 1 dot deflection high on the glideslope and the smart move is to go around - but the smarter move is not to put yourself in that situation in the first place...

Now let's not hear any more of this antagonistic talk shall we? Obviously we are not going to agree so shall we just leave it?

[Tourist]

Crab

As ever trying to dig away at something to distract from your total inability to defend your premise.

Talk about muddying the waters, you are chaff and flaring like a good-un!
Out of my original statements, you have continued to ignore everything pertaining to Culdrose and it's SAR base suitability hoping to disract from your error by moving on to my suitability as a SAR captain.

Show some evidence to support your farcical assertion that Culdrose is a bad SAR base or admit you were totally wrong.

Culdrose is a truly great SAR base in terms of wx and position.



ps, I love your mocking of my warry SAR stories only to add your own. Make your mind up. Are SAR stories in or out?;)

pps. First I am unprofessional for having been flexible with my interpretation of precision approach minima, then you admit to having used nvg to gain visual! :eek:

ppps Then you go on to tell me a superior technique for evading the rules!


Hypocrisy is never pretty.......:=





"SAROP is completely different and I have before and will in the future, be flexible about limits/rules/regulations in order to preserve life."

Something to consider.

Is a SAR job with all the pressures that come with it really the best time to try something you have never tried before?
Is it really the best time to explore the envelope?
Is it really the best time to flex a rule you have never stretched before?


SFFP

Yup, you are totally correct, it would be taking a chance, and if it all goes wrong then it is 100% on the captains head that he lost his crew and rescuees.
:ok:

That said, I would despise to my last breath the SAR captain who didn't take the risk. That's what I mean about knowing when and by how much to break the rules.

3 more kids - give it a go.
30 more kids - we need a new plan.

[chopabeefer]

Is a SAROP the best time to explore the untested?

A really daft question, asked by somebody who has not the first idea about SAR. It is clearly the only time. When training we can only fly known and specifically authorised exercises. Training is varied as much as imagination can allow but it always within the confines of the rules. ONLY on a job can the 'untested' be attempted. It is the skill, ingenuity and understanding of military crews that allow us to prevail in these circumstances.

I have never flown with a military pilot who would not think laterally and take the risk to save a life.

I have never flown with a (non ex-mil) civvy who could.

Civvy SAR will cost lives.I will be the first to say '..told you so' and call ministers to account. Very very sad times. The RAF are soon to lose the very best service they have. I stare desolately into the evening sky, with a heavy heart and weep for the future. RAF SAR was wonderous, exact, and the epitome of professionalism.:(

[Thomas coupling]

Bigtop: The people you are talking about (those defending the RAF on this forum), are the coal face who simply know very little of the big picture. The real decision makers said goodbye to RAFSAR atleast 8-10 years ago maybe longer.
Trust me when I tell you that of all the AOC's in the RAF, all but 1 of them is against RAFSAR remaining. It doesn't fit with their business plan anymore.
Secondly - where do you think the DfT is going to find a budget this big then? The money has to come from someone's budget and it was and remains the MoD's. It was ring fenced pre SDSR and still is, ready for the next round. The choice was money from either the MoD or MCA and the MCA have nada, zilch, nowt!

Chopabeefer - you are an embarrassment to the fraternity. Who the hell do you think you are denigrating civvy SAR drivers for their professionalism. Since when has the civvy SAR world been unfit for purpose. To all those civvy drivers out there, I apologise unreservedly for this cretins attitude.
You are beneath contempt.

[[email protected]]

Whoa - stop!!! This has all got a bit silly (even more so than usual)

Tourist - your outrage must have led you to miss this from me in post 99So, to summarise - the weather at Culdrose is not great but SAR continues there anyway

Get over it.

You seem to think that SAROPs preclude flying safely and within the rules and allow full freedom for you to do what you want - remember your first duty is to the safety of your aircraft and crew.

TC is right, I and others fought a losing battle over mil SAR and it is lost - I will get over that.

Icanseecleary - at least come up with a viable alternative to Chiv - Swansea has no ILS and is 400' up on a hill! Cardiff would be better.

6Z3 - the purpose of an IRE is not to encourage pilots to put themselves in dangerous situations where disorientation may well kill them and their crew. 150' above the threshold with only lights below you to orientate yourself is not the time to transfer from instrument to visual flight just to rtb.

[xenolith]

RAF SAR was wonderous, exact, and the epitome of professionalism

Wondrous use of extra vowels and wrong tense aside, is this choppers bid for cononization of the entire SAR Force?:yuk:

[chopabeefer]

Err...at what point did I say civvies were unprofessional? Just re-read my post...nope, it's not there. You have read what you wanted to, not what I have written. Some sauce for that chip sir? At least I know what I think. Some soul searching may be in order for you however.

[xenolith]

Err...at what point did I say that you said that civvies were unprofessional? Just re-read my post...nope, it's not there. You have read what you wanted to, not what I have written. Some sauce for that chip sir? At least I know what I said. Some dictionary searching may be in order for you however.:ugh:

[6Z3]

Crab,

You have both missed and made my point.

[OvertHawk]

Chopabeefer:

If you can't see that suggesting that "Civvy pilots cannot think laterally and would not take a risk to save a life" is calling their professionalism into question then you are as ignorant as you are bigoted!

[[email protected]]

6Z3 - sorry, I thought you were pointing the IRE traffic cop tag at me and defending Tourist's 'modified PAR' technique - apologies if that wasn't so:ok:

[Tourist]

Crab,
If that is your idea of a retraction, then I guess that will have to do.

Incidentally, can you not see the irony of pouring scorn on my "modified PAR" technique and then putting forward your own?

chopabeefer

1. Traditionaly in this country we tend to not go in for self adulation in public. We usually leave that to the Americans and gangsta rappers, plus too much self admiration might be considered dangerous in a pilot, perhaps?


2. "Training is varied as much as imagination can allow but it always within the confines of the rules"

You are talking about formal training.

Rightly or wrongly, I suspect most of us have learned some of our biggest lessons whilst doing stupid things in our youth, both airborne and not.

As big butch Oscar said, "Nothing that is worth knowing can be taught"

I would not say "nothing", but I agree with his gist.



3. "Is a SAROP the best time to explore the untested? A really daft question, asked by somebody who has not the first idea about SAR. It is clearly the only time"

The problem with the RAF "SAR for life" system is that most of you are so parochial. :ugh:You really consider SAR to be of core importance to this country.

There are many operational reasons in non-SAR aircraft that are a lot easier to justify when stretching the rule book.

It is easy on a shout to get caught up in the moment, but is there ever really a good reason to risk the aircraft by stretching the rules on something as mundane and frankly unimportant as SAR?

Compared to the operational imperative of getting the troops to the right place/sinking the Kursk/bombing the dam, rescuing some spanish fisherman with a tummy ache is pretty low down the list of reasons to employ some flexibility of interpretation.


Don't get me wrong, I loved doing SAR, but if I ran the budgets I would chop it overnight. In terms of cost per life saved it is truly, truly ridiculous.
If it was not for international obligations, and NICE was allowed to judge SAR on it's benefits, SAR would be gone overnight.

SAR is not the best reason to break a rule.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Icanseeclearly,
Re post #101 "only Military base with no real alternative is Valley."

