UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread

[jimf671]

Has anyone seen an OJEU Contract Award Notice?

[snakepit]

OSM
You need to think big picture. The process you describe is the assessment of an individual not the performance of a multi billion pound contract!
There will be a whole raft of key performance indicators (KPIs) that will indicate the success or otherwise of the contractors solution and I'm sure JimF could find them online. The ability of an individual to read a TAF for eg will not be one of them. It will be more along the lines of base building completion, aircraft delivery, manpower, and serviceability. Just guesses but you get the picture

[onesquaremetre]

If aircrew are up to scratch, as we keep being told they will be, they have nothing to fear from the visit of an external assessor. Teachers didn't vote for Ofsted but it keeps them on their toes and their reports commend excellence and highlight poor performance.

[queueaitcheye]

I'd imagine that the individuals will be assessed the same way they are currently assessed in civ SAR organisations around the world: OPC (to CAA standards ie external!), LPC (to company standards ie as per the RAF SARF!), simulator rides etc.

Your suggestion of implementing what, in essence, is the current SARF cat system is overkill. It smacks of llamaman's earlier post - a system that is over-egging itself!

[jimf671]

... You need to think big picture. The process you describe is the assessment of an individual not the performance of a multi billion pound contract!

There will be a whole raft of key performance indicators (KPIs) that will indicate the success or otherwise of the contractors solution ...

Good point snake. For one thing, everyone sleep-walked through the 1971 contract through to the 2007 contract. There is some excuse for Gap not being a work of art because of the continuity of service imperative. Now there is a proper spec worked out at all levels and the UK's first entirely planned SAR helicopter service is on the way to becoming a reality.

The DfT have upped their game. The CAA have upped their game. Whether Eeyore down at Southampton will listen to his friend Christopher Robin over at Abbey Wood and wake up before April 2015 remains in question. Aircrew performance is still important but I do not believe that it's a concern for anyone who has been standing back and looking at that big picture.


... I'm sure JimF could find them ...

No mention of a remuneration package for this appointment? :hmm:

[Hummingfrog]

I agree with Al-bert. The RAF SAR Force - when did it become a force? - seems to have become totally overblown. My career path, if you can call it that;) was similar to Al's 2 tours SH in Germany and UK followed by a quick convex to SAR at Valley which was fairly rapid as I had more Wessex hours than most of the ex Whirlwind QHI's then to Chivenor for a Squadron acceptance then onto shift as again the most experienced Wessex pilot as the flight had just converted to the Wessex.

My Seaking convex after one tour on at Chivenor took 3 months with me being an Op Captain 3 months after finishing my Seaking convex. I realise the Seaking is not as serviceable as it was but 9 months for a convex unbelievable:(

No wonder RAF SAR is deemed too expensive:(

Even in my time though there were empires to be protected! I arrived at Chivenor in during the snows of 1981 having been delayed due to RAF Benson being cut off. I was told that it was OK as I couldn't have been used anyway as the flight was busy taking USLs of fodder out to the moors. I bit my tongue as I had more USL lifting hours on the Wessex than the ex Whirlwind pilots had hours on the Wessex but hey ho I was joining a new empire!!

As far as there being loads of "SAR" pilots already working in the N Sea - if they haven't done height hold out night drums/wets/decks in zero wind on a pitch black night then they aren't SAR pilots;)

HF

[onesquaremetre]

I'd imagine that the individuals will be assessed the same way they are currently assessed in civ SAR organisations around the world: OPC (to CAA standards ie external!), LPC (to company standards ie as per the RAF SARF!), simulator rides etc

And the aircrewmen?

[Baldeep Inminj]

Hummingfrog,

All the one's I know, have.

In the last 2 months, Bristow have recruited/internally identified enough SAR qualified pilots to require very few more.

I hope the RAF crews get a look in, but unless they sort their own futures, rather than believing the words of the RAF, who have looked after their people so well :hmm: , they will be fighting for the rig jobs vacated by the new SAR crews.

Do not underestimate the competence and ability of the civvies - some of the RAF arroagance on this subject astounds me. You have no right to a position...no more than anyone else, and the RAF cannot afford for you to leave, hence their magic solution.

Speak to Bristow. See what they say.

Think a lot of clicking on JPA will rapidly ensue.

[llamaman]

Baldeep,

Your scaremongering is a little premature. One of the requirements of the original tenders for the contract was a provision for military crews to remain employed in SAR duties as civilians. Yes, Bristow will have identified all possible internal candidates for future provisions, they have to because they can't afford to fail. At the moment, they have no idea of the numbers of those that will jump ship. Left of arc is nobody, right of arc is that all current military SAR crews will PVR. Any commercial company worth it's salt (I think Bristow falls into that category) has to have something in place for all possible outcomes, it's called contingency planning.

It would be wise to wait and see what is said at the upcoming recruitment road-shows. Judging by your username I'm probably not too wide of the mark by assuming that you are a relative youngster therefore 'wiseness' is probably not one of your strengths. Forgive me if I am wrong.

As an aside, it's in the MOD's interest to lose significant numbers of SAR aircrew. Post-SDSR we are already seeing significant numbers of 'spare' rotary guys as numbers within other fleets have been reduced. What do you think would be more expensive? Employing these guys to age 55 and maxing-out their pensions or letting them quietly slip away to Bristow where their significant skills and experience will be well utilised.

Please, stop the scaremongering and trying to drag this thread back to a mil v civvy bitchfest. It's all been done before.

[seniortrooper]

Llamaman
Calming and might I say wise words too. However, Baldeagle or whatever his name is, has touched on something akin to the elephant in the room.
Bristow are recruiting. Bristow will road show and they will nominate a certain number of current mil pilots to slot into the new world. BUT, they call the shots now and they will cherry pick. IF there are enough slots out there in offshore land, then quite a few will get picked up, but the train is leaving the station and IF many pilots from outside Long SAR gravitate to Bristow from their own side and other companies, there won't be much left when the managed transition commences.

At the end of the day the MT is for the benefit of the mil, NOT the individual. Always remember that.

[llamaman]

seniortrooper,

I'm not naive enough to believe that the MOD is particularly interested in the individual
needs of the SAR fraternity and yes, you are right, managed transition is primarily for the benefit of military manning. I just wanted to put the brakes on a panic-fest until all the facts are out in the open. I still believe that Bristow will have to recruit an element of locally experienced military guys to make the whole thing work. How many is 'the elephant in the room' as you aptly put it.

[handysnaks]

OPC (to CAA standards ie external!), LPC (to company standards ie as per the RAF SARF!), simulator rides etc.

Surely OPC to Company standards, LPC to CAA standards?

[Baldeep Inminj]

Llamaman

I hear you, and see your point of view. As for me, tours at 4 of the 6 RAF

[queueaitcheye]

A fair point thanks Handysnaks!:O

[Pol Potty mouth]

I couldn't agree more with what Seniortrooper has written.

It seems clear to me that Bristow have a requirement for experienced, reliable and safe rearcrew; 'managed transition' will work well for ensuring the provision of winch-ops and winchmen. However, it's a different kettle of fish for the front-enders. The requirements for captains, not least 250hrs oil and gas, mean that few, if any, mil pilots could feasibly get through the requisite trg in time to find a captain's seat on a shiny new S92 or AW189. Remember that under 'managed transition' the RN/RAF will be retaining them until the vinegar strokes of mil SAR. (A complete cynic might suggest that Bristow's motivation for setting down some of these requirements might be seen here!) A few ex-mil pilots might get into a co-pilot's seat but that will be about that. And after all, given that they are only advertising for 50 capts and 50 co-pilots, the market is relatively awash with available pilots, many type-qualified, who might feasibly be able to describe themselves as 'SAR-qualified'*.

The roadshow that will visit the SAR flights is all about Bristow AFAIK, but I bet SARF, Cdr SK and Manning are all praying that it all sounds convincing, else the much-feared race to PVR will start soon after! Certainly for the pilots anyway.

* not necessarily SAR-current and probably have only thought about SAR as a 'secondary role' with 'Andrew', but from Bristow's perpective they are close enough to being SAR pilots I guess.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Llamaman

I hear you, and see your point of view. As for me, tours at 4 of the 6 RAF SAR flights, plus time in NI.

Managed trandition is a myth. I know what I am talking about. Apply to Bristow and see for yourself.

How blunt can I be?!! I must have said 5 x, ask Bristow! Crap scaremongering, asking guys to get the facts ffs!!!

Perhaps rsality is too unpleasant for some. Bristow are recruiting NOW, and when they are full, they are full. Fact.

The RAF created MT to stop people leaving. Fact

As the yanks say...'you do the math'.

[llamaman]

Baldeep,

A rather fraught and error-strewn rant, a couple of drinks maybe? My aim was to try and offer a slightly more balanced view and not create panic amongst what is already a somewhat worried group of aviators. As for me, application to Bristow is not an option I'm afraid so I have no axe to grind, just an interested observer. What somebody at Bristow may have told you might not apply to all and may only be loosely based on fact.

[Baldeep Inminj]

No drinks, just a phone with a tiny screen that only shows half of what I have written. Still, your dig at my grammar shows the level of serious rebuttal that you have at your disposal. The uncomfortable truth hurts, I get that.

You have singularly failed to address the points I have raised. Why would you assume I 'have been told' something by Bristow? Every post I have made has been written to HELP RAF guys get jobs.

It could be that I am no longer in the RAF, and in a position to KNOW. That said, the arrogance and complacency of those in the SAR force saddens me. If you believe that MT will work, then crack on. I wish you well. The SAR force are professional, and very good at their jobs. They are also mistaken in their belief that nobody else can do it, apart from them. SAR crews rescue people all over the world, doing it 'their way'. It might be different, but it isn't wrong. The ridiculously inflated heirarchy of the SAR force (A sqn in size, no more) has created an idea that does not meet reality. Ancient aircraft, off state and ops only on a regular basis, rearcrew working shifts left, right and chelsea in order to keep the whole house of cards from collapsing...what part can civvies not do better?!

The elephant in the room, by the way, is rearcrew. Without them, SAR dies. The job of the pilot is to put the winchop in a position where he can put the winchman where he wants to be. And rearcrew are at crisis level. They are the ones to worry about.

I will leave the forum now, and not return. I believe those in the RAF will get what they deserve. If you believe in MT, then go for it. I used to believe in the tooth fairy.

[llamaman]

Baldeep,

Like I said, I'm not intending to apply therefore you're 'bet you never work with me though' statement is not applicable and somewhat juvenille. Likewise your accusation of arrogance and complacency within the SAR force is a little strong and I'd be interested to hear your evidence to back that up.

The bottom line is that this is a turbulent and stressful time for all those who are considering a military to civilian transition and I wish them the best of luck. It's not the time for panic-inducing rhetoric from 'experts' on PPRune, some hard facts from those in a position to actually implement any changes will be more useful. Let people hear the spiel from the recruitment road-shows then make up their own minds. Anyone who hits the PVR button tomorrow based on your advice would be jumping the gun somewhat.

[Myra Leese]

Al-bert,

Fear not, the OCU is not planned to take 9 months, only 6. This may still seem a lot but things have changed a great deal since your day. The front line requirement is now for a new crew member to arrive with an LCR cat and the training to achieve this was increased to include exercises that used to form part of Sqn acceptance. Couple this with a full procedural course for pilots and medical exercises for rear crew as well as work with external agencies and you easily get to 6 months. The upside is that the front line receive a product pretty much ready for duty on day 1. If a course over-runs, as has been known, it is usually down to a lack of assets, aircraft and personnel, which are used to bolster the 2 Sqns, and the difficulty in maintaining an aging fleet with a limited supply chain.

I will agree that the SAR Force is a much bigger affair than the good old SAR Wing that we knew and loved, but that is the price of progress and it has at least allowed some of our brighter guys to get noticed without having to move to the SH Force.

On a slightly different topic and hoping for some reasoned debate, can anyone flying S92/AW 139 etc explain why it could take 250 hours or more to get used to a glass cockpit? My understanding was that modern helicopters were more user friendly and MFDs made life easier, so why so long to adapt?

[ShyTorque]

On a slightly different topic and hoping for some reasoned debate, can anyone flying S92/AW 139 etc explain why it could take 250 hours or more to get used to a glass cockpit? My understanding was that modern helicopters were more user friendly and MFDs made life easier, so why so long to adapt?

It can take that long to have seen most of the more important warning captions..... ;)

[Al-bert]

I will agree that the SAR Force is a much bigger affair than the good old SAR Wing that we knew and loved, but that is the price of progress and it has at least allowed some of our brighter guys to get noticed without having to move to the SH Force

Oh dear Myra! Is not the price of progress the fact that the entire top heavy edifice and drastically reduced capability, which the brighter guys designed and got noticed in, is about to be sh1t canned? :ugh:

Crews always did come out of SKTU with a LCR CAT after 3 1/2 months (in my day). I was on shift as a co-pilot two days after my arrival at Brawdy. As far as working with outside agencies goes, my local lifeboat is lucky if they see a helicopter more than once a year, compared with once a month at least in the past.

As I'm sure you are aware, SAR Wing was commanded by one Wg Cdr. There were two Sqns commanded by two Sqn Ldrs and a total of nine flights. Any reasonable 'bright guy' would have perhaps suggested that one Sqn of six flights was perfectly feasible; up the rank to Sqn Ldr Flight Commanders and make the boss a WgCo if you must. The only real improvements which occured during my time on SAR was the paramedic qual for winchmen and the adoption of NVG's. Procedural IR's were a complete waste of time and money and were instigated by other bright guys with eyes on civil licences. :sad: Sadly the IR doesn't appear to count outside!

[ShyTorque]

Sadly the IR doesn't appear to count outside!

It never did. You'd still have to pass an IR on any new aircraft in any case.

[seniortrooper]

Come to think of it, why do RAF SAR need procedural IR's (even one's which aren't recognised by EASA!)?
Are ther any SAR missions requiring recovery to hospitals via airways and holds?:ugh:

The amount of credence they attach to their Procedural tickets is disturbing if they don't get used in anger.

Surely it isn't a pre-requisite for the job, because the RN don't use them and have never found the need to introuduce them over the decades of doing SAR.

Anyone?

[Al-bert]

You'd still have to pass an IR on any new aircraft in any case

I know ShyT, that's wot I said. I think it might have counted for the S61 but who cares? I certainly don't, I'm just a bit sad that 'the bright guys' (Myra's opinion) allowed RAF SAR to go this way. :*

[Al-bert]

seniortrooper - I refer you to my previous post ie

Procedural IR's were a complete waste of time and money and were instigated by other bright guys with eyes on civil licences

and I was a flight IRE :cool:

[SASless]

It can take that long to have seen most of the more important warning captions.....

You have never endured one of my Two Hour Sim Periods it seems!:E

[ShyTorque]

We did discover that the Helikopter Services Puma Sim would only allow seven failures at once. Staff training sorties only though, done mainly for amusement of the QHI in the back pressing the buttons. Aka: "stitch your mate" time. Now, enough of this thread drift! :oh:

[jimf671]

... There will be a whole raft of key performance indicators (KPIs) that will indicate the success or otherwise of the contractors solution and I'm sure JimF could find them online. ...

[The following is based on the 19th September 2012 documents.]

This Schedule 8.2 (Contract Incentive Scheme (KPIs)) is aimed at supporting the development of Service Level Categories that can be effectively measured to provide an evidence base supporting the quality of service provided by the Contractor. The Department is primarily concerned with receiving good service. However the Department does not wish to pay for a contracted level of service that is not being delivered and an appropriate Service Credit regime is required to incentivise and support service delivery. The Service Level and Service Credit regime must be a means to achieve these objectives and not an end itself.

[The contractor proposes the format of a range of KPI based on the following Service Level Categories. These are in addition to Mandated KPI for Availability and Responsiveness.]

SERVICE LEVEL CATEGORIES
Transition In
- Infrastructure
- Information Communications Technology
- Personnel
- Regulatory
- Airframes
Steady State Service
- Response
- Service Availability
- Service Resilience
- Infrastructure
- Information Communications Technology
Transition Out
- Infrastructure
- Personnel
- Information/Data transfer

AVAILABILITY
For each Base, a monthly activity report twithin five Working Days of the end of each Month.
Below 98%: charges. Greater than 24 hrs: investigation.

Availability is partial in the following circumstances.
Lacking a Crew member or any one of the following items of equipment on the Aircraft is unserviceable:
(i) autohover;
(ii) FLIR;
(iii) search radar;
(iv) long range communications; or
(v) one of the hoists (but the other hoist is still serviceable),

RESPONSIVENESS
For each Base, a consolidated mission report within five ... ... . Includes percentage of missions airborne within 15 / 45 minutes of alert.
Below 85%: charges. Below 65%: investigation.


[OK snake, where do I send the invoice?]

[[email protected]]

I have lost count of the jobs where procedural IF - esp ILS was the only way to either get home or get the casualty to hospital.

ISTR the SH force, esp Chinook and Merlin have been doing procedural IF for many many years and I don't think that was about licences - more about professional capability and being allowed into big boys airspace where PARs don't exist.

The RN never had the kit fitted to their Sea Kings hence no Procedural IR - however, I believe Culdrose is finally having an ILS installed.

There will be a few people who will miss the Chivenor ILS/DME when the flight closes and the kit is moved elsewhere (police, AA, AW etc)

[onesquaremetre]

Thanks Jim

Point proven. KPIs certainly do not measure the quality of the SAR service provided by individual aircrew.

So what will? As Hummingfrog said, if they haven't done height hold out night drums/wets/decks in zero wind on a pitch black night then they aren't SAR pilots. Is that done on an OPC/LPC/simulator ride? I don't think so. Yet here we are talking about North Sea pilots filling slots if the Managed Transition can't attract the right numbers in time. And outside of an external paramedic check, who will be ensuring that the aircrewmen are of the right calibre and capable of performing in the full range of SAR scenarios by day and by night? It seems to be accepted that Bristow may struggle to fill the aircrewman slots. Isn't there a danger that the quality may drop if they are forced to recruit from elsewhere?

[queueaitcheye]

Is that done on an OPC/LPC/simulator ride? I don't think so.

So my last line check, conducted by a TRE and involving a simulated SAROp to night decks and cliffs, wouldn't count?!

In a previous life, I've seen good guys put through the ringer over a number of days and trying to regurgitate the mechanics behind forward autorotation, geostrophic winds etc. WHY?!! With knowledge creep for 20 years the RAF system has become an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

[Al-bert]

CRAB - ILS great, Big Boys airspace, where the icing is, not so great! And what a delight when you fly the perfect hold :rolleyes:

[onesquaremetre]

conducted by a TRE

That sir, is self-policing.

Did you hear about SSE taking a beating from Ofgem a couple of days ago? This former public, now private service was ripped apart for its selling practices that took place while they were being audited by people who stood to gain from the commission on sales!

Self-policing alone does not work for services to the public. There has to be some external assessment to back it up.

[Lioncopter]

Who currently externally assess the RAF and RN? I am not trying to start a argument... Just wondering if anyone does.

[queueaitcheye]

Nobody Lioncopter. Nobody.

TREs are regularly checked by the national CAA. The CAA are able to visit and conduct audits, including observing on flights. They also hold the power to conduct 'no notice' audits should they wish. Is that external enough, or are you looking to generate a position for yourself? ;) The civ system is already more independent and robust than the mil's form of navel gazing.

[onesquaremetre]

Neither the RN of the RAF are private enterprises taking over a public service that is at present, highly regarded.

When the KPIs that Jim lists are reported back to the Transport Select Committee in a few years, statistics may give the appearance that everything is working out fine. It is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of non-aviators. Just seeing the aircraft in the sky and seeing it in the news from time to time will be sufficient to convince some that there has been no loss in capability. Unless a team of sufficiently experienced, independent evaluaters are able to report back on the actual flying capabilities of the aircrew, then this most important of performance indicators will be lost. Do the CAA have sufficently experienced SAR pilots and aircrewmen to fully evaluate the performance of an entire crew?

[Flounder]

That sir, is self-policing.

That sir, is total nonsense. TREs are CAA appointed examiners, are you suggesting they turn a blind eye and allow substandard candidates a "pass" in the hope they won't go out and have an incident or accident.

Just how low an opinion can you have of civil aviation if you believe for one moment the authority appointed examiners don't maintain a standard. I wish you the best of luck on your future LST (I would say LPC/OPC but I don't think you'll get that far).

Apart from the audits, CAA & company checking, line flying training with hugely experienced LTCs and TREs and the company wide standardisation undergone by current MCA crew there is a huge professional pride in providing a high quality service. To suggest that this is self policing is insulting and basically uninformed tosh.

...and I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn in to this...back in my box now.

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: The RN haven't converted to procedural because there is no requirement for it. If there was, they would have either absolved themselves of any civilian related SAR because of refusals by ATC to enter CAS or converted their cabs to comply with the requirements. The fact is (and remains) that a SAR cab will be allowed access thru Class D and thru A (occasionally) because it is a medical emergency. They have never been refused over the last 40 yrs.
Secondly, you can't do a procedural approach to a hospital, so you fly to the nearest LZ and transfer the patient by road - so the procedural won't help there.
Thirdly, you can use an ILS (provided it is left on overnight) without an IR under SVFR/VFR conditions anyway.

The proof of the pudding is with the Navy - you don't need a procedural to do mil SAR. (SH as you mentioned earlier is another subject and should not be mitigation to defend PIR in SAR).

[Tourist]

Crab

"I have lost count of the jobs where procedural IF - esp ILS was the only way to either get home or get the casualty to hospital."

Total ****e. Just shows a lack of initiative.

Always makes me laugh when people harp on about procedural IF as if it is something special or required.

The RN Junglie Seakings have always had procedural IF kit and procedural IRs, yet have always been rightly mocked by the pinger pretheren for being frankly rubbish at instrument flying.

The average pinger is at as good a standard of IF flying as anyone else in the forces and manages perfectly well without any ILS/VOR/NDB and seemingly always manages to get where he wants to go, as does the RN SAR force. One advantage of having an Observer rather than a radar operator.

[jimf671]

... statistics may give the appearance that everything is working out fine. It is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of non-aviators. ...

:hmm:

None of the people on the ground at a Kintail location on Sunday were Type Rating Examiner (Helicopter) but they knew that was a PASS. :ok:
"Si vis pacem, para bellum."


... Just seeing the aircraft in the sky and seeing it in the news from time to time will be sufficient to convince some that there has been no loss in capability. Unless a team of sufficiently experienced, independent evaluaters are able to report back on the actual flying capabilities of the aircrew, then this most important of performance indicators will be lost. ...

Yes.


There are probably over 3000 MR people in the UK. Maybe 1000 of those operate in terrain where nobody in their right mind would send a Sea King yet they witness excellent work using this aircraft somewhere in the country almost every week. In an AW189, I expect the same aircrew will be capable of outstanding work, without the compromises necessary when flying our old friend, and therefore with significantly improved flying safety for all of us.

None of those 1000 people are easily seduced by statistics, government reports or authoritative pronouncements. They are led, but they are not commanded or controlled. None of them are being paid and none of them have glorious public careers or ATPL(H) to protect.

My task is to make sure that the guys and girls at this end of the island have the basic understanding necessary to make reasonable informed judgements about their aeronautical support.

If this goes pear-shaped, you'll be hearing from them and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. :E

[merlin_driver]

On a slightly different topic and hoping for some reasoned debate, can anyone flying S92/AW 139 etc explain why it could take 250 hours or more to get used to a glass cockpit? My understanding was that modern helicopters were more user friendly and MFDs made life easier, so why so long to adapt?

I can't tell you about the 139, but I can tell you about the AW101 (AFCS is very similar). In Portugal, we transitioned from the SA330 to the AW101 in 2006/2007. Minimum requirement for captaincy was 100 hrs on type, and this was achieved during a transition period of two years (roughly 12/13 crews, can't remember, we have 3 bases, more than 3 million sq km, we manage to get by).

Everything worked fine (zero accidents or incidents), and no one had any previous glass cockpit experience.

Maybe the most difficult part of my transition to the 101 was getting used to having the AFCS fly the a/c more than 75% of the time (maybe more!), including the transitions to and from the hover, we didn't have that in the Puma. Once you realise that the a/c can do those maneuvers much better (ie safer) than you, on a scary dark night 350 miles away from land, it becomes natural.

I think maybe the 250 hrs has this in mind, the use of more complex auto pilot modes, because if you look at accident statistics, the misuse of the AFCS has been the cause of some accidents in the past (CH149 in Canada, AW139 in Almeria Spain).

But I'm a complete outsider, it's just an opinion. :)

PS: does the Sea King have Auto TD and TUP capability?

[[email protected]]

Oh dear Tourist and TC - so the RAF have procedural IRs, the MCA crews have procedural IRs, all the police and AA have the same yet RN SAR is so special that they just don't need it - Wow, you guys are so tough......or do the pair of you just sound faintly unprofessional????? I trust your attitude is not representative of the RN SAR Force as a whole.

Plymouth Airport (until they closed it) was a prime example where procedural IF was used to get in when the airfield was shut - Plymouth Derriford Hospital didn't have a HLS for Sea King and it is just across the road from the airport.Without using procedural IF to get in the casualty would have to endure a much longer flight to a hospital with better weather conditions. This is just one example and I am sure there are many others across the UK. Oh no I must be talking total ****e again:ugh:

Merlin_driver - yes the Sea King has TD TU autopilot and the 3A has a similar (SN500) set up to the Merlin I believe. You are right about taking a while to get used to the aircraft flying itself better than the pilot but that is why we do so much training with it. The glass cockpit in the 139 isn't so daunting, I found it quite straightforward after an hour or two - it is just a case of knowing where to look for the information you want and adjusting to how it is presented.

[queueaitcheye]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

And to think, I used to wonder why ex-RAF SAR pilots had such a reputation for being prima donnas! I really hope this attitude is confined to just those in their training and trapping system,:hmm:

[llamaman]

Amazing, you don't need to look away for too long before the likes of TC, Crab and Tourist drag this thread back into an RAF v RN v Civvy willy-waving contest and bitch-fest!

On the subject of procedural IRs; surely it's best to train hard and fight easy, if the cab has the required avionics then why not utilise them? Bearing in mind the next generation of SAR aircraft will have a decent icing clearance where would you rather be in foul weather, grovelling around the hard stuff and myriad of obstructions or chilling-out at a safe Flight Level? I've done both and I know what my preference would be, I'm sure plenty of old-school do it the hard way types will disagree though.

[[email protected]]

Yes llamaman, you are right and I apologise but when stuff like Thirdly, you can use an ILS (provided it is left on overnight) without an IR under SVFR/VFR conditions anyway. gets posted it is hard not to reply - once I have stopped laughing!

[Fareastdriver]

The 250 hrs figure may well be an insurance requirement.

[Al-bert]

Llamaman

where would you rather be in foul weather, grovelling around the hard stuff and myriad of obstructions or chilling-out at a safe Flight Level?

Great to be in 'Big Boys' airspace (Crab's descriptor, not mine :rolleyes:) in an aircraft with a decent icing clearance and cruise speed, neither of which the SK is blessed with. I merely found it difficult to accept Myra's contention that it was a worthwhile reason for the SK OCU to be more than twice as long as it used to be.
As an 'old school type', with an ATPL(H) and Proc IR (both lapsed damn, CIVSAR took too long to come!) and having done both (but more of the former) I'd rather be on the ground these days :ok:

[onesquaremetre]

Once more, do the CAA have sufficiently experienced SAR pilots and aircrewmen to fully evaluate the performance of an entire crew?

Recent and extensive experience would be an important requirement for any credible external evaluater.

[Thomas coupling]

Crabby crabby crab crab...who's crabby?
The police don't fly IFR..who told you that. None of the police pilots have IR's except the met.
HEMS pilots might be IR's (because it is a Bond company policy) but don't fly IFR on the job - because they have to get the patient to the nearest hospital from a LZ in the middle of no-where...how do they let down on arrival at scene...IFR? How do they take off from a pub car park IFR?
The only people who use IR's in anger (in the emergency services world) are:
Ferry pilots. Repositioning cabs.
Air Ambulances (not HEMS) from dedicated landing sites to another dedicated landing site with landing aids.
Met police for some CAS flights.
RAF SAR.

Love the analogy re: Plymouth (now shut???). It seems all SAR's end at Plymouth hospital then.....:ok:

What's funny about using an ILS without an IR?

It's going to be interesting, though. Some new Long SAR bases will be on civvy sites, like Caernarfon for instance. So the crew are called out to a sinking ship 100 miles south west of Caernarfon in crap weather. They get airborne OUTCAS Climb to quads, self let down pick up x pax and return to, let's say: Liverpool for an IFR recovery. Land on and stay the night at Lvpl because they can't get to Caernarfon as the rules won't let them. So Wales is without a cab until the weather perks up? :ugh: Glad I had the IR ticket though...got me out of a pickle(not).

What needs to be done for SAR cabs particularly, is for the CAA to authorise the comprehensive use of GPS let downs under CAP999 (when it comes). That'll do away for any requirement to fall back on Procedural IR training, just good old GH IFP.
[Then if/when pilots transfer elsewhere in the company they can bolt on some Procedural refresher course for rig work etc].

[Al-bert]

What needs to be done for SAR cabs particularly, is for the CAA to authorise the comprehensive use of GPS let downs under CAP999 (when it comes).

TC - what's wrong with a radar letdown to 50ft over the sea and hop over the dunes as we always..............oh dear, no RADOP? :ouch:

[SASless]

Al-Bert.....that odd black thing protruding from the nose of the 92.....oddly enough is a Radar. Don't