UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread

[[email protected]]

Have a look at the 2018-19 pay levels for the RAF and you'll see that you don't have to be on PAS to be earning more than SAR TC - a top range Sgt is on £42K without adding in flying pay, a top range F Sgt is a shade under £50K.

RN Observers as a Lt could be on £40 - £48K depending on time in rank , again without flying pay.

Jim said those PAS rates were maximums but most of the rearcrew I worked with were on over £50K.

No fake news

[detgnome]

they took on a wealth of experienced Sgts, WO/MACRs and Observers and insulted them with the pay.

Those that took up the offer of employment were aware of the payscales on offer; nobody was forced into it. We live in a fairly free labour market, individuals are free to make their own choices.

[[email protected]]

No, they went for the job they loved and were spectacularly well trained for - despite the poor salary offered. The alternative for many was to return to FW or SH as there was no SAR employment left in the RAF/RN apart from 84 Sqn and SARTU (202)..

It is the best helicopter job going but just because pilots are licenced and TC are not, doesn't mean they should be so badly disadvantaged, especially as they are the ones doing the hard, dangerous and dirty work on SAR.

[jeepys]

I agree wholeheartedly crab that the skill level of some of the ex mil tc is great but this is the commercial world. Companies will pay what they can get away with and they have. We will see what happens in the future in order to keep that level of skill set but at present they offered £x and got the required y.
Does this compare to an ex mil highly experienced pilot with many years under his belt going to work for NPAS for £50k?

[detgnome]

No, they went for the job they loved and were spectacularly well trained for - despite the poor salary offered

Crab, I don't really understand your reply, you seem to be suggesting that they had to take up employment with Bristow? The alternative you mention is part and parcel of being in the armed forces and one of the reasons, in this case, why the salaries are higher. One of the issues here is the continual comparison between military salaries and commercial - the job is not the same and that is why the salaries are different.

[as365n4]

UK SAR TC are paid fairly well compared to their brethren on the continent --> https://www.aviationcv.com/en/ad/447866-2-hems-technical-crew-members

And this constant whine about SAR TC having no proper License like Pilots is utter bull**** as well, especially since EASA has created many years ago the role and regcongnised certificate for HEMS which includes SAR.
Legal stuff --> https://arkisto.trafi.fi/filebank/a/1458200998/f833a78968bca3a810aa5797618f3e9b/20048-AltMoC_SPA_HEMS_130(e)(2)(ii)_eng.pdf
Training Courses --> https://atc.air-zermatt.ch/wordpress/en/hems-course-2019/

[minigundiplomat]

AS,

Pay euros, get eurotrash. If the French want to pay their technical crew €23k, that’s great, but I’m not sure what bearing that has on UKSAR? Also, there is no mention of a paramedic qualification as a requirement.

Detgnome,

I agree with crab (never saw that coming). If you’re analogy about military salaries being higher is correct, let’s pay the pilots 50-60K?

The fact remains, many of the TC BRS needed to attract to make UKSAR work had been on the flights for years; they had a simple choice of crossing over to the coastguard or going back to a role some had not fulfilled since the 90’s.

[snakepit]

Have a look at the 2018-19 pay levels for the RAF and you'll see that you don't have to be on PAS to be earning more than SAR TC - a top range Sgt is on £42K without adding in flying pay, a top range F Sgt is a shade under £50K.

RN Observers as a Lt could be on £40 - £48K depending on time in rank , again without flying pay.

Jim said those PAS rates were maximums but most of the rearcrew I worked with were on over £50K.

No fake news

Fake news - News found in social media often based on rumor or hearsay but peddled as fact.

Jim supplies elevated paysacles that were the exception within the MOD never mind the SARF, suggesting somehow that is what everyone in UK SAR should be on even though he has never worked in either organisation. Crab uses rumor about current pay and compares to Jim's post suggesting TC were all somehow "insulted". Once 'outed' further suggests without evidence that even a SGTs and FS pay is higher than TC pay.

Like I said fake news. But we are all impressed that you care so much.

as365 subtle but true, you made me giggle with "utter bull****". Pay for TC will not magically explode if a TC licence was introduced. Offshore, multi engine pilots pay is based on a highly competitive market and their licence has little to do with that. If it was just a case of licence then NPAS and HEMS would get the same rates. The TC market is simply not there on the same scale, unfortunate but true.

[detgnome]

Pay for TC will not magically explode if a TC licence was introduced. Offshore, multi engine pilots pay is based on a highly competitive market and their licence has little to do with that. If it was just a case of licence then NPAS and HEMS would get the same rates. The TC market is simply not there on the same scale, unfortunate but true.

What he said.

The whole piece is driven by market forces i.e. supply and demand; you can spend all day arguing about what people are worth or what they should be paid, but it won't change anything. Either take the job or don't - no one is holding a gun to your head. Smells a bit like a sense of entitlement here crab - are you becoming a snowflake?

[[email protected]]

I do hope none of you detractors are SAR pilots - if so you clearly don't either understand or value what your SAR TC do - in UK anyway. Great to be crewed up with you............

I know how well our rearcrew were trained and they earned every pound of their non-market force pay.

You cannot deny the fact (MOD Payscales are hardly fake news) that they are paid far less in BRS for doing the same job they did in the military - whereas the pilots are paid more than they were - I believe that decision was made by ex-mil officer pilots who didn't have a huge regard for their rearcrew.

One thing that is blindingly obvious when you look into the wider world of SAR TC across the planet - you can pay what you like but the quality will reflect that pay and pretty much anyone can call themselves SAR TC but precious few wouild be able to hold a candle to UK trained SAR TC, especially the ex-mil.

BRS have queered the pitch for the next SAR contract- they had the chance to set a high standard of Ts and Cs and fell at the first hurdle. The next contractor will have fewer legacy TC and will either have to spend a lot on training new ones or just drop the standards of UKSAR.

AS365N$ - a 1 week course to be a HEMS TC.........really, do you really think that makes them any good?????? And, as pointed out earlier, do not confuse HEMS with SAR TC - very different roles.

[jimf671]

...though he has never worked in either organisation. ... ....

Fascinating.

[jimf671]

... ... ... I know how well our rearcrew were trained and they earned every pound of their non-market force pay. ... ... ...

I know from the ICAR Air Commission reviews of accidents that because of the legacy that Crab's former colleagues bring to the present arrangements, SAR TC, SAR partners, and distressed persons are safer on the wire here than anywhere in the world.

[jimf671]

Well, your version seems different from others - i don't know what your Ts and Cs were and are - what are you earning there now?

Did CB change the salary offer after the second stage of interview? I didn't get there thankfully but the £95K for SAR Captains was what was touted - if they didn't deliver that, I am even happier not to have got a job with them.

It needs to be pointed out that the figure quoted here by Crab is entirely consistent with the salary range posted by another pprune regular on this thread four and half years ago.

[[email protected]]

So yours wasn't fake news Jim and neither was mine - don't suppose we'll get a retraction of the 'utter rubbish' notices..........................

[drugsdontwork]

So yours wasn't fake news Jim and neither was mine - don't suppose we'll get a retraction of the 'utter rubbish' notices..........................

Not from me. The half dozen pilots who joined when I did were nowhere near that figure. So no retraction from me. But in any case I would have to go some to match the rubbish that some people produce on here.

[[email protected]]

You didn't say whether you were up at that level now nor answered the question about being a captain or co-pilot when you joined. Which flight did you leave from?

You clearly know me but I have no idea who you are. Most captains I know were offered the salaries I have referred to - if the offer was changed post 2nd interview then I didn't hear about it.

One problem is that people, quite understandably, don't want to put 'sensitive' information on here for fear of censure from the management.

[Myra Leese]

Crab,

At second interview the salary offer for captain was £84,000 with co pilots offered £69,000, at the time in line with N sea salaries. Not a huge step up for a top level PAS pilot but a considerable jump for junior officers who mostly went to the LHS.

[[email protected]]

Interesting - so they did drop the salaries between interviews............

[drugsdontwork]

Interesting - so they did drop the salaries between interviews............

Nonsense. The only person who mentioned 95k is you, and that was as a “ISTR”. You’ve been bashing Bristow since 2013, at least keep to the facts.

[[email protected]]

Now you get the 'utter rubbish' award DDW, all of us were told the salaries that I have quoted at the initial meet and greet with BRS and subsequently at the first interview - it's not the sort of thing I would make up FFS.

It's all anyone talked about in the crewrooms for months and they are the same figures that were part of SARF briefings as well.

Perhaps you don't have regular contact with current and ex-Bristow employees but I do and most of what I bashed them about has been borne out by the commercial realities of privatising UKSAR. Why is there a growing shortage of rearcrew if everything is so rosy?

[drugsdontwork]

Now you get the 'utter rubbish' award DDW, all of us were told the salaries that I have quoted at the initial meet and greet with BRS and subsequently at the first interview - it's not the sort of thing I would make up FFS.

It's all anyone talked about in the crewrooms for months and they are the same figures that were part of SARF briefings as well.

Perhaps you don't have regular contact with current and ex-Bristow employees but I do and most of what I bashed them about has been borne out by the commercial realities of privatising UKSAR. Why is there a growing shortage of rearcrew if everything is so rosy?

Thanks for that award Crab - I’ll treasure it.

No one I know ever mentioned 95k and it was certainly not offered it in an interview.

I dont dispute the tech crew pay issue, merely I dispute you fanning b@ll**** flames as to how much pilots get paid to stir things up. You’ve been stirring things up for years, I recall several civilian colleagues incensed with the things you wrote, and I can see why after reviewing it. You don’t need to aggravate people to make a point, indeed, if you refrain from aggravation, more people may listen.

No doubt tech crew recruitment is an issue now, how could it not be now the pool has dried up. But don’t pretend military SAR was rosy in this department. I can tell you this: three man crews are sometimes inevitable due to short notice sickness, but they were PLANNED by the mil towards the end. And no tech crew are going to be flogged to death like many were at the end of the military, shifts back to back or long drives to other bases at no notice, with a limited option to say ‘no’.

A large scale SAR operation is always going to have challenges but let’s not pretend all was ‘rosy’ in the good old days. Sticking to facts is a good starting point.

[jimf671]

I think you make some good points DDW, particularly regarding the standards our dear friend the MoD was achieving during some later periods of the service. I am not averse to whipping off the rose tinted specs and stamping on them.

Regarding salary ranges, the figures that have stuck in my mind, been quoted by Crab, and been quoted by others on this forum, have tended to be the top end of what, inevitably, is a range. And while the PA Scale range is a large, all-encompassing aircrew range of £37000, the BHL salary ranges are going to be more specific narrower ranges.

What we also have to take on board is that the numbers Crab and colleagues were given at the first approach were during a period when O&G was still awash with money and helicopter crew change in all territories was raking it in. Fast forward to April Fool's Day 2015 and the oil price was halved before spending the next year nearly halving again. Pencils were getting sharpened at both ends and used to write on both sides of the paper. Sacrifices were being asked.

So take the pilot top numbers (maybe chief pilot top numbers) and put a range downwards of £20k? £25k? Think of the SAR TC numbers as having a range of £12k maybe? Then think sacrifices being asked all round. Maybe the numbers make more sense like that.

None of that changes what some Master Aircrew are making on PA Scales. Nor does it change how little a first tour freshly qualified milSAR co-pilot might have been making while being accelerated toward captaincy.

[[email protected]]

DDW - you know as well as I that the rearcrew shortage in RAF SAR was a combination of under-resourcing the OCU by stealing the aircraft for front-line and the SH force flatly refusing to release people from Chinooks who had been ragged with multiple tours in the 'Stan.

Poor management, certainly, by a tranche of senior officers and I am acutely aware of the problems it caused as my Sqn Trg team were repeatedly dragged off their primary role (and leave and courses) to try and fill the gaps.

Don't ignore the fact that the shortages were a long time in the making - you can go back to the initial decision to privatise SAR in, ISTR 2004/5, which started the change in priority for UKSAR - Bristow have managed their own TC shortage in 3 years all by themselves.

You say you never heard £95K - I know I did as did a great many others - we will have to agree to disagree but I even remember Captains talking about what they were going to do with the extra money.

I don't have to care if some of your colleagues are upset, all my criticisms were founded on truth and based on the accounts of very trustworthy people - people didn't listen then because they didn't want to so why should I think anyone will listen now? If the future of UKSAR depends on what I post on pprune then we really are up sh*t creek.

The CG service is populated by top-drawer individuals and has some of the best equipment going - it should be a completely self-sustaining model of success with no doubts cast over the future of the next contract - but we are where we are - I still have the utmost respect for those doing the job, I am far too old for those 2 am callouts in sh*te weather and I am always glad to be tucked up in my bed when I hear the Newquay crew go out on a dark and stormy night.

[[email protected]]

PS DDW - just as a PS, I conducted a straw poll of the crewroom and the consensus is that my assertion about the £95K is both accurate in terms of what was touted by BRS in the roadshows and 1st interviews and also entirely representative of a SAR Captain's salary now.

[jimf671]

"This bankruptcy filing is limited in its scope and only includes six U.S. entities, including Bristow Group Inc., our parent company, and two Cayman Islands companies. The bankruptcy filing does not impact any of our other U.S. or non-U.S. companies."

So a repeat of the CHC Ireland experience for UK SAR.

(Deepest sympathies to any poor soul who has recently moved from CHC Ireland SAR to BHL UK SAR. That is going to feel like the world is out to get you.)

[Self loading bear]

"This bankruptcy filing is limited in its scope and only includes six U.S. entities, including Bristow Group Inc., our parent company, and two Cayman Islands companies. The bankruptcy filing does not impact any of our other U.S. or non-U.S. companies."

So a repeat of the CHC Ireland experience for UK SAR.

(Deepest sympathies to any poor soul who has recently moved from CHC Ireland SAR to BHL UK SAR. That is going to feel like the world is out to get you.)

Can you give a summary of the effects of Cp 11 on Irish SAR?
This might be a good indication of what is ahead for all “non-affected” Bristow entities?

SLB

[Apate]

Can you give a summary of the effects of Cp 11 on Irish SAR?
This might be a good indication of what is ahead for all “non-affected” Bristow entities?

SLB


I suspect there wasn't anything substantial, other than perhaps more scrutiny on discretionary spend. Also some suppliers might start being wary about bills not being paid?

Let's see if someone from CHC Ireland can add any more.

[Self loading bear]

Under Ch11 the supplier bills should be paid normally, although I also have heard from an offshore supplier would was cut quite an amount on his bills by an offshore driller under Ch11. But that could have been his own fault that he was let to believe that payment of suppliers was negotiable under Ch11.

[jimf671]

The jury is in.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-uk-search-and-rescue-helicopter-service

- HLS infrastructure

- Aircrew continuity

- Ambulance co-ordination

Didn't we know about these back in about 2012????

[EESDL]

Please excuse my ignorance but who checks the standards / capability of the SAR provision now?
I believe that there was the Standards Flight in the Mil days but does the ‘customer’ get to review/audit these days?
I do not mean from the value for money perspective but the quality of provision - although I accept the two are intertwined,

[[email protected]]

EESDL - all internal Bristow Standards as I understand it - I believe most of the Standards guys were ex-mil and had done similar job in the mil so quality of provision should be less likely to be conflicted by commercial pressures.

The CAA still has Flt Ops inspectors who can fly with them but I don't know their remit.

[P3 Bellows]

I see a former mountain rescue team leader has a new book to plug. Well, actually it's the old book with a new chapter that drips with bitterness if the article below from the Press and Journal is anything to go by. It also looks like he knows very little about helicopters even though he has probably been a passenger in one on a few occasions.

It's sad to see how many people he is prepared to rubbish to sell his book. I read the original and found it was mildly interesting but I guess you have to do what you have to do to top up the pension




Press and Journal 14 August

Mountain Rescue Hero Lashes Out

One of the world’s most acclaimed mountain rescue leaders has attacked the impact of the creation of a single police force in Scotland and the privatisation of helicopters on crucial search and rescue operations.

John Allen, MBE, the long-serving but now-retired leader of the Cairngorm Mountain Rescue, is concerned about the loss of local knowledge he believes has happened in the process.

Mr Allen, 77, made the comments in a new edition of his book “Cairngorm John”, which was originally published in 2009.
He said: “The loss of Northern Constabulary [when Police Scotland was created in 2013] and with it the loss of mountain rescue’s local connection was bound to be diminishied. "For example, in response to a 999 call, an ambulance arrived at the Cairngorm Ski Ground car park, looking for a climber with a suspected broken leg.

“After discussion with ski patrol staff, it became apparent the call had come from an injured climber in the relatively inaccessible Coire an Lochain and was therefore a task for the Cairngorm MRT. The rescue was only begun some two hours after the original call. Had the local police station been involved, this inconvenient delay would not have occurred.

Rapid and accurate communication is essential and something practical has been lost, along with the relationship on the ground. Local knowledge is irreplaceable.”

Mr Allen has been equally sceptical about the effect of the privatisation of the UK search and rescue service, which was handed over to Bristow Group from the RAF in a new 10-year contract, starting in 2015. He added: “At the time of the privatisation, the new service was promised to be ‘the same or better’. Four years down the line, no rescue team in the new Independent Mountain Rescue (iSMR) service would have said this was the case.”

Mr Allen cited one example of a helicopter training exercise on a “beautiful day” in the Cairngorms which was called off at 15 minutes notice, due to ‘triggered lightning being shown as threatening.”

He said: “Triggered lightning is not a new phenomenon, but only in recent years has it been recognised as a dangerous issue.

“When the new contract was granted, civilian mountain rescue teams were not informed of this possibility and the lack of communication only exacerbated an already deteriorating situation. It could be the contractor’s attention was focused mainly on the sea, but the contract was, of course, intended for both sea and mountain rescues.

“This ‘one size fits all’ attitude may work better for offshore incidents than those in a mountain environment. Sea and mountain rescues present very different challenges.

“But a different approach from the RAF was bound to be taken by a commercial contractor. Perhaps a single contract for these two functions needs closer examination.”

Mr Allen was particularly scathing about the lack of awareness of the difficulties faced by Scottish mountain rescue teams, which he argues has been displayed by some politicians in Westminster. He said: “As a result of a series of incidents, and others with sister teams, the iSMR wrote a letter to the police in July, 2018.

“It was not acknowledged, although a reply came from the Department of Transport in September, stating: ‘No action possible. "This was perhaps not surprising as the MP involved in the decision, Nus Ghani, has a constituency in the well-known mountain area of Wealdon in East Sussex and cannot be expected to show an informed approach.”

The new edition of “Cairngorm John” will be published by Inverness-based Sandstone Press on September 26.

[jeepys]

Anyone who titles their own book after there name is obviously a first class knob and I think this chap is definitely one of these.

[jimf671]

Somebody calls an ambulance and the police get blamed?

I think maybe that's to do with
a) the casualty not asking for the police and mountain rescue :ugh:
b) the 999 operator not expected to read the casualty's mind
c) ambulance control operating in their silo (and probably looking up the postcode for 'Cairngorm Mountain') :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:
so nothing to do with Police Scotland.

Police unification had a few hiccups in the early stages. The main one was picking idiots for Chief Constables. I have always said that I do miss Northern Constabulary and principally because they were a police force that understood that they couldn't do it all. That can be important in a patch like the Highlands and Islands. One really good thing PolScot did was creating the post of National SAR Co-ordinator and filling it competently.

The new police control room system could have been done better. Having the North one 350km south of the northern part of Scotland may have been an error. However the control room situation has settled down and the aforesaid co-ordinator tends to iron out any creases.

Old fuddy-duddies, yes, even older than me, seem to keep breezing in and trying to do a remake of the four yorkshireman sketch with a mountain rescue theme because it's not like the good old days. Off you go lads, never mind the P&J, the Edinburgh festival fringe is on: see if you can sell some tickets there.

Note that my post of 24th July refers to Qinetiq's Post-Implementation Report and highlights the reference they make to ambulance co-ordination.

[[email protected]]

Lack of joined up communication has always been a problem with SAR but you get used to it in areas that don't have such a high call-out rate as the Cairngorms - police, ambulance, fire and rescue, CG all have their own protocols and have all suffered cuts in manpower over the years and the inevitable loss of experience.

Continuity planning doesn't seem to hold high favour when balanced against cutting costs.
​​​​​​​
Sadly, the casualty is often the one who suffers most in the delays to rescue and treatment while each element of the rescue services deals with its own priorities first.

[JulieAndrews]

re self-policing of service levels - so once existing 'STANOs' retire, then the only personnel with any knowledge come from within the commercial entity that is our SAR service?

[jimf671]

re self-policing of service levels - so once existing 'STANOs' retire, then the only personnel with any knowledge come from within the commercial entity that is our SAR service?

Solutions?

[EESDL]

Solutions?
CAA-led centre of excellence :-). - a small dark office somewhere along the corridors of General Belgrano?
Thereby taking the current situation seriously enough to be able to maintain standards - regardless of operator - maybe a beefed-up version of the current CAA AOC FOI role?
Such credible oversight will cost money but shouldn’t that have been included in the bid ‘process’?

[jimf671]

Lack of joined up communication has always been a problem with SAR but you get used to it in areas that don't have such a high call-out rate as the Cairngorms - police, ambulance, fire and rescue, CG all have their own protocols and have all suffered cuts in manpower over the years and the inevitable loss of experience.

Continuity planning doesn't seem to hold high favour when balanced against cutting costs.

Sadly, the casualty is often the one who suffers most in the delays to rescue and treatment while each element of the rescue services deals with its own priorities first.

To be fair, Police Scotland put some really good individuals in key positions and their efforts have paid off in honing a system that was never really planned at the beginning as a geographically inclusive one. The current N-Division commander seems to appreciate the issues and is keen to get this stuff right. People are sitting down and talking through the detail at divisional and national level, which is how it should be. Meanwhile, the revised Four Yorkshireman sketch continues in the background.

The Scottish Ambulance Service can be prone to the same silo thinking as other such services across the UK but has been a unified service with its own air wing for a considerable time so a lot of things work well. As elsewhere though, sometimes the boundary between an ordinary ambulance job and a mountain rescue can be hard to gauge and, as I stated above, the casualty or their companion making the 999 has a lot to do with making this fall into the correct category at the start. The 999 operator is not there to make those judgements and never will be. The responsibility for judging if the correct service has been selected then falls upon the first service control room handling the call. As in the case John Allen refers to, and the points in the Qinetiq PIR, the Yellow and Green Silo may need to open the windows and have a wee look outside.

On continuity, we need to remember that the age of the three year tourist is over and nearly all current crew members are in it for the long haul. Some have been on twitter recently scoffing at the RAF's attempts (£££) to woo old friends back into the fold for P8 crewing. Likewise ARCC, where the experience is starting to build. Now that the Qinetiq PIR has raised the issue of continuity, and thus it is possible it will become part of the contracted duty next time round, we may see a solution. I expect neither of us will shut up until we see the real deal!

[[email protected]]

There are plenty of young (by my standards) guys and girls with plenty of experience to move up the tree to the standards jobs for many years to come - it just needs good succession planning and selecting the best person for the job rather than the next in line with seniority.

Several very experienced people have been ignored and not even given the chance for interview for some of the rearcrew jobs.

[212man]

Solutions?

Go back to the old system where the only personnel with any knowledge came from within the non-commercial entity that was our SAR service.

[jimf671]

So let's imagine you have 30 minutes to tell a room full of rescue pilots from across the world about the UK SAR Helicopter Service and its implementation during the last four years. What do they need to know?

(Asking for a friend. :rolleyes:)

[[email protected]]

They don't pay their rearcrew enough:ok:

[jimf671]

Are you trying to get me into trouble Crab? :=


Does sound a bit familiar though. :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

Does the lack of positive response and plaudits speak for itself or are employees not allowed to comment?:E

[Same again]

It may surprise you Crab but young people in SAR crewrooms these days have no interest in Rotorheads. NETFLIX and Tinder are the sites of choice.

[detgnome]

Maybe they are just getting on with delivering an excellent service with up to date equipment and all on budget. Imagine that!

[jeepys]

Crab,

what modern day SAR crews are now experiencing is life outside the military. It’s just a job but life outside work is becoming ever more so important than life behind the wire.
Family, Tinder, kids etc are featuring higher up on the priority list than work which is why they are not on here.

[jimf671]

MCA Aviation has announced that the second generation UK SAR aviation programme is currently in a market engagement phase.

The Contract Notice is due to be published in the first quarter of 2021. That is nearly a year later than the previously published date.

The procurement cycle is due to take up to 24 months (previous contract took 16 months).

The contract award is due in December 2022.

Service commencement is due on 30th September 2024 which is 18 months later than the date stated in Schedule 2.5, Table 2.3.4 of the current contract. (An option for a 24 month extension is part of the current contract.)

[Same again]

My bet is that it will return to the military as no civil helicopter company could ever afford it now. The past 6 weeks has proven that public coffers are evidently bottomless so perhaps Bristow will get some Government assistance to continue.

[Self loading bear]

I do not think it will go back to your military as:
a) they are not bidding
b) they do not have the right aircraft anymore and military purchase will definitely take longer than commercial.
c) it is still not your government policy

I understand Bristow can do it with a profit now.
As their current aircraft are not at their end of life, I think they can make the best proposition.
But this will also allow the competitors to submit a bid with not-brand-new aircraft.

I don’t think that the use of AW189 will be continued.
Perhaps only UK executed upgrades/outfitting.
That might give some competitors a chance with young second hand repurposed and upgraded Offshore aircraft.
S-92B and AH225 come to mind.
Although the last will be controversial (but very cheap).

Time will tell.

[jimf671]

My bet is that it will return to the military as no civil helicopter company could ever afford it now. The past 6 weeks has proven that public coffers are evidently bottomless so perhaps Bristow will get some Government assistance to continue.

That's a bit like national service. The military has no appetite for it, neither has the public and if it ever happens then it is a generation or more down the line. We would have to be taking a far broader attitude to national defence than we do now.

The last contract was set out in two lots with a third lot, as in the winning bid, encompassing both lots. It seems likely that lot structure will happen again although it's not certain. The transition-out plan is certainly laid out in that way.

It is certainly a worry that so many of the usual suspects have had serious financial woes or lost interest or both during the last few years. In continues to annoy me greatly, as it probably does other ppruners, that those usual suspects once blossomed and thrived under the leadership of people who could fly but now that they are run by the MBA's they flit from one financial disaster to the next. :ugh:

However, Bristow maintains the Alan Bristow rescue ethos and if that is not apparent to you now then I suspect it may become so across the next five years or so. That makes them, along with their new friend, still a player. :cool: A few others, even from amongst the injured, maintain just enough technical and commercial weight to pick up one lot, whether alone or with partners. :ok: Ask BIH and NHV if they'd like a piece of the action. :ooh:

It is of course possible that the 'big bruiser' crowd will get a piece of the action. The likes of Lockheed Martin, when they're not too busy bossing governments around :E, might see it as prestige contract and simply employ some riff-raff contractor who actually knows what he's doing :8 to make the day-to-day stuff happen.

Splitting it between contractors might cause a increased problems with the practicalities of providing the 'Common Standard of Service' that featured in the Post Implementation Review of the current service. That is something that might be easier to fix if the CAA took more interest in setting standards for SAR Tech Crew, which also featured in the PIR.

[jimf671]

The 225, although I personally like the aircraft, is not an option for UK SAR mountain flying. It appears to be optimised for those long heavy crew change flights and it's unlikely it would have the required lift and hover ability unless AH did some clever mods.

As for the AW189, you have to remember that it is currently out there doing the job well in two British territories on contracts with two different UK departments of state, so it scores a lot of points for that. Once you run the numbers for mountain and maritime in hostile environment SAR, the number of options get less and less.

[jeepys]

I do not think it will go back to your military as:
a) they are not bidding
b) they do not have the right aircraft anymore and military purchase will definitely take longer than commercial.
c) it is still not your government policy

I understand Bristow can do it with a profit now.
As their current aircraft are not at their end of life, I think they can make the best proposition.
But this will also allow the competitors to submit a bid with not-brand-new aircraft.

I don’t think that the use of AW189 will be continued.
Perhaps only UK executed upgrades/outfitting.
That might give some competitors a chance with young second hand repurposed and upgraded Offshore aircraft.
S-92B and AH225 come to mind.
Although the last will be controversial (but very cheap).

Time will tell.

SLB,

why don’t you think the 189 will have a future in UK SAR?
I think the 92 is more at risk than the 189.

[Self loading bear]

SLB,

why don’t you think the 189 will have a future in UK SAR?
I think the 92 is more at risk than the 189.

I didn’t say it has no future.
I think it will not be a requirement or a benefit in the tender to have half of the aircraft to be produced in the UK.

[jeepys]

Ah okay but I wasn’t even thinking of the political gains for a particular bid. In my opinion the 189 has a better future than the 225 and 92. The size and cost of the 92 has to be questioned against the 189 which will improve with time.

[detgnome]

Agreed about the S92. It is costly and a generation behind the AW189 in terms of avionics, although I am not saying the AW189 is perfect. One of the original reasons for specing an aircraft such as the S92 at 5 bases was the perception that it offered a significant range advantage over the 'smaller' (Lot 2) types - the reality is that an AW189 could probably just about match the ROA of an S92, somewhat negating the requirement for the larger and more expensive type.

[shetlander]

Agreed about the S92. It is costly and a generation behind the AW189 in terms of avionics, although I am not saying the AW189 is perfect. One of the original reasons for specing an aircraft such as the S92 at 5 bases was the perception that it offered a significant range advantage over the 'smaller' (Lot 2) types - the reality is that an AW189 could probably just about match the ROA of an S92, somewhat negating the requirement for the larger and more expensive type.

Was it not more to do with survivor capacity?

[jimf671]

In the current spec, Lot 1 (S-92A) is 8 rescued persons, 2 of whom are on stretchers. Lot 2 (AW189) is 4 rescued persons, 2 of whom are on stretchers.

You could do 6+2=8 in the AW189, and of course it has turned out to have good range and endurance, but it would be a hell of a squeeze and winching those in would be a struggle. Also a struggle to do any proper work on a patient in that cramped situation. H215 and 525 are hot'n'high-winching-capable but not really any bigger. You end up looking at the S-92 (and the B is coming of course) whatever way you slice it, unless you have a Norwegian sized budget!!!

[jonnyloove]

Is it possible with the second phase of UK SAR the AW-101 is possibility for UK-SAR..? Or still to costly to operate..?

[jeepys]

The 101 would be too costly and too big. You may as well stick with the 92 rather than going 101. The other half of the business (if O&G contractor wins) would most probably already have 92’s so adding another type to the fleet would be unnecessary.

Jim, what are the stats for the last 10 years in terms of casualty numbers. Do we still need to have 92 size aircraft? Where do you draw the line?

[cyclic]

The HK GFS are getting on really well with their H175s....

[Fareastdriver]

The HK GFS are getting on really well with their H175s....

A slightly different environment than the UK in the winter.

[[email protected]]

You can pretty much bet it will all be about the money and any compromises will be glossed over. The recession/depression caused by Covid will leave the UK coffers dry and dropping a no-deal Brexit on top will just add to the pain.

The current contract was based on a 'no less service' than that which the military provided and memories are short so don't be surprised if some erosion od standards occurs for the sake of lowering the cost.

As for aircraft types, you would need an honest appraisal from the CG concerning the S92 - how often has that big lift capability been used and how often has that big downwash been an issue? If the 189 is as good as claimed and can do 95% (or more) of the S92s jobs then perhaps a mix of 189 and 169 might be the option.

[jeepys]

189 and 139 would work well.

[cyclic]

A slightly different environment than the UK in the winter.
True but we operated the Sea King quite successfully with no blade ice protection for years. We just stayed out of the ice and even in the Scottish mountains and the FI, it was rarely a big problem. The 175 is actually quite good in icing conditions by the way.

[lowfat]

Ill play this Game, Aw189 OR Bell 525 relentless and AW139. any one that bids 225 , s92 or 175 will be on the naughty step. oh and all new machines, whats the point of getting a contractor in if using old machines.

[jeepys]

AW189 is more 'proven' than the 525.

[Self loading bear]

Ill play this Game, Aw189 OR Bell 525 relentless and AW139. any one that bids 225 , s92 or 175 will be on the naughty step. oh and all new machines, whats the point of getting a contractor in if using old machines.

Using old machines was on my assumption that Bristow is allowed to bid with their aircraft in place.
Then they must allow others to bid with old machines as well.

But of course when operating costs of S92 and 225 are much higher this makes no sense.
Please enlighten me why bidding with S92, 225 and 175 would be on the naughty side?

[lowfat]

Using old machines was on my assumption that Bristow is allowed to bid with their aircraft in place.
Then they must allow others to bid with old machines as well.

But of course when operating costs of S92 and 225 are much higher this makes no sense.
Please enlighten me why bidding with S92, 225 and 175 would be on the naughty side?

S92 is too expensive and "old tech" the 225 because of its reputation in the north sea and and old tech, the 175 is just a body kitted 225 with low service life of mgb components.
Other opinions are available

Not sure the mass casualty evacuation argument is relevant due to the plethora of stats gathered under this contract.

The next contract will be set by statisticians and run by accountants

[jimf671]

I am aware that there are AW139 out there across the planet doing SAR and doing a decent job of it. However, when you put a couple of well-qualified paramedics, or the EMRS team, in the back of a SAR helicopter, up to a couple of hundred miles from their destination, they are there to do real work on the patient that will advance their survival chances. :8

I have listened to CHC rear-crew talking about how little they were able to do in the back of the AW139. I have listened to MERT guys moaning about how small and cramped the Merlin (AW101) is to work in. :eek: Yes, to Chinook folks, the Merlin is a small and cramped work-space! I am convinced by those voices of comprehensive red and sticky experience. :ok:

The Norwegian and the Falkland Island SAR flights have had recent experience of really big evacuation jobs, so I am convinced by the need for larger aircraft for the occasional job like that. An entire crew of a decent sized fishing boat fits in a S-92. You then also have space for deploying large teams of MRT or CG for big search jobs. :cool:

We should give the DfT and MCA credit where credit is due. They have been landed with this by virtue of already have done maritime SAR contracts in the past but instead of a sitting in their maritime silo and creating a restricted service for their own purposes, the current contract serves the wider emergency service and civil contingency needs of the entire country. :ok: Take a bow. If the next contract takes the same approach then that too will be world-class in that respect. We shall see.

[Same again]

The DoT will have to cut costs and this must be seen by a public mostly unemployed and on UC. So I see a 3 base solution with a 175 each in Aberdeen and Norwich and a 169 in Blackpool that will also be available on O&G work for our decimated Offshore industry. The 2 hours per day training nonsense could be reduced and money saved by using less paint on the machines. Yellow would be a nice, conspicuous colour. Pay is also far too generous so a 50% cut is in order and crews will be grateful that they still have a job. Brave new world.

[Apate]

Well said jimf671. This thread was heading off in a very strange and pointless direction IMHO.

[lowfat]

Here we go again... My chopper is bigger than yours routine.

We all like a big chopper however and it is a big however, The tasking for the last 5 or so years fully document how many people and in what scenario they were helped.
The ONLY factors which will decide the next aircraft are the Facts .Not supposition or what ifs.
The government has a duty to provide a service at a reasonable cost. 100 year events of the Titanic sinking again in the channel will not factor in to that .
The reality is the tasking carried out by the 92 could have been done cheaper with a smaller airframe it would be irresponsible of the government not to know that fact and act accordingly.

Oh and I'm a big Fan of the 92 and it saddens me write this.
Did it do a good job ? yes

Is it the most cost effective way of achieving that job? probably not.

[Apate]

So there's a lot of folk talking about cost, with statements that sound like they know the facts.. Does anyone care to quantify the difference in operating costs of different types, based on reality rather than conjecture?

Once the aircraft DOCs are established, anyone care to add on the fixed costs associated with a crewed SAR machine, based on facts rather than conjecture?

Then we'll all have an idea about the real (rather small) difference in cost!!

[jimf671]

The Award Notice figure of about £1.6bn is the fixed cost for the entire contract period. At the start, MCA Aviation expected that fixed cost to be about 85% of the total. That ends up as £1.88bn but I suspect oil prices have been doing them a favour although I have no indication of how the real variables have panned out.

There are a number of things about these costs that are regularly overlooked. One is that in a 24 hour SAR operation in a 'hostile environment' (45deg) with mountain and maritime work, the training load is massive. The other is the same thing that many overlook in the COVID-19 situation: people ARE the economy, so losing people is damned expensive and it is well worth saving them.

Although the cost per job over the early part of the contract worked out at £78k, it is irrelevant really. The Crown Office, HSE and Network Rail figures have published average figures for the cost to the state of accidental and unexpected deaths. You see, in a highly-developed economy, with world-leading standards of personal safety and security for its citizens, the state gets a bit excited when people die for silly reasons. These published figures measure that excitement at between £1.6m and £2m, averaging at least £1.87m.

Now, if we look at the number of rescued persons, we can tell that not all of them were saved from death. So a conservative estimate would be 1000 lives saved per year. 1000 x £1.87million = £1.87bn, thus saving the state the entire cost of the nominally ten year contract in each year of service.

Now you can argue about the 1000 lives figure or argue about the £1.87million state costs figure but what you can't do is reduce the whole thing by a factor of ten.

There will, no doubt, be ppruners and others who continue to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing but keeping your people safe and able to contribute to society and the economy makes economic as well as social and political sense. It happens to be something that the British are universally good at and so far this service has been an excellent example. I shall be making every effort to encourage MCA Aviation to continue those standards and not drift off into accountant-land "and I commend this motion to the House".

[[email protected]]

One is that in a 24 hour SAR operation in a 'hostile environment' (45deg) with mountain and maritime work, the training load is massive. Yet the training hours that were set for the present contract were very low compared to the Mil hours and we were regularly told we were just too expensive and a 'gold-plated solution'.

[jimf671]

Yet the training hours that were set for the present contract were very low compared to the Mil hours and we were regularly told we were just too expensive and a 'gold-plated solution'.

I must be on the right track if that's all crab can find! :hmm:

The basic training hours number as I understand it are the shift training hours. That does not include simulator work, check rides and other items. Not everybody is an aircraft captain in this system and they are not on a three year tour, so that strips off the gold-plating. I'd say it was still sterling silver underneath though. :ok:

[drugsdontwork]

Yet the training hours that were set for the present contract were very low compared to the Mil hours and we were regularly told we were just too expensive and a 'gold-plated solution'.

Nonsense. We fly more hours now than we did in the military.

[jeepys]

Nonsense. We fly more hours now than we did in the military.

Don't wind crab up with the whole mil vs civ training hours requirement. We all had enough of that some years ago.

[drugsdontwork]

Don't wind crab up with the whole mil vs civ training hours requirement. We all had enough of that some years ago.

Good point. Agreed. Out.

[[email protected]]

Nonsense. We fly more hours now than we did in the military. I didn't say anything about what you fly now, just what was quoted as the training hours for the contract at the beginning so calm down.

[jimf671]

We now know for sure what the combined company from the Bristow-Era merger will be called.

Bristow.

Has a familiar ring to it I think. Indications are that commitment to SAR operations and business development is undiminished. The Chief Commercial Officer is a former UK SAR Director. The merger transaction is due to complete in mid-June 2020.

[jimf671]

On Tuesday 12th May the MCA held the Industry Day in the form of an online meeting. The recording of that is on gov.uk and youtube. It's over an hour long but you can get a strong flavour of what is going on by skipping from one slide to the next in the first half and the second half is a live Q&A.

GOV.UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/second-generation-uk-search-and-rescue-aviation-programme-uksar2g (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/second-generation-uk-search-and-rescue-aviation-programme-uksar2g)

YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkCk-CaMJnk&

The MCA team appears to consist mainly of the usual suspects with the odd new face. So they've done this before and had a good result. It's reasonable to expect continuous improvement and an even better result, which is what I'm sure we'll all press for. :E

If "short range rescue" starts turning into a secondhand 365 doing "Mountain HEMS" then I am ready to get very grumpy. :ugh: Are you ready Crab?

The right nerds are in place :8 and the tech spec should be better than last time :cool: so hopefully it'll be plain sailing. :ok:

[jimf671]

BBC news article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-52821363

[jimf671]

Flight Global
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/uk-spins-up-second-phase-of-privatised-search-and-rescue-helicopter-contract/138754.article

[jimf671]

MCA have conducted a SAR Stakeholder Presentation, on the morning of Tuesday 30th June, in the same format as the Industry Presentation that I posted about above. As with the Industry Presentation, it is expected that the SAR Stakeholder one will be posted on the GOV.UK site and the MCA's Youtube channel.

It was attended by representatives from police, mountain rescue, lifeboats and others.

This time we learned that the concept of the 'MRT Standard Load' that featured in the existing contract is to be subsumed into a wide concept of deploying a variety of teams. It will be interesting to see where that goes. :ugh:

Some indication that the MCA might take onboard the idea of actually telling the bidders the size of the SAR Stakeholder training task. :ok:

[jimf671]

And just across the water, they move from Sea King to SAR Queen.Commencement of service for the Norwegian All Weather Search And Rescue Helicopter project. This may well become the most capable air rescue service in the world. If not the most capable then extremely close. Something to learn from and aim for.

https://www.dagsavisen.no/rogalandsavis/nyheter/nye-redningshelikoptre-far-navnet-sar-queen-1.1766370 (https://www.dagsavisen.no/rogalandsavis/nyheter/nye-redningshelikoptre-far-navnet-sar-queen-1.1766370)

https://www.tu.no/artikler/overtar-for-sea-king-i-dag-nytt-redningshelikopter-har-fatt-nytt-navn/498387 (https://www.tu.no/artikler/overtar-for-sea-king-i-dag-nytt-redningshelikopter-har-fatt-nytt-navn/498387)

https://translate.google.com/?sl=no (https://translate.google.com/?sl=no)

[jeepys]

Jim, are you suggesting the larger SAR queen for the Uk?

[jimf671]

I do not think that the specific aircraft type is the important feature of what the neighbours are up to. The type is largely the result of a policy decision about jobs involving cruise ships. That is certainly an interesting contrast with the current approach from the MCA analysts who seem more concerned about the large number of small quick jobs than another Fastnet 1979. On the risk assessment course that I did, severity and likelihood had similar weighting. :confused:

Their equipment level is good and they have some interesting sensor kit. The one that interests me most is the Redstreak mobile phone detection. If nearly every person in distress, whether hillwalker, kayaker, fisherman or reindeer herder has a mobile then it's like the whole world having a PLB. See below for other goodies.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/797x591/nawsarhsystems_5b03ec897ea12a0446026c9800411edb81f8bff3.jpg

[detgnome]

Most capable, possibly. Most expensive, probably. Luckily the AW101 has a long history of excellent availability...

[Hot_LZ]

The UKSAR AW189 has the majority of the equipment/capability listed above for the 101. They don’t have LIDAR but the mobile phone tracking has been trialled.

LZ

[jimf671]

... long history of excellent availability...

That aspect is going to be particularly interesting. Anyone know what the numbers are for Portugese SAR or Italian CSAR?

[[email protected]]

The aircraft is equipped with an advanced SAR equipment package including Leonardo-Finmeccanica's newly-launched Osprey AESA radar (https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/radar-avionico-avioni-flat-panel). Based around a flat-panel antenna design, Osprey is the world’s first lightweight airborne surveillance radar to be built with no moving parts and will provide a 360 degree field of view for crews Oh dear, don't they know a 360 radar is very old fashioned and very unnecessary?:E

Shame our politicians and military couldn't have been as pragmatic as the Norweigans and just equipped the military with 101s................

[detgnome]

Knowing the British military we would have negotiated an even more expensive contract based on less availability than we had with the Sea King. Leonardo laughing all the way to the bank/Italian Government.

[[email protected]]

Probably, but we already had the aircraft in service in the RAF and RN so the training system, engineering and supply systems were already in place. We won't know because we didn't try.

Would it have cost £1.6 Bn though???

[detgnome]

You would need to strip out all the costs that are included in the £1.6B to get a fair comparison. For example - wages, new build costs, fuel, training etc. That is not just for the aircraft but the whole service.

[Hot_LZ]

We must also consider that the MoD bosses were having to look for considerable savings from their budget (they still are!), and to drop what could be seen as a domestic service was an easy option. Why continue with this home service when they are trying to fund the likes of F35 and carriers.

LZ

[[email protected]]

Detgnome - exactly what the SARForce commander wasn't allowed to do to because it may well have shown that privatisation wasn't the cheapest option. No new bases required, already a 101 training and engineering system in place and the wages were already being paid.

Hot LZ - the problem with the MOD bosses was they were fighting a war in Afghanistan and everything was centred around that capability - SAR didn't feature in their short-term strategy.

[llamaman]

Detgnome - exactly what the SARForce commander wasn't allowed to do to because it may well have shown that privatisation wasn't the cheapest option. No new bases required, already a 101 training and engineering system in place and the wages were already being paid.

Hot LZ - the problem with the MOD bosses was they were fighting a war in Afghanistan and everything was centred around that capability - SAR didn't feature in their short-term strategy.

Crab, you really are a stuck record! As somebody with both 101 and SAR experience can I offer the following observations;

- the RAF SAR force demilitarised itself over a number of years to the point where it was in effect a civilian service. You might have felt you were part of the RAF, the rest of the RAF very much considered that you weren’t.

- why should UK SAR be military, really? It is almost entirely a civilian requirement (albeit with very niche military endeavours). Senior MOD bods weren’t Afghanistan obsessed, just pragmatic.

- when the 101 was mooted as an option at the time, almost exclusively it was dissed at the time by the SAR fraternity as too big, too ferocious downwash, too much maintenance etc. etc...

I know all this has been said before but just felt the need to chip in. Our civilian friends are doing a great job with some world-class kit and that will continue. The next iteration won’t be perfect and it will no doubt involve some compromise but it will be pretty damn good. Let it lie, you’d do well for your stress levels to move on.

[detgnome]

Compared with pre 2015 I would say that we have a better equipped and significantly more available service. Probably better trained as well....

[[email protected]]

I'm not stressed at all about UKSAR and I am well aware of the current capabilities since a bunch of my friends still work in it.

Remember, many of those civilians used to be 'not very military' RAF SAR and are a large part of the reason for the present services success - where did most of the trainers come from? Oh yes......the poorly trained RAF SAR Force:)

Some people can't get away from having a snipe at me but perhaps you'll grow up.:ok:

[jimf671]

The slow death of MilSAR goes back over twenty years. At least to 1998 and the formation of JHC. Was it AVM Niven's idea not to include it or was it policy? Then came the 2001 Provision and Coverage report by the Coastguard. All before 'Iraq 3' and 'Afghan 4'. The idea of unified service was around 20 years ago but clearly from the form of the failed SARH25 we can tell that the idea of a unified all-civilian service was not fully formed until well into the last decade. Defending the British people still included wide aspects of keeping them safe.

I remember H-60 Hawk being the item of choice in certain crewrooms some time back. Perhaps driven by USCG exchanges and visits from Pavehawks. That would never have happened. I suspect you may well have got AW149/189.

£1.6bn is the fixed cost. With the variables, the projected total would have been around £1.88bn although oil price and other changes since 2015 may have modified that. The financial structure is designed to avoid any incentive to deploy or not deploy in order to keep life-saving decisions out of the hands of the bean counters. The training load for a civilian contractor is very significant and it would be pretty difficult to separate those cost in a military context.

[cyclic]

the RAF SAR force demilitarised itself over a number of years to the point where it was in effect a civilian service. You might have felt you were part of the RAF, the rest of the RAF very much considered that you weren’t.

I hate the willy waving on here but most of the demilitarised SAR Force had been part of the militarised RAF at some stage. Some of the most challenging and dangerous flying that required sheer grit from some of the bravest guys and gals I have met happened when I was in yellow. I wasn’t a great fan of the structure and how it ended which is why I voted with my feet and left but to try and say that the SARF wasn’t a relevant part of the RAF is at best insulting and at worst shows little knowledge. We weren’t being shot at but neither were the SH force for some considerable part of their existence. I think the RN guys at Prestwick and Culdrose would take particular exception to your assertions.

[[email protected]]

Cyclic - :ok: most of the anti-RAF sentiment is just aimed at me because I dared to criticise their brave new world.

You, me and anyone else who served in RAFSAR knows what bolleaux they are talking.

[jimf671]

Operational Stakeholder Presentation and Q&A.

https://youtu.be/VqWJpigKhEQ

[[email protected]]

I've only watched the first 12 minutes and already my 'w*nk word Bingo' - ' Management-speak Bingo' for the sensitive types-, card is full - can these people not speak in plain English at all?

However in the first couple of minutes the director states he wants to 'Take the search out of Search and Rescue' and the disclaimer slide points out the MCA has no liability for the accuracy or completeness of any information????????

Talk later on of increased security and surveillance capability in SAR2G - isn't that the job of the security forces?

I'll bravely try to plough through the rest...

[llamaman]

I hate the willy waving on here but most of the demilitarised SAR Force had been part of the militarised RAF at some stage. Some of the most challenging and dangerous flying that required sheer grit from some of the bravest guys and gals I have met happened when I was in yellow. I wasn’t a great fan of the structure and how it ended which is why I voted with my feet and left but to try and say that the SARF wasn’t a relevant part of the RAF is at best insulting and at worst shows little knowledge. We weren’t being shot at but neither were the SH force for some considerable part of their existence. I think the RN guys at Prestwick and Culdrose would take particular exception to your assertions.

Not sure how you made the jump to me questioning how challenging and dangerous (sometimes) SAR can be. My point was that RAF SAR (bar 84 Sqn) had almost no military value by the end except as a good PR machine. Having done both SH and SAR I have been as scared being shot at on Operations as I have flying in Snowdonia and the Scottish mountains at night in ****ty weather. Not sure how my comments imply I have little knowledge, it's just an opinion to which you have every right to disagree with. Also no idea what relevance the RN Flights are to your point either?

I am in no way 'willy waving', just making a credible argument. Some people need to get over the fact that SAR has evolved and will not be coming back to the military. We did it very well and so now is HMCG. Anyway, Crab says I need to grow up; I thought part of being grown up was having the right to an opinion and challenging those of others occasionally?

[[email protected]]

So, just got through to the first part of the Q and A session where someone asked for the current response times for aerial assets - the answer was 45 mins day and 60 mins night - is that correct?

[[email protected]]

Made my way through what was not a very professional looking or sounding presentation or Q and A.

My first question is why are the MCA not the experts in this field? They state that themselves!

Lots of buzzwords about innovation and specifying effect not solutions which is the same crap that happened last time - 'blue-sky thinking outside the box' - does anyone really think there will be an alternative to helicopters for rescuing people by 2024? They are frightened to commit to the realities of life in order to make themselves look progressive.

It seems pretty obvious that you need mostly smaller aircraft for bases since 87% of jobs are within 100nm of base and then perhaps 2 long range assets (both West facing, one North and one South) for long range stuff. You can supplement this with FW and UAVs as much as you like but you will still need to rescue people.

They wouldn't specify bases or equipment, why? If Bristow don't get the contract does that mean all their expensive infrastructure would have to be replaced elsewhere as part of the bill to the UK taxpayers? How is that value for money?

The stats on jobs show again what a land grab MCA made in the past, a full 50% of jobs are inland with the rest spread between maritime and coastal - how is that all MCA territory when the police have primacy inland?

There seems to be an acknowledgement that the present contract wasn't well thought out - the implication that stakeholder training is currently inadequate, no-one thought about carriage of rescue dogs and problems with increasing capability or adding new technology.

One issue the director acknowledged was cross-governmental department work is difficult due to contract issues and turf boundaries - something the military never had a problem with and one of the strengths it brings to the party.

Govt strategy should be to incorporate Air Ambulance, Police and inland SAR work into one outfit and leave the coastal and maritime stuff to MCA or just hand back UKSAR to the military so you can include all surveillance and intelligence gathering as well as retaining the best aircrew training playground available. The UK military is dropping below critical mass without a war to fight and having surplus manpower in flying jobs means less lag when you have to ramp up (inevitable at some time in the future). Now I know that will seem like pie in the sky but thinking outside the current 'get a new MCA contract sorted, like the current one but somehow better' box doesn't seem what the MCA want to do. Not innovative or forward thinking, just more of the same.

I have always questioned the fitness of MCA to manage aviation and that presentation hasn't changed my mind. The question about the CAA approving the use of UAVs wasn't answered and seemed to be 'well they will have to approve it'.

[lowfat]

The response time you quote is the fixed wing response. Rotary asset is 15 and 45 currently. The land grab is med transfers, missing person searches , RTAs and not all cliffs are at the sea for example.

[[email protected]]

The response time you quote is the fixed wing response. That's why I wanted to check - the question was asked about air assets and didn't specify that it was for FW. The rotary times are what I was expecting.

The land grab is med transfers, missing person searches , RTAs and not all cliffs are at the sea for example. Fair points but none of that was made clear in the presentation - they are jobs that were traditionally done by MilSAR but are hardly core MCA business as they take an asset away from its prime responsibility which, when cover is spread thinner than it was, leaves great swathes with no immediate SAR asset.

MISPERS don't need a SAR helicopter and med transfers and RTAs are the NHS/AA AOR - inland cliffs must be a very small percentage of the jobs except in mountainous areas.

Maritime Coastguard Agency is what the title says - still a land grab.

[lowfat]

Its primary task is to help any one in need now.. The MCA release an asset if its not actively tasked.
Its a triage system if a higher task comes in it goes to that if its committed the next asset goes till none are left. .
Its just the way it is you cant have lifesaving skills sat on the ground waiting for a titanic to sink, while people die 2 miles down the road because we are a "seafarers" only service.

[OvertHawk]

Probably, but we already had the aircraft in service in the RAF and RN so the training system, engineering and supply systems were already in place. We won't know because we didn't try.

Would it have cost £1.6 Bn though???

Crab

We agree on many things but if you are suggesting that the UK MOD could have rolled out the EH101 across the UK SAR fleet (inc HMCG) for less than the cost of the commercial contact (inc manning) then I simply don't believe that's possible.`
`
But perhaps i'm misunderstanding you?

[jimf671]

Made my way through what was not a very professional looking or sounding presentation or Q and A.

My first question is why are the MCA not the experts in this field? They state that themselves!

I must say that I do from time to time get concerned about the MCA's grasp on some matters. For instance, two of the questions from me during the Q&A went straight to the heart of their understanding of how SAR aviation is regulated. If they don't make prescriptive requirements in the contract about matters that require regulatory approval (as they failed to do 1971 to 2006+) then it does not get translated into an Operating Manual and ultimately an AOC and appropriate secondary regulation. They need to pay attention in class.


Lots of buzzwords about innovation and specifying effect not solutions which is the same crap that happened last time - 'blue-sky thinking outside the box' - does anyone really think there will be an alternative to helicopters for rescuing people by 2024? They are frightened to commit to the realities of life in order to make themselves look progressive.

They did however end up with a world class service the last time. I agree that no alternative to the helicopter is likely to exist by 2024, or probably 2035. I have a suspicion that as the contract process moves forward, even without Richard Parkes to make incisive statements about helicopter operations, reality will sink in and the big beast rip-off merchants and the half-price dreamers will be turfed out and we'll be left with the usual suspects. I hope I'm not wrong.

It seems pretty obvious that you need mostly smaller aircraft for bases since 87% of jobs are within 100nm of base and then perhaps 2 long range assets (both West facing, one North and one South) for long range stuff. You can supplement this with FW and UAVs as much as you like but you will still need to rescue people.

My feeling is that we are in the right place already. I understand what our friend John Foster says about the number of quick jobs not far from base but my feeling is that there is a reason that as one moves further into the 45+ degrees 'hostile environment', all around the world the SAR aircraft get bigger. Could be coincidence but I don't think so. I think that if we end up with a contractor with S-92 and another contractor with maybe H145 then whatever you do it's likely to turn into a sh1tshow with everybody in the wrong place.

They wouldn't specify bases or equipment, why? If Bristow don't get the contract does that mean all their expensive infrastructure would have to be replaced elsewhere as part of the bill to the UK taxpayers? How is that value for money?

Nice little earner for Bristow renting those out? Business collaboration is more profitable than business competition after all (that's why we have laws against some forms of it!). Maybe not the best for the taxpayer certainly, although we don't know how the bidders might account for commercial property investments.

The stats on jobs show again what a land grab MCA made in the past, a full 50% of jobs are inland with the rest spread between maritime and coastal - how is that all MCA territory when the police have primacy inland?

The police have been pussies and let the Coasties elbow in on things. It is not helped when some police think that anything that doesn't involve baton-wielding or battering down doors as the sun comes up isn't worth their while. The broad view of public safety that many of us are used to is wasted on them. The Coasties on the other hand may feel a need to bolster their position since their importance in the Civil Contingency hierarchy is not as clear cut as police and fire for instance.

There seems to be an acknowledgement that the present contract wasn't well thought out - the implication that stakeholder training is currently inadequate, no-one thought about carriage of rescue dogs and problems with increasing capability or adding new technology.

One issue the director acknowledged was cross-governmental department work is difficult due to contract issues and turf boundaries - something the military never had a problem with and one of the strengths it brings to the party.

Govt strategy should be to incorporate Air Ambulance, Police and inland SAR work into one outfit and leave the coastal and maritime stuff to MCA or just hand back UKSAR to the military so you can include all surveillance and intelligence gathering as well as retaining the best aircrew training playground available. The UK military is dropping below critical mass without a war to fight and having surplus manpower in flying jobs means less lag when you have to ramp up (inevitable at some time in the future). Now I know that will seem like pie in the sky but thinking outside the current 'get a new MCA contract sorted, like the current one but somehow better' box doesn't seem what the MCA want to do. Not innovative or forward thinking, just more of the same.

I have always questioned the fitness of MCA to manage aviation and that presentation hasn't changed my mind. The question about the CAA approving the use of UAVs wasn't answered and seemed to be 'well they will have to approve it'.

The stakeholder training matter is as good as fixed. Requirements are being reviewed and the bidder on the new contract will have access to the names and contact details of the stakeholders and thus the ability to go and ask the right questions. If the right questions are not asked then that becomes another measure for the MCA to consider during the competitive dialogue phase.

We should remember that nobody else wanted UK SAR Helicopters. If the military wanted it then it would have all been sorted out at the same time as JHC. There is no other Govt department that wants it or is a good fit. The MCA was doing contract SAR already and could see that bolstering its image in this way was a win-win not least from the point of view of deterring a move to single European coastguard.

Police air support beyond the scope of an economically sensible NPAS should be an RAF SH task and can be based on air support for RAF Police and RAF Regiment. It would be sensible for a variety of reasons to have military helicopter resources more widely spread around the UK.

Air Ambulance? Do NOT start me.

[[email protected]]

Jim, thank you for your usual reasoned and informed response:ok:

Overthawk - Perhaps not feasible given the military disinterest in SAR but it would have been interesting to see what a military proposal looked like on cost. Llamaman was right though, the 101 wasn't what people wanted due to the downdraught but the S92 isn't far off and it seems to work allbeit the working environment under the aircraft is very unpleasant - guess who chooses the aircraft, pilots or winchmen?:)

All 3 Armed Services have dwindling numbers of helicopters and a training system (when it works) that will produce too many pilots for OCUs to cope with or the front line to absorb. Having military SAR - no matter how unlikely now - would have kept trained pilots in demanding flying posts ready in case they were needed for core-military business.

[jimf671]

UK
More4, 2100h, Sunday 13th September 2020,
EMERGENCY RESCUE: Air, Land & Sea.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/emergency-rescue-air-land-sea

They really missed out by not hiring Crab to narrate it. :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

They really missed out by not hiring Crab to narrate it. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif I would only have commented on how the guys getting their hands dirty are paid half as much as those driving them to the job:)

[gsa]

Police air support beyond the scope of an economically sensible NPAS should be an RAF SH task and can be based on air support for RAF Police and RAF Regiment. It would be sensible for a variety of reasons to have military helicopter resources more widely spread around the UK.


Why RAF SH? Surely the wildcat role would fit in far better if your sending it to the Military, recce is what’s needed not bus drivers.

[jimf671]

Why RAF SH? Surely the wildcat role would fit in far better if your sending it to the Military, recce is what’s needed not bus drivers.

NPAS do that. What NPAS lack, and what MCA Aviation are proposing to provide, are bus drivers. This is part of the MCA's idea of being able to deploy a range of different teams from across public service.

[[email protected]]

what MCA Aviation are proposing to provide, are bus drivers. This is part of the MCA's idea of being able to deploy a range of different teams from across public service. they'll be annexing Poland next:E

[sycamore]

and want more money....

[Hot_LZ]

Am I dreaming when I hope that 1 one day we can have an integrated aviation arm that can be tasked to assist any government service, paid for by the tax payer that cover key disciplines such as SAR/HEMS, police support and general duties like moorland fire fighting?

The GFS and SC have been doing it successfully for years...

LZ

[llamaman]

Or maybe even a JRCC? That would really be leaping into the 21st century.

[jimf671]

I do feel that the MCA vision is moving towards a government flying service. :hmm: However, if we are prioritising the saving of lives, all serious crime and fires must be scheduled for Tuesday mornings. :ugh:

[jimf671]

Or maybe even a JRCC? That would really be leaping into the 21st century.

That question was asked during the approach to the ARCC changeover. The answer was that the JRCC model would not be part of that stage. I await with interest any progress in this area.

[[email protected]]

Just watched the first episode on catch-up - all good professional stuff but it highlights the issue of the S-92 downdraught.

I know people like the space and power but it is surely overkill for the majority of coastal and inland jobs.

[jimf671]

Based on the advances that continue in rotor technology, I am not expecting any great relief for those who work under SAR aircraft.

Currently, we have no discernible difference in downwash intensity between an 8.6t aircraft and a 12t aircraft.

[[email protected]]

Not so much rotor technology but more powerful engines that allow smaller rotor discs and make them work harder, producing the higher downwash speeds.

S92 - rotor 56'4", 2 x 2520 SHP engines, MTOW 26,150 lbs

AW 189 - rotor 48', 2 x 2000 shp engines, MTOW 18,300 lbs

Sea King - rotor 62', 2 x 1660 shp engines, MTOW 21, 400 lbs

[etudiant]

Not so much rotor technology but more powerful engines that allow smaller rotor discs and make them work harder, producing the higher downwash speeds.

S92 - rotor 56'4", 2 x 2520 SHP engines, MTOW 26,150 lbs

AW 189 - rotor 48', 2 x 2000 shp engines, MTOW 18,300 lbs

Sea King - rotor 62', 2 x 1660 shp engines, MTOW 21, 400 lbs

Honestly, Crab, this is what I admire about your inputs. No BS from anyone.

[[email protected]]

A welcome surprise Etudiant - I am far more used to abuse on this thread:ok:

[drugsdontwork]

Honestly, Crab, this is what I admire about your inputs. No BS from anyone.

Crab is very knowledgeable but be fair, you can be blunt to the point of insult on here, hence a least some of the ‘abuse’.

Also, re: BS, the MAUM of the S-92 you posted is incorrect 😁

[[email protected]]

Also, re: BS, the MAUM of the S-92 you posted is incorrect Don't fly it, don't have an RFM so blame the internet - perhaps 26,500 lbs is correct - the figures were after all just for illustration about disc loading and downwash.

One man's blunt is another man's truthful - all depends where you are standing - I have apologised in the past when I have actually insulted someone:)

[drugsdontwork]

Don't fly it, don't have an RFM so blame the internet - perhaps 26,500 lbs is correct - the figures were after all just for illustration about disc loading and downwash.

One man's blunt is another man's truthful - all depends where you are standing - I have apologised in the past when I have actually insulted someone:)

Fair enough Crab, no problem with blunt if it’s truth. It’s the more subjective stuff that I’ve protested (such as your comments on civilian SAR pilots). Yes, 26,500lbs for S-92.

[[email protected]]

Aren't they all civilian SAR pilots now? Much of my criticism at the time was slightly misdirected due to more organisational ethos concerns. I'm sure there are still good and bad in the Bristow setup.

[dingo9]

AW189 MAUM is Incorrect also. 8.6T

[[email protected]]

Again, blame t'internet :ok: Even the Leonardo website says 8.3 or 8.6T - 8.3T is as close as to 18,300 lbs as make little difference

[Hot_LZ]

Throw the man a bone. 8.3T is certification, 8.6t is supplemental

LZ

[[email protected]]

The high downwash in the hover is explained by dividing the rotor disc swept area by the AUM of the aircraft to give disc loading in lbs/sqft

For the previous examples, 189 and 92 come out at just over 10 lbs/sq ft compared to the Sea King at 7 lbs/sq ft.

The downwash of the Sea King could be problematic in light winds so it is no wonder the newer helos have issues.

Back to the Wessex for coastal and inland SAR:) 56 ft rotor, 13,600 bs MTOW, 5.5 lbs/ sq ft disc loading :ok:

[dingo9]

Throw the man a bone. 8.3T is certification, 8.6t is supplemental

LZ
ok fair one

[[email protected]]

And the 139 comes out the best - 15000 lbs (approx without supplemental increase to 7000Kg), disc 54' 8" - disc loading 6.37 lbs/sq ft.

It certainly seems clear from a downwash point of view that the 139 is the best option from the Leonardo stable for coastal SAR - oh wait, isn't that what was used when the 189s weren't available?

I like the 169 from a size perspective but it comes in at 9.5 lbs/sq ft - however, being less than 2/3 of the mass of the 189 it would have far less downdraught.

[cyclic]

What’s your calculations for the 175 Crab?

[[email protected]]

Using rotor diameter 48' 7", MTOW of 16,535 lbs the disc area is 1850 sq ft and the disc loading 8.9 lbs/sq ft

[jimf671]

Not the entire story I suspect since the different blade tip and root designs along with the effect of the fuselage shape will have an effect on the working area under the aircraft. This subject was raised at the ICAR Air Commission a few years ago. Some makers had mapped the downwash under certain aircraft but I don't think we got any further with it since the science had never been done for most types. I am happy to work under the intense downwash of the new types since it is the same power that is keeping me safe in the air.

[[email protected]]

Most of the tip design is to improve forward speed - hence the much higher Vne and cruise speed of the modern aircraft compared to Sea King etc. The Carson blades would have given another 25 kts of speed to the Sea King without changing the downwash.

You can have the extra power to give great OEI performance for safety without the horrendous downwash, you just make the rotors longer but that isn't the fashion amongst designers who like to make the overall aircraft more compact (shorter tailboom for example) to increase the useful space in the cabin.

You don't work much in the water under the aircraft I am guessing Jim?:)

[[email protected]]

Second episode tonight, all mountain work, and every other word seemed to be downdraught. Modern helicopter design isn't focussed on what SAR needs.

[jimf671]

... ...
You don't work much in the water under the aircraft I am guessing Jim?:)

Although we sometime feel like the hills of Wester Ross are as wet as the nearby ocean, generally, that would be a no! :cool:

Where downwash is a problem for us is on steep ground, narrow ridges, and avalanche-prone terrain. One can train MRT to deal with working under heavy downwash but the problem remains of persons in distress, and other members of the public, who have no comprehension of the forces involved.

[[email protected]]

So, given that the purpose of a SAR helicopter is to rescue people from difficult and dangerous situations - will we see a different choice of aircraft for the next contract or will it be more of the same?

Will any manufacturer actually design a SAR-specific helicopter rather than sticking a winch on the side of their offshore model?

[Bravo73]

Will any manufacturer actually design a SAR-specific helicopter rather than sticking a winch on the side of their offshore model?

No. The potential helicopter market is limited enough as it is. Why would they want to limit it further?

[jimf671]

So, given that the purpose of a SAR helicopter is to rescue people from difficult and dangerous situations - will we see a different choice of aircraft for the next contract or will it be more of the same?

There are ambitions in some quarters to turn some parts of this service into something like Choucas 74 or Dragon 76. While I admire the work under those c/s, I also believe those admirable approaches would have a limited applicability in this territory and there would be no appetite for their number of bases.

EASA Mountain HEMS? Non, merci.

Within the scope of the current spec one could see H215. H175? 525? ??? What else?

Smaller, faster? Faster: no such thing. Eh ... AW139? Well, fine until the day you are 150nm offshore with IMC at your destination and no space to do proper work on your casualty.


Will any manufacturer actually design a SAR-specific helicopter rather than sticking a winch on the side of their offshore model?

The money is in making stuff for landing on runways and steel decks or as a weapons platform. I suspect an SAR market divides up into 3 or 4 territorial sectors with different size and performance requirements. Nobody will service that kind of marketplace with dedicated types.

[[email protected]]

Smaller, faster? Faster: no such thing. Eh ... AW139? Well, fine until the day you are 150nm offshore with IMC at your destination and no space to do proper work on your casualty. The 139 is easily big enough to cope with that regardless but that would be a job in the very small percentage that occur more than 100Nm from base according to MCA stats so what is your point?

As I have suggested, a couple of longer range bases with big helicopters for those rare jobs and smaller, more user-friendly (from a winchman and casualty perspective) for everything else.

We don't have to go down the mountain HEMS route - I still think winching is far better than long-lining - and you need to be able to move MRT around but a 139 sized helicopter with lower downwash has to be a better option for coastal and mountain work.

I know a manufacturer won't design a whole new helicopter for SAR but offering an option with a longer tail boom to accommodate a larger rotor and thus reduce the downwash wouldn't be that difficult, would it?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I know a manufacturer won't design a whole new helicopter for SAR but offering an option with a longer tail boom to accommodate a larger rotor and thus reduce the downwash wouldn't be that difficult, would it?

Doing the latter is basically doing the former!

[[email protected]]

Not really - if all you do is lengthen the tail and put longer blades on it, the remaining systems (ie most of the helicopter) wouldn't need re-certifying. Not so different from putting a 5-blade rotor on a previous 4 blade type.

[jeepys]

Bloody hell Crab. You should get yourself into no. 10. Talk about reversing your decisions! Have you had a bang to the head recently? Have you got to like the 139 now during the last 3 years or so?

[[email protected]]

I've been flying it for the last 2 years so yes, I do like it - it's not perfect and I know Bristow had some issues with it but for coastal and mountain work it is the right size helicopter with a manageable downwash.

Just trying to offer suggestions since the new contract process has started - chances are it will be more of the same with poor working conditions under the aircraft for the underpaid winchman again

[jeepys]

There you go folks, miracles do happen. Crab has publicly said he thinks the 139 is good for SAR or at least two of the biggest aspects of it.

Bristow did have issues primarily related to the fips system which prevents the mast weight being installed to aid with reducing the vibrations. I think the lips system is better and sufficient.

[[email protected]]

But of course it isn't being used in UKSAR now and wouldn't have been if the contract had gone according to plan.

I don't like the nose up attitude in the hover but the power and the automation are good.

I hate the FMS which would be at home in an airliner but is not optimised for helicopter ops and I know Bristow had issues with the gyros for the AP due to vibration issues.

It is the size and downwash compared to the other modern types that makes it good - it's not a Wessex but you can't have everything

[Fareastdriver]

You could light a fag under a Whirlwind.

[ericferret]

You could light a fag under a Whirlwind.

Especially usefull when searching for a fuel leak

[snakepit]

A new source of business for SAR and MRT or a bright idea?

https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1310824629334761472?s=09

Great North Air Ambulance is trialling Jetsuits for their paramedics to reach those in need in hard to reach areas. Not sure what the casualty recovery plan is though?

[[email protected]]

Yep, jetsuits and drones - who needs helicopters?:)

[ShyTorque]

They need to fly two in formation, or even four, to carry the stretcher.

... I hate to think where they would put the handles.....

[Non-Driver]

Contract extension confirmed:

Bristow to continue delivering UK SAR helicopter service for HM Coastguard under extended contract | Bristow Group (http://ir.bristowgroup.com/news-releases/news-release-details/bristow-continue-delivering-uk-sar-helicopter-service-hm)

[jimf671]

During October, the Coasties signed off a document called Single Statement of User Needs (SSUN) that defines their requirements and at the end of that month they sent it out to Government Departments and Category 1 Responders for feedback. Feedback was due back by the end of November. Cat1 were asked to collate feedback from their SAR volunteers. The following video refers. UKSAR2G External Operational Stakeholder Update 27/10/2020

The SSUN is similar in many respects to the Technical Requirement Matrix issued in February 2012 as part of the previous contract process (and largely inherited from SARH25) that became Schedule 2.1 Specification of the current contract.

Much has been made of the Government policy for a service-based contract that concentrates on outcomes and does not prescribe methodology. There is something to be said for this approach since it may provide for greater bidder innovation. The SSUN layout and style reflect this approach.

However, it seems to me that the operator needs the customer to specify certain aviation requirements so that they have a clearly defined reason to write an appropriate safe procedure into their operating manual, which is key to approval by the regulator, who expresses that approval through the granting of an Air Operating Certificate. Do correct me if I'm wrong.