Maybe Caernarvon (http://www.caernarfonairport.co.uk/airportinformation.htm) could be used instead of Valley.

[xenolith]

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D Well said.

[dervish]

It could be argued that getting rid of SAR, and presumably placing at risk any CSAR competence we have, could be seen as a very public expression of the Government’s long held attitude toward servicemen. That is, up yours, we don’t give a **** about our duty of care, the so called military covenant or any notion you may hold that we could care less about you. You are expendable – all we’ve done is moved the goalposts a little to emphasise the point.

Putting it another way, I wonder what the American public would say if their Government so publicly reneged on their obligation never to leave a man behind. I know this isn’t exactly what the Government have done, but it’s a bloody long step.

[Tourist]

Dervish

That would be completely true if CSAR had any connection to SAR, which it does not.


Plus of course the fact we have never had a proper CSAR setup anyway so cannot lose it.

Only the US has ever had something worthy of the name CSAR.

[OvertHawk]

Dervish - if you want to see it that way in order to "prove" a point then i can't stop you.

However, i can't see that the ageing UK Seaking fleet has any real contribution towards CSAR (i suppose one could argue that MPA is CSAR but it's a stretch) and withdrawing it would in no way prevent the development - or continued development of CSAR with the Merlin or Chinook fleet (it could as easily be argued that it might enhance it by potentially freeing up MOD resources for CSAR development).

As for duty of care - Have a look at what is going on in Afghanistan with the MERT / Chinook combination alongside the state of the art medical facilities at Bastion etc and tell me that there is not a commitment to or investment in duty of care.

Civvy SAR and CSAR are different specialities - end-of.

OH

[Tallsar]

Tourist ... I simply can't let that go...

I think you are mixing up your own MoD focused thoughts on the value of simple SAR against all those continuing demands for expenditure on purely combat focused ( which these days means overseas) capability. Whether it's wise to have chopped back so much on UK area capabilities as a result is another argument for another thread.

Yes, I agree with you in principle, and I have mentioned in the previous SAR-H thread, much to several regular contributors ire, many of the missions flown by UK SAR helos, of any operator, cannot be objectively described as essential life saving operations. Often they help relieve suffering or potential risk by getting to the casualty earlier than other already available rescuers, be it the RNLI, MRTs, police etc etc, or these days the Police air service and Air Ambulances.

We all know that their original ( duty of care) responsibility as an essential rescuer of military aircrew has long been diminished by a much smaller and much safer military aviation community, and the modern expansion of the other rescue methods mentioned above. Think of UK infrastructure in the 1950s and that of today.

That said, there are some missions where the helicopter is either essential in bringing timely rescue to an otherwise inaccessible location, or makes an
essential contribution to that activity. Often these can be in difficult weather and other demanding conditions ( exploding rigs spring to mind). They may not occur very often, but the nation has come to expect, and now rightly assumes that this modern capability is there, and well trained to do so, at minimum risk to all involved, not least the helicopter crews themselves. You
know as well as I that this is one of the main bonuses of crews flying on and therefore having additional training opportunities in all those other " jobs" where the otherwise lack of a helicopter would not be fatal. As a result, the UK helicopter rescue services as a whole can be proud of our safety record over many decades... It is exceptional by any standard. Some of those standards are down to the rigorous application of the rules during training by excellent IREs and QHIs, the imbuing in all new SAR crews our corporate experience, and yes, ensuring SAR captains along with their crews, are trained to know when it is right occasionally to make decisions, being appreciative of the balance of risks, that are on the boundaries of or potentially exceeding those otherwise sound rules.

It's not a question of who operates the service, we now know the destiny of that in this country, but of international and national obligations that the UK must fulfil by treaty and law. To suggest that these could be swept away as of no fundamental value to a modern and first world country like ours is simply being irresponsible, even if some of the hype over potential relocation, particularly at local political level, is well overdone. Indeed that's the irony... Too many successful local rescues where the helicopter was not often essential yet persuading the many that they are an indispensable local service.

Fortunately, a solution of some sort, that will provide a modern and nationwide service is still on it's way despite massive cuts in other areas of national expenditure ( so far anyway!) - so let us all be grateful for that.

Cheers :)

[dervish]

Tourist and Overthawk

Thank you for your replies. My post was promoted by the majority of posts being from people who operate the aircraft, not those who hope they never have to reply upon it. Some will see this as yet another money saving exercise to the detriment of safety (of those who need rescuing).

I understand the point that CSAR and SAR are not entirely related, but the former was given up to the money men without a fight before it even got off the ground. Who is there to ensure we don't become dangerously incapable? That oversight is meant to come from our VSOs but they have long since become political animals. I am the first to admit I don't know all the history behind this SARH initiative but it seems to me this latest attempt serves to conceal a nasty smell lingering from the last aborted contract.

[Tallsar]

Dervish, I do not believe there is anything other than a simple government intention to get moving on a replacement solution, not only to get a modern service in place sooner rather than later, but also driven in part by the MoD's decision to retire their SAR SKs early in 2016. SAR-H and whatever issues existed with it are now history.

[dervish]

Tallsar

SAR-H and whatever issues existed with it are now history.

That's what I mean. The nasty smell of incompetence and wasted money is now buried in history. Or are you telling me those responsible have been brought to book?

[Tallsar]

Wouldn't dream of it.... Whatever the responsibility of individuals in the demise, it was a much wider set of circumstances that contrived to send SAR-H to the bin. Not least in my opinion, were the effects of the crash on money availability, a new government with new politics, and the review giving an opportunity for all involved to realise that a 30 year lock in at low profit was not a risk worth taking.... And then a certain someone gave everyone an excuse to walk away.:eek:

[InTgreen]

I remember someone mentioning that Pprune was suppose to be a large crewroom in 'the cloud' if you will. Is it just because of the anonymity that makes people get petty in their views over criticism? Why can't we have a debate about different methods of getting out the poo when the wx is bad and no div available? A debate with reasoning and thought behind the posters ideas rather than 'you way has no merit, you must be new/ or your unprofessional cos your ****e!!'

Come on fellas. Critically argue your points of view and respect others and maybe some people will learn something!! Enough of us on here have enough experience to know when someone is speaking out of their bottom!!

[Tourist]

If only Pprune were like an old style crewroom.

Most of the people in there would be front line aircrew with a few engineers to make coffee/fix the toaster again.
None of the people in there would be journalists.
Cadets would sit quietly in the corner and listen.
Swearing would not only be acceptable, it would be mandatory.
When somebody spoke, you already knew their credibility, or lack of.
Shagging dits would outnumber flying dits at least 3:1

Ahh, heaven

[Tallsar]

Now that I gotta agree with in toto T!:ok:

[6Z3]

Shagging dits would outnumber flying dits at least 3:1



With the occasional dit involving both....requiring an element of flexibility

as a rule!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Cadets would sit quietly in the corner and listen...

Shagging dits would outnumber flying dits at least 3:1


And ne'er may the two meet!:E

InTgreen,

Holding your breath isn't going to help you get better...;)

TOTD

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Probably the best feature of that crew room is that there would not be a civilian in sight :ok:

[A4scooter]

When SAR is privatised the current SAR aircrew will just leave the RAF/RN and take their skills to who ever gets the contract.
When these aircrew retire in time where will the new aircrew come from and will the operator be prepared heavily to invest in training the next generation of aircrew?
Although it will happen I'm in favor of using "full time reservists" who although under the control of the MoD would be considerably cheaper to employ than regular service personal.
I only know of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand who use civilians for SAR but am curious to know are there are any other nations?

[high spirits]

See Jeremy Clarkson article in the news review section of the Sunday Times....

Kind of says it all.

[500N]

A4scooter

"I only know of Australia, ....................... who use civilians for SAR"

Until they are overwhelmed or it is too far off shore and then the RAAF, RAN or Army are called in (or all three at once depending on the situation).

[Tourist]

That bounder Clarkson should stop stealing my ideas to write his column!

...or pay me.

[InTgreen]

Well the arguing has stopped!! Now, shall we try a new thread with mandatory posts of three sex dits to one flying dits??

[6Z3]

Not forgetting the odd flexible one - (:zzz: Ahh the wonderful Samantha; now she knew the oddities of Culdrose better than most)

[[email protected]]

Well the arguing has stopped!!Only 'cos I've stopped baiting Tourist:E

[Bismark]

We must not forget that it is only the RAF element of SAR that is being lost. The RN FAA will continue conducting SAROPS using their helos albeit not part of the UK DofT system. SAR is a secondary role for the FAA and I expect we will still see awards being won by RN crews much as they did this year.

Any linkage between CSAR and SAR was an RAF concoction to save the RAF SARF last decade....it was transparent and disregarded by most sensible people.

[airborne_artist]

(http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sleep.gif Ahh the wonderful Samantha; now she knew the oddities of Culdrose better than most)

Back bar of The .... :E

[6Z3]

and her mate with the snake....now there's flexible. Get them up and you'd have a pair of Airborne_Artists:ok:

[chopabeefer]

Overthawk. I despair. Yet another who cannot read. I clearly did NOT say civvy pilots won't take a risk to save a life. I said that they can't take the risk of thinking laterally (with reference to attempting the untested)...NOT the same thing. Does nobody understand english anymore?

Re-read my first post. How many mil guys fly with civvies? Precious few that I ever knew. What does my post say? I have flown with both mil and civ SAR crews. Why might that be? Honestly, arch-criminals need not fear with deduction skills like this around. I have been civvy SAR for several years, but I am ex mil. The difference between the ex-mil and straight civvy pilots I manage is profound. Want strict adherence to rules and a word-for-word regurgitation of the rules - the civvy's your man. Want the job done?....you fill in the answer - it's an easy one.

[6Z3]

Great dit C-Beefs. It's the way you tell 'em :D

[angelonawire]

I love the way all the currently serving Military SAR Captains assume that SAR in civvy street will be pretty much the same as in the military......Big difference fellas, you and your crew will be civvies, in which case your current bravado which you speak of as the "SAR Captain" holds a little less water. You are simply responsible for the Aircraft, you will no longer be senior in rank to the backseat "blighters" and if you wish to crack on and break the CAA's rules to get the job done You may find that your crew may not wish to risk their civvie necks. No medals or mentions in dispatches for us civvies! And certainly no medical/ widows pension if the Winchman gets broken.

Different ball game all together :)

[[email protected]]

SAR is a secondary role for the FAA and they still believe that they can do it safely and effectively with little or no training.

The award you speak of certainly required bravery but the success of the rescue was due as much to luck as skill.

It is a 'last resort' rescue but don't confuse it with professional SAR.

[farsouth]

So....
It seems that in your world Crab, post-2016, no-one will be rescued safely, effectively, or professionally....

As the above post seems to sum up your views on civ SAR as well

[Tourist]

Crab

I am going to have to assume that this actually is an attempt to bait me.


Whilst I have a low opinion of your intelligence, it is not that low.:rolleyes:

[Thomas coupling]

Bl**dy hell Crab, I actually leant fwd in my chair for that one sunshine...nearly got me going - good try:oh: Lucky I know you.

chopabeefer - dig baby, dig that hole.......show everyone how acerbic you really can be. Chip and shoulder come into play just about here.......

Get back Tourist..back boy.:=

[cyrilranch]

sar has been already outlined for the UK.
What happens to these bits?


No. 84 Squadron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._84_Squadron_RAF) based at RAF Akrotiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Akrotiri) in Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus) and equipped with the Griffin HAR2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_412).
No. 1564 Flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1564_Flight_RAF) based at RAF Mount Pleasant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant) in the Falkland Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands) and equipped with the Sea King HAR.3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Sea_King).

Do they just disappear?:hmm:

[[email protected]]

So....
It seems that in your world Crab, post-2016, no-one will be rescued safely, effectively, or professionally....

As the above post seems to sum up your views on civ SAR as wellNot sure how you surmised that from my post but it certainly isn't what I said.

I was not referring to RN SAR - they do an excellent job as do the civSAR types - I was referring to the idea that a Lynx crew with little or no SAR training are going to have anything like the capabilities of a front line RN SAR crew.

Yet the assumption is that as SAR is a secondary role we can put the Lynx crews into the same professional bracket as the SAR crews.

Read the words before selecting Daily Mail outrage mode;)

[Tourist]

Crab, do you know how we make normal RN crews into RN SAR crews?

ISPEC goes something like this:


Training Officer 771 - "Lt Bloggs, we are going to make you a SAR pilot!"

Lt Bloggs - "Isn't that just hovering?"


Training Officer 771 - "Certainly not, you will have to learn to hover next to boats!"

Lt Bloggs - "I'm a Navy pilot, I can already do that, just before I land on them usually"

Training Officer 771 - "Well yes, but sometimes it's at night!"

Lt Bloggs - "Yes, we do night deck landings too, plus of course vertrep and HIFR as part of the OCU and then practise it all the time endlessly throughout our entire career."

Training Officer 771 - "Well yes, but sometimes it's in a storm!"

Lt Bloggs - "Yup, and we have to land on them in storms too."

Training Officer 771 - " Ah, but what about cliffs?"

Lt Bloggs - "Just like boats really, but they move less..."

Training Officer 771 - "Mountains?"

Lt Bloggs - "Yup, done Norway and South of France"

Training Officer 771 - "NVG?"

Lt Bloggs - "Christ, even the baggers do that nowadays!"

Training Officer 771 - "Tricky point of no return calculations with no divs?"

Lt Bloggs - "You mean like every flight off a warship except without the added embuggerance of outhouse and emcon silence...."

Training Officer 771 - "Ah, but there is a lot of Captaincy to think about. Some of the decisions are very tricky."

Lt Bloggs - "Yes, that will be a steep learning curve, but I hope my time airborne around the world from small decks in the southern oceans to Antarctica / Iraq / Afghanistan / Somalia / Sierra Leone / Kosovo / Bosnia (delete as required) will help me find a way to cope with the pressure of tricky decisions."

Training Officer 771 - ".....:(........it is just hovering isn't it."

Lt Bloggs - "yup, pretty much. I know the Crabs think it a black art, but in the end we all know civvys can do it so it's hardly rocket science."

Training Officer 771 - "when you say "civvys", are you including Crabs?"

Lt Bloggs - "naturally"

[fuel2noise]

Tourist, that is brilliant and oh, so true! About time the black art b's' was challenged....and funny old thing SAR is being civilianised. I just hope Crab and his ilk get sifted out in the selection process (I know for a fact that in a couple of civilian helicopter companies being exRN puts a candidate way ahead of a light blue driver with similar hours/tours/etc.)...it is all about getting people who can be trusted to get the job done in a safe and efficient way without all the hand-wringing and post-flight back slapping.

[[email protected]]

Crab, do you know how we make normal RN crews into RN SAR crews?
Yup - take a junglie/bagger/anyone - give him hardly any training, tell him girls can do SAR it's so easy, make an adult in the back the captain of the aircraft and fill in a requisition form for medals after each sortie;)

Is that why every RN exchange pilot (and most of the winchmen) who does a tour with us never returns to dark blue having seen the light?

BTW Tourist - just remember you are the one turning this into a RAF vs RN slanging match, not me;)

[Tourist]

"Yup - take a junglie/bagger/anyone - give him hardly any training"


That is kind of my point, Crab. He doesn't really need any.

RN cabs with "non-professional" crew do SAR all over the world all the time. Usually nobody in the UK even notices because they don't register on the system unless somebody gets a medal. I think we will continue to do just fine.


I don't actually disagree with you that it is very sad that the dedicated military SAR sqns (both RAF and RN) are closing.

It is an enormous loss, but not to the public - I very much doubt they will notice any change in quality of service whatsoever - but rather it is a loss to the military. 771 and Gannet give the RN a centre of excellence and flexibility at many things whilst also providing second line tours/embarked SAR flights/etc and training.

The loss is all ours, not the public's except in the wider sense of a decrease in operational capability of their armed forces.

[Pheasant]

Crab,

There is no black art in SAR, period. Any average to above average RN crew are perfectly capable of conducting SAR.

And as for your disparaging of the recent Lynx rescue...it is beneath contempt. The reason they succeeded is because it is an RN aviator's DNA to be able to rescue people in most circumstances - without the need to think they are "special". They operate in the harshest of conditions every time they deploy to sea. It is why the RN FAA will continue into the record books long after RAF SARF has been forgotten. i.e. Jan 1st 2016!

[Hawksridge]

Interesting that this discussion seems to have developed into a p*#*ing contest that has focused on an ability to hover (or not, as the case may be) in a variety of scenarios. I think, as usual, too many people have missed a fairly major point regarding training in that there is no real discussion of the holistic elements of a SAR crew, for example the skill of the winchop (for it is indeed a skill that requires practice, practice and more practice), radar op (ditto) or winch man (paramedic in most RAF and RN Sea King crews).

So while I accept the regular SAR crews of the RAF, RN and Civvie units may well be able to do the job to a similar standard, the same can not be said of jungly/Lynx crews who, while the pilots may be able to hover, do not have dedicated, trained SAR rear crew. So you can have the best drivers in the world, but it's not a jot of good if your winch op can't winch operate and your winch man (who in the case of an embarked Lynx crew may well be a well intentioned but poorly trained engineer) kills or injures a casualty while lifting them from the scenario (hydrostatic shock anyone?)or is unable to discharge an appropriate level of medical care en-route.

That's why you need properly trained CREWS, not just pilots, in the SAR world. So the 771 scenario outlined previously where your new pilot pitches up and doesn't need any training and therefore you can 'do' SAR is, in fact, bol**x. What about the rest of the crew, where do they come from and who trains them?

Discuss........ And I'll retire to get my Kevlar ready for the incoming!

[guidedweapons]

Crab,

Sorry but you are talking out of your Harris, argue your point but please stick to the facts, no rear crew
having been through the pain of the RAF exchange has ever transfered to the light blue.

All RN Jungly rear crew are trained in basic sar, they regularly practice boat transfers, cliffs and grappling "drums", in fact a very large percentage of this small branch have also completed tours on 771.

Get over yourselves, you will soon be competing for the same jobs and working together, there is a reason why the majority on the Valley 139 are Navy.

[[email protected]]

no rear crew
having been through the pain of the RAF exchange has ever transfered to the light blue.no they tend to leave rather than return to the dark-blue!

there is a reason why the majority on the Valley 139 are Navy.so ask them how difficult they found it raising their game to operate to RAF standards because that is what is required for the 139 contract - RAF standards = international level, not RN;)

RN cabs with "non-professional" crew do SAR all over the world all the time.that is also my point - don't mix their SAR with professional SAR.

SAR is not a black art but it contains a lot of skill sets, all of which are perishable through lack of practise - your assertion that flying mountains in Norway is the same as hovering in a downdraught at night trying to winch someone off a tiny ledge in Scotland or Wales just shows your poor level of understanding of SAR.

If one of your embarked assets spears in and a PLB homing (no 406 coverage) is the only way to find them, how will your embarked SAR crews do it? They don't know because they have never practised it as a single, let alone as a multiple beacon!

[guidedweapons]

Crab,

This is exactly the elitist mentality that turns off the big Rotary employers, good luck to you you in the future, I think the proof is in Civvy SAR crew numbers and which service they origionally came from. I hate to break this to you mate, you really are not that special!
That's the difference between us, we don't look at sar as a doctorate, it's simply a transferable skill set, it's not in your Genes!!

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Spotted this report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-15971826) re NVG on the BEEB. Media hype or a genuine concern? Would have been a factor in the final decison, Shirley?

[Tourist]

Crab

Are you under the impression that Scottish mountains have different physics than Norwegian ones?

Strangely, during my time at Gannet I found the motion of air and the effect of darkness on Scottish mountains to be strangly similar to their effect in Norway/France.


Hawksridge

Being serious for a moment, you are quite correct that generally it is down the back that the benefit of dedicated SAR sqns is apparent. These adquals such as paramedic trained etc do not really come into play that often as a percentage of jobs, but when they do they are, as you say, very important.
You are, however, unfairly disparaging about the "well intentioned but poorly trained engineer"
To some degree this can be offset by taking the ships doc/medic but I would agree that a medically trained person comfortable in the back of an aircraft can make all the difference in a very small percentage of cases.
As far as winch work, most of our guys are very good actually with the poossible exception of bagger observers, and lets be honest, if a bagger is rescuing you then things have gone horribly wrong.

I assume that you are joking about the "radar op" bit. An observer is in a different league when it come to radar work than a crewy with an adqual.

Realistically, the limitation on ships flight SAR is not usually the crew, but rather the platform. Lynx is a world beater in many ways, but it is not a happy night SAR platform.

[Fareastdriver]

Having had some international experiance in winching, either people or big lumps of things I have found thet the standard of patter from ex RAF or ex RAAF crewman to be far higher then ex RN or RAN.
However they can take comfort from the fact they are a lot better than Chinese winchmen.

[Tourist]

"international experiance in winching"


Is that where you pick someone up in one coauntry and drop them in anuther?

[pasptoo]

Great thread this is turning out to be :ok: :D

I am falling off my seat laughing with daily regularity. :}

The long and short of it is that military SAR as you know it is going, come 2016 you will all be looking for work. In the end there are some that will get employed and some wont. :{

Just remember that it is a very small industry (military or civilian) and no one is ever that anonymous. :eek: (something about six degrees? - maybe more like three or less!)

Good luck in your futures, just be careful what you wish for :) Most of all keep this thread going - it's hysterical :rolleyes:

ps standard of patter from ex RAF / RAAF Will that be because "not everyone has the same 3 o'clock !"

[Willard Whyte]

Wonder if the other WW will be PVRing and getting a job in the civvy sector.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

These adquals such as paramedic trained etc do not really come into play that often as a percentage of jobs, but when they do they are, as you say, very important.

To some degree this can be offset by taking the ships doc/medic but I would agree that a medically trained person comfortable in the back of an aircraft can make all the difference in a very small percentage of cases.

As far as winch work, most of our guys are very good actually with the poossible exception of bagger observers, and lets be honest, if a bagger is rescuing you then things have gone horribly wrong.

Realistically, the limitation on ships flight SAR is not usually the crew, but rather the platform. Lynx is a world beater in many ways, but it is not a happy night SAR platform.

Never been SAR myself so no axe to grind but it would seem from what you are saying that you and Crab are of the same opinion when it comes to who offers the best service with regards to SAR.

If, as you point out, always having a Paramedic in the back, always having a fully trained guy on the switch and the wire and a day night capable platform this must offer a better all round capability than what could potentially be offered by an RN equivalent, your points not mine, then surely there is no contest here :confused:

[Tourist]

No, the RN equivalent in the UK has all the same adquals/kit etc as the RAF SAR.

The civvy replacement is and will be at least equivalent.

What I am saying is that the SAR provided by RN helicopters around the rest of the world is actually very professional and may be lacking in only certain areas, many of which can be mitigated. For example ships medics jumping in if required.

RN crews on small ships hold SAR every single night of the deployment (if servicable!)
To suggest that they are amateurs is just ignorant. Whilst the total number of jobs they do would be low compared to their UK based bretheren, you would find that as with everything embarked, the complexity was higher.
Embarked SAR does not get used for some climber with a hurty toe/winching of some prat off a cliff/bendy diver/incorrectly dressed climber/preggivac/RTA. We all know that these things make up 95% of the SAR shouts in the UK and require no special skills whatsoever.

Military SAR is not by any means dying with the end of the UK SAR responsibility. Just RAF SAR.

The Lynx is not great as a SAR aircraft, but the Merlin is in many ways superior to the SK for SAR.

[Bismark]

Crab,

You have maligned many people in your posts.

Having completed tours off back of ships and on a SAR Sqn I can assure you I learned no new skills in the transfer to the latter. Likewise the rear crew were the same types in both cases and were equally able in all scenarios. I have conducted long range SAROPS (without Nimrod top cover) in the middle of the Atlantic in Force 11 seas and been backwards up Ben Cruachan in a blizzard on more than one occasion - challenging definitely, special to an RN crew, most definitely not. I am afraid that some on the RAF SARF make out that it is special, it is not.

What makes it special for anyone that does SAR is the bravery of the crews to fly out in the harshest of conditions to save someone's life, I suspect that will not change for the RN and Civvies post 2016 (and the RAF SH crews on ops).

[Fareastdriver]

Is that where you pick someone up in one coauntry and drop them in anuther?

Could be. Once I took off from the Peoples Republic of China. picked up somebody from Chinese waters in the South China Sea and took him to Hong Kong; which at that time was a British Colonial Territory.

[Tourist]

Funny that, I used to jump out of a helicopter into what turned out to be possibly maybe Chinese waters and hoisted back in.


Sea drills 28 Sqn, Ping Chau(sp?) 17th July 1992
Ah, those were the days.........


http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp121/Tourist_photos/_20091217_17245407.jpg

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp121/Tourist_photos/_20091217_17262805.jpg

[6Z3]

I once 'rescued' a 660 Scout from 6 inches of water that had shut down for Sunday breakfast with the Ghurkas, just below the high water mark (can't remember which island, Lantau I think, put me right someone). Igniter problems if I remember rightly? 17 Sep '79 according to the log book. Had a shedload in their Clubhouse at the end of the shift courtesy the Major!!

But I wasn't SAR, GASP, just playing at it, unprofessionally I guess. Oh hold on a minute, I had done a few SARs from the old ARK; and had spent a whole week of a NATO ASW exercise at 40' in 40kt fog without even seeing the surface; and done a night stretcher casevac off the back of a diesel submarine in force 5/6 (and that, when night sub tx's were against the rules, but he lived).

Went on to 771NAS next tour; but that was Wessex 5's day SAR only. The night SAR in those days was done by 706NAS (Sea King Trg Sqn) which meant that all the crews were Beefers (front and back), not one first tourist in sight.

When 771 got Sea Kings, no one went 771NAS SAR(and MCT, lets not forget MCT) without at least two tours under their belt. No one went 819NAS Prestwick without at least one previous SK tour.

Tell me, someone, anyone, how many tours has William got under his belt?

[[email protected]]

He is on his first tour and, strangely enough, chose RAF SAR instead of RN SAR - 'nuff said methinks;)

[high spirits]

Tourist,
Nice beach snaps of the days we had some helicopters that worked. Shame about the blokes in the 'budgie smuggling' speedos in the foreground....

[guidedweapons]

Crab, his missis chose RAF SAR because it meant she would see more of him,
Incidently are you still at EGDC, if so how come the current RN contingent has not battered you yet!

[xenolith]

and being the RN there's always one in drag!

[high spirits]

Xenolith,
Our powder is distinctly moist in the RAF. Witness the 'naked winchman' Sun newspaper story a few years back - although that was CH-47 I think.

[Tourist]

High Spirits

"Shame about the blokes in the 'budgie smuggling' speedos in the foreground.... "

Crabs - Nice enough chaps, but no sartorial elegance then or now.;)

[high spirits]

Tourist,
Doesn't 'sartorial' have something to do with tailoring?

You are not seriously suggesting they are tailored speedos - are you?

I think that we must agree to disagree.....but good pics of happier days nevertheless!!

[Vie sans frontieres]

Come off it Tourist. There's a world of difference between a well-trained SAR pilot and someone who's just finding his or her feet. Stop suggesting it's just hovering. You're denigrating some top notch pilots. Believe me, rearcrew notice the difference.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

No, the RN equivalent in the UK has all the same adquals/kit etc as the RAF SAR.


Well, apart from the Multi-Sensor System (FLIR and TV camera), Airwave and bigger fuel tanks.

[pasptoo]

Airwave is plug and play and as I understand fitted last month, FLiR has been inbound from SARF/MoD for the last three years awaiting imminent fit, so that just leaves the "bigger" fuel tanks? (an extra 600lbs?)

I think they could fit a full size tank in the sonar well, instead of the "C" shaped one at present.

So the RN and RAF have "similar" capabilities. No?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Airwave is plug and play and as I understand fitted last month, FLiR has been inbound from SARF/MoD for the last three years awaiting imminent fit, so that just leaves the "bigger" fuel tanks? (an extra 600lbs?)

I think they could fit a full size tank in the sonar well, instead of the "C" shaped one at present.

So the RN and RAF have "similar" capabilities. No?

Based on what you say similar yes but, at this time, as capable. No?

[Biggus]

While I am reluctant to enter this particular pi#*ing contest....


Tourist said....."the RN equivalent in the UK has all the same adquals/kit etc as the RAF SAR".

It was correctly pointed out, by ToTD, that this is not true. In response pasptoo made several comments, with some validity. However, inbound from SARF/MoD is not the same as fitted and in use, although to be fair pasptoo used the word "similar" when describing capabilities.

At the end of the day the RN Sea King, RAF Sea King, S-92 and AW139 all have different capabilities, which means the choice of asset to deploy to a SAR incident is, unfortunately, not just a case of which will be able to respond fastest.


Now you can carry on pi#*ing......

[Bismark]

Well, apart from the Multi-Sensor System (FLIR and TV camera),

The RN SKs would have had it if the Wg Cdr SAR desk officer in MoD Joint Capability had included them in the requirement. The "error" was spotted by the RN but the RAF 1* in ACDS(RP) at the time refused to add it back....so much for Joint!

[6Z3]

I wonder how their radar equipment compares. The 'Lightweight' is the same as we had in the '80s, with a pretty screen added. Their raw radar capability nowhere reaches the Red'n'Greys', not that a WSOp could utilise the info anyway.
The RN Observer is highly skilled and trained to be able to take control of and coordinate multiple assets (much of which of course Culdrose and the RN would provide) that would be needed to respond to a major maritime SAR disaster (a la Fasnet, or perhaps a maritime Lockerbie, or ferry disaster off the SW or English channel, or a submarine collision or sinking). Different league people, different league.

[Tourist]

TOTD

Yes quite correct, I should have said broadly similar.
The RAF Cab has slightly better range and slightly better speed in my experience plus the FLIR but a far worse radar and no Observer. I also understand that they have a different FCS?

My general point was actually not a pissing contest. I am saying that you get broadly the same level of service from RAF/RN/CIV SAR though there are bound to be areas of specialisation.

Eg If you are being rescued from a submarine, I would suggest that the RN cab would have had more practice. Ditto requiring HIFR/refuel from a frigate for a long ranger.

The RAF cab I am sure could point out instances where the FLIR would be invaluable, and obviously the extra range can come in useful.

My point is that the RAF is not superior to the RN/Civ, rather than saying that the RN is superior.

[Biggus]

Maybe people could call a truce at this point - and get back to actually talking about SARH? ;)

[tucumseh]

I wonder how their radar equipment compares. The 'Lightweight' is the same as we had in the '80s, with a pretty screen added. Their raw radar capability nowhere reaches the Red'n'Greys'

Plan A was to fit all HAR3As and retrofit HAR3s with the RN’s upgraded radar, in part to achieve commonality. It was a “spend to save” measure that would recoup costs within a very short time. For example, brand new larger scanners had actually been set aside for delivery to Westland. But someone in RAF OR got excited about the possibility of a colour display, although retaining the very low power Transmitter meant there were few targets to see! The result is a hybrid of 1960s (Lightweight Radar) and early 1980s (Super Searcher) technologies which even the designer thought silly, despite making more out of the hybrid. The resultant waste was astronomical, not least managing obsolescence. The tale of MEL’s marketing manager trawling back street repair shops in Lagos for semiconductors is legendary.

[Thomas coupling]

Biggus: Spoil sport:rolleyes:

Anyway it's not SAR(H) any more, it's: LONG SAR.

Return of PQQ: 10.01.12
Notify shortlisted bidders: 08.02.12
Return of outline proposals: 08.05.12
Bidder presentations: 11.05.12
Notify shortlisted bidders: 29.06.12
Dialogue meetings: 02.07.12
Issue ITT: 27.08.12
Return final tenders: 24.09.12
Notify intention to award contract: 21.01.13
Sign contract: 05.02.13.

Current interested players:
BOND
AW
SIKORSKY
EUROCOPTER
CHC
LM
THALES
BABCOCK
KBR
BOEING
BRISTOWS


Let the games begin.....................

[FODPlod]

All well and good but will they be as honourable?Navy's SAR helicopter battles blizzard to rescue stricken women (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/NavysSarHelicopterBattlesBlizzardToRescueStrickenWomen.htm)
:)

[BS Alert]

Let's have the RAF SAR personnel transfer to RN! Only problem is, they would have to work as hard as RN SAR to get the job done!;)

[Biggus]

Thomas,

Were those dates from version one of the project gantt chart?

I suspect that in the real world all those dates will be useful for is a yardstick to measure project slippage against!


FODPlod,

I guess it depends on the rules/restrictions they end up operating to. But if they aren't then UK plc will just have to learn to live with it!

[Hawksridge]

6Z3, you said "I wonder how their radar equipment compares. The 'Lightweight' is the same as we had in the '80s, with a pretty screen added. Their raw radar capability nowhere reaches the Red'n'Greys', not that a WSOp could utilise the info anyway.
The RN Observer is highly skilled and trained to be able to take control of and coordinate multiple assets (much of which of course Culdrose and the RN would provide) that would be needed to respond to a major maritime SAR disaster (a la Fasnet, or perhaps a maritime Lockerbie, or ferry disaster off the SW or English channel, or a submarine collision or sinking). Different league people, different league."

It is not my invention to join the futile p***ing contest that this puerile thread has become, although I guess that by bothering to reply I've joined in by definition. Anyhow, I do wish to refute your assessment of both the radar technology to which you refer (you've only got half the picture, if you'll pardon the pun) and your generic observation of the WSOp fraternity, who contrarary to your implied assesment, are perfectly capable, of radar operating in the maritime and SAR environments and, surprise surprise, they even have the SA and radar performance to cope with being an OSC in the situations that you describe. They go through a full and proper training system that teaches them to operate safely and effectively in the maritime environment. Nor is the qualification of 'radar op' an ad qual as has been previously alluded to - it's actually core business and a recognised trade within the WSOp fraternity (they used to be called AEOps, youll recall) particularly for those from a Nimrod 'dry man' background. I think the chaps that spent 14months of basic training at Cranwell and previously 6 FTS learning how to be radar/EW operators might be a bit miffed by your comments.

There. I feel better now........

[[email protected]]

Hawksridge - agreed, in fact the comment about Observers being in a different league compared to WSOPs is true, only the Observers are not the ones in the Premier League. Just because the RN treat their non-commissioned rearcrew like second rate citizens doesn't mean everyone does!

[Tourist]

Crab.

You are boring me.

[[email protected]]

Wow, what scintillating witty banter Tourist - maybe if you are bored you could entertain us with your endless supply of heroic dits, top tips and a virtuoso solo blowing of the RN trumpet;)

There is no point wondering what SAR-H or Long SAR will bring - even those bidding for it won't know yet what the final setup will be.

There may be SAR helicopters, of as yet undetermined types, at 10, as yet undetermined locations flown by a number of probably quite professional crews from all walks (including sideways) of SAR life.

If you know more, you had better write and tell the DfT.

[MG]

I think you're both boring us all. Yes, obvious retort really, but doesn't mean it's not true!:)

[xenolith]

you could entertain us with your endless supply of heroic dits, top tips and a virtuoso solo blowing of the RN trumpet

Pot calling kettle or what!

[Icanseeclearly]

Crab.

You are boring me too, in fact it's people like you who make me pleased to be a civvy.

I am not going to get involved in a who is better than who slagging match but it is obvious you have never flown with an observer.

Generally they have flown as ASW observers before flying SAR and as such they have skills WSops don't have, control grades for one, this allows them to control other aircraft in IMC (and in the good old days that included the nimrod), as well as directing ships as the ASW commander. they also fly as aircraft captain (or they did when I was one) a strange one for he light blue to understand but it generally worked well.

We were trained in SAR from day one and it was an integral part of both training and front line life, but was always regarded as secondary role however once appointed SAR we then had a further course to complete before being released on the general public.

Like I said I'm not getting involved in a who's better debate, although the final result is the same the ethos is different.

Nuff said, off to count my pay packet.

[Hawksridge]

Someone other than the pilot acting as aircraft commander isn't all that strange to the light blue fraternity - it happened regularly in the Nimrod fleet. In fact, it was the logical thing to do and I quite liked the concept, in that scenario it worked very well. Different ways, different days........

[[email protected]]

I cansee - and it is clear that you have never flown with a RAF Radop and don't understand just how much training they get both pre front line and continuation trg.

Like I said I'm not getting involved in a who's better debate,Isn't that exactly what you have just done???

[[email protected]]

Or is it just that because most of our Radops are not officers, they cannot possibly be as good or better than your Observers?

[tucumseh]

In defence of the senior service Crab@, in the days when MoD(PE) project managers had to know quite a bit about the kit they were procuring (the how to maintain it was a given, but how to use it wasn't), the RN chap who taught me most about their HAS Mk5/6 work was an old and bold Chief Petty Officer Roy Henshaw, who I hope won't mind me mentioning his consummate skill.

[[email protected]]

Tuc - shame most of their pilots don't seem to share that view (of NCOs)

[FODPlod]

Crab - Does your obvious bitterness towards the dark blue always cause you to resort to sour, insidious snipes? It's 180 deg out from anything I've experienced during my 32 years in the RN.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

most of their pilots don't seem to share that view


Crab,

Are you sure about that? Everyone always said that Roy Henshaw was a top bloke...:p

[tucumseh]

It's 180 deg out Talking of which, I do hope the old trials tapes from about 92 have been kept. During debriefing, Roy was heard on the tape to moan (words to the effect) “******* piece of ******* S**T software, it’s telling me the sub’s just done a 180 in the last 200 yards. Better off in a ******* Wessex”.

Boss - “Roy, the company are sitting listening to this”.
Roy - “Well I hope they don’t get ****** paid”.

They weren't, Roy, they weren’t. Not until they fixed it.

[llamaman]

Unfortunately what should have been a thought-provoking thread appears to have been hijacked by two tedious dick wavers. Having worked with many aircrew of differing services and nations, and of all ranks, I am of the opinion that the vast majority are highly professional, proud of what they do and generally top blokes with whom you wouldn't hesitate to have a beer and spin some dits. It's a shame that PPRune provides a soapbox for the tiny percentage of f*ckwits who would normally be sat on their own in the corner of the Mess/Wardroom/Crewroom/Pub wandering whether there was a party going on to which they hadn't been invited.

There, I feel better now.

[Tourist]

Thank you for your valuable contribution Llamaman

You have certainly helped things along.

[MG]

He has; you haven't.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Thank you for your valuable contribution Llamaman

You have certainly helped things along.

216 posts in and he seems to have nailed you :ok:

[jamesdevice]

FFS its all irrelevant anyway
The contract is going to be outsourced to the Indian Navy. They've plenty of volunteers looking for wives over here
They'll be taking on the maritime patrol task as well - you didn't really think those P8s were ordered for service in the Indian Ocean did you?
The whole job is going to be outsourced - even the Coastguard emergency phones will be answered in Bangalore - and they will be using local knowledge to manage the callouts

[Ticked all the boxes]

Once the transition starts and the jobs start to become available, do we really think the military will manage people into positions? Or will it develop into a free for all and the future winning bidder will just fill slots from where ever aircrew are available? Can't help but fear the last year or two of military SAR may become a difficult place to work if people start jumping ship early...

[Hawksridge]

Despite the desire of the military to facilitate an ordered exit and transition, I fear it will be a total 'free for all' , particularly as the enhanced redundancy terms finish on 31 dec 15, so there will be much early 'ship jumping' to capitalise on that where possible. I think that the last year or so of mil SAR will be bloody hard work for the few people left behind!

[SARowl]

I do hope I'm on the interview panel when Crab@ applies...

[Lingo Dan]

Yes, it would be mad indeed to hire Crab, a highly experienced Sea King SAR training captain who knows his stuff and is not afraid to speak his mind.

It would be better, by far, to have a "yes-man" in your Ops/Training department when it comes to a fight with management/bean counters over budget, training hours etc.

[Tourist]

"a highly experienced Sea King SAR training captain who knows his stuff and is not afraid to speak his mind"

....is how somebody might be described by someone who agrees with him.


Think how he might be described by somebody who doesn't...


It's a bit like the whole freedom fighter vs terrorist thing.




and yes, I am well aware that the same applies to me too.

[Spanish Waltzer]

I do hope I'm on the interview panel when Crab@ applies...

Lingo et al,

Interesting how you have all jumped onto the bandwagon that SARowl's comment above implied that he would not offer him a job....

Re-read it without that prejudice and it might just mean that he too sees the worth of such an individual in the future of SAR & would want him on the team.

Of course it may not but lets not all immediately jump to conlusions - thats what gives this site a bad reputation.

Regards,

SW

[AvWO]

Far be it from me to disuade other members from slagging each other off in this forum... (Toursit Vs Crab?!)

But should anyone wish to learn a little here is the reference for JWP 3-66 "Joint Personnel Recovery". For all those of you stuck in CSAR terminology this should bring you up to speed from being about 5 years out of date.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DD9DD898-70A3-4917-B839-C1E1B1A5D65D/0/20071218_jwp3_66_U_DCDCIMAPPS.pdf

Outcome; the RAF SAR Force and 771 NAS have never practised CR or CSAR!

They practiced JPR, most notably SAR and DSAR.

CSAR is the preserve of dedicated air assets rescuing isolated and trained military members from hostile scenarios...

Responses welcomed; if you're looking to get a rise though I'd "scan whilst track" elsewhere - I'm Navy who married a Crab.

[llamaman]

Quote:

'Responses welcomed; if you're looking to get a rise though I'd "scan whilst track" elsewhere - I'm Navy who married a Crab'.

AvWO - That's sweet, it's nice to finally hear about a light blue and dark bloke who get along!

Interestingly (or not!), 28(AC) Sqn worked up to FOC for JPR with the Merlin
Mk 3, training a dedicated JPR Flight and associated ground party personnel who consisted of some of the more capable Rock Ape types. Shame the funding got pulled 'cos the cab was well suited to the role.

Cue predictable anti-Merlin banter.

[MG]

Hasn't the JWP been replaced by a JDP?

[Lingo Dan]

Tourist, Yes, I admit it! I am "somebody who agrees with him" - but for some of the time only! My SAR time was on Whirlwinds and Wessex and, mostly, I'm so out of date about UK SAR that I have no knowledge of the issues you, he or many others on this forum are discussing.

I do, however, have more recent experience of recruiting pilots and the post I responded to struck me as being a bit witless and immature, and probably written as hastily as was my response to it. I think an interview board's "due diligence" on a candidate - before he even gets an interview - would extend rather beyond what he writes on PPruNe!

Spanish Waltzer. Once again, I hold my hand up and admit that I took the negative spin on what SARowl wrote, without thinking it through as you have done. However, on further reflection, I do think I was right!

Perhaps he could enlighten us!

[Tourist]

AvWO

They can play with the terminology all they want, but there is still SAR and CSAR and most people know what the difference is.

Our little attempt at CSAR was never the most convincing thing that I have been involved in. We should have copied the USMC TRAP stuff instead.


llamaman

No anti Merlin banter, I agree it is an ideal cab for the job.

I remember the first JPR exercise they got involved in (Autumn 2004?) as part of a big funny war the RAF was having out of St Mawgan.
Their support/kit was in a different league. I vividly remember them in the pussers tent printing their maps from a colour printer! I went over to have a look at this modern tech, only to be told that the map was just a backup, the moving map would be doing the work.
My crumpled old fabloned map never seemed the same again.
There were Baggers and E3 boys playing as well as blue forces though the baggers never seemed to be able to be airborne with fuel when we needed them.

We were leading the package of LH/SH including both Seaking and Merlin.
As we headed heroically home at Vmax after successfully finding our downed chap on Dartmoor, I had the slight embarassment of the Merlins asking "do you mind awfully if we accelerate 50kts or so and use our speed as defense rather than you guys?"
"Erm, ok..." says me.
I then had a massive birdstrike (20+ little birds)as I crossed St Mawgans fence, and St Mawgan ATC told me to "Stby" on receipt of my PAN.:*


I do also, however, remember the "get to know each other" capabilities brief where a very self chuffed Rock stood up and told us for 10mins about all the special training that his boys had done to be capable of the task of ground force. The Royal Marine then stood up and said "all RM are fully capable of this task from basic training" and sat down.
It got a good laugh.

At the time, the RAF SH boys were not allowed to do low NVG routes at night unless daylight recced before in daylight which was a bit gay. I assume that has now changed?

Another thing that I took away from that exercise was how unimpressive both the AEW assets were considering how we are all led to believe that rotor blades show up like a dogs danglys.

They had our timings and routes plus freedom to position as they wished, but both totally failed to see us at all except when the whole package did a bit of a celebratory bunt over some 200ft powerlines on the way back just before St Mawgan. For real we would have gone underneath.

[[email protected]]

At the time, the RAF SH boys were not allowed to do low NVG routes at night unless daylight recced before in daylight which was a bit gay. I assume that has now changed?No because you may well encounter obstacles that are not marked on your map - wind farm anemometers are a favourite.

The obstacle plane value has recently moved up from 200' to 300' because there are so many unmarked/un-notamed obstacles in the UK.

The CAT 2 NVG we used to teach at Middle Wallop was down to GL and that always required a day recce - so it seems the RAF and the AAC have the same idea.

Gay? no! Professional? we like to think so;)

[Tourist]

That is all very well, but you need the training value.
Perhaps you should have someone else do the recce, because otherwise it does not test/train your ability to nvg nav at low level, just tests your memory.

All training has risk, but sometimes the reward is worth it.

[[email protected]]

Perhaps you should have someone else do the recceyes, that is exactly what happens.

What do the RN do about NVG recces?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

yes, that is exactly what happens.

What do the RN do about NVG recces?

Beat me to it, precisely what we were doing in 1997 as I was leaving SH. Based on the amount of unmarked stuff I helped, during the daylight recce, put onto maps for the night sorties it seemed an eminently sensible thing to do, only a bloody cowboy would think any different :ok:

[Tourist]

Not sure nowadays, not doing it at the moment, but probably the same as you since everything seems to be going to the "safest" common denominator in this jointery fad.

We used to just be there and cope.


SFFP

"Cowboy" is one way of looking at it, we found that it focussed the mind on looking out for stuff.

"Train as you fight" is a mantra of many of the worlds "professional" forces, along with "train hard, fight easy"

[BS Alert]

Red rag and bulls.

Comparing apples and oranges.

The statement was referencing a Service procedure. Tourist, are you suggesting all SH are cowboys?

[BS Alert]

Tourist, serious credibility caption flashing.

[Sun Who]

Tourist, mate, MG is right, that crossed the line.

I think you probably want to retract your last post.

Sun.

[Tourist]

Retracted, with apologies.

My intention was to make the point that those in glass houses should not throw stones, however my choice of example was badly chosen and I have caused offense rather than debate which was not my intention.

Again, apologies.

[MG]

Yes, it was a **** up but innocent people died and lives were changed forever. Now retract the comment.

[BS Alert]

Credibility caption now steady amber, pressure rising, but what's that? Temperature rising too. Um, what to do?

[glojo]

My thoughts are that the written word is never the best way of having these types of debates and what starts of as banter ends up in

http://www.flashgames247.com/thumb/300x300/misc-games/1981/fitsicuffs-boxing.gif

How about we all PLEASE
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Poster%20-%20Kiss%20and%20Make-Up_02.jpg?w=85e89199

[Sun Who]

Tourist,

Tourist said It is not my responsibility to avoid talking about your embarrassments.

It is if you want to act like a gentleman and, probably more importantly, if you don't want others to start talking about the embarrasments of you and yours - all 3 Services have events in their histories that are not representative of the otherwise tremendously professional standards displayed by all.

Tourist also saidIt is quite correct for the outside world to give you cr@p, that is normal, particularly when you have a habit of throwing around the word "unprofessional" so freely whenever you see something that you guys don't do.
I've searched through this thread and I can't find an example of anyone describing anyone else as 'unprofessional' - although some have come close.

This thread hasn't been the most edifying I've ever read and should probably have died a natural death a few dozen posts ago.

I feel obliged to say the following though. The Catterick crash was real, not notional. I was there and treated the surviving pilot. To raise the crash in this fashion, to 'score a point' does not show you in a good light sir.

Again, you should retract the post.

[xenolith]

For a short time there you gave the distinct impression of being a fairly class act. Regrettably you now seem to have the unmistakable immature xenophobic traits so often displayed by your main protagonist on this thread. That you should refer to the Catterick crash in this way is to tread an unwise path as none of the flying elements of the military are without sin.
You have lost the moral high ground old lad. Perhaps you should 'retract to regain'.

[500N]

Sun Who

"I've searched through this thread and I can't find an example of anyone describing anyone else as 'unprofessional' - although some have come close."

Have a look at Tourist's post No 234, an inference could be made / it could be read either way.

.

[Tourist]

xenolith

You are quite correct, and so I have.

[Sun Who]

Tourist,

Good man.

Sun.

[BS Alert]

Phew, captain to crew - caption has cleared.

[chinook240]

The obstacle plane value has recently moved up from 200' to 300' because there are so many unmarked/un-notamed obstacles in the UK.

Not in JHC!:ooh:

[llamaman]

Sad to see people using tragic isolated incidents to 'points score'. Aviation history is littered with avoidable accidents and probably always will be, just read a summary of the Air France Airbus incident this morning which proved the point in no uncertain terms.

Merry Xmas to all especially those away on Ops at the moment. Maybe even Tourist and Crab will put their differences aside and leave their individual trenches for a quick inter-service game of football in the no-man's land of PPRune?

llamaman

[Support Monkey]

List of attendees at the Industry Day

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/attendees.pdf (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/attendees.pdf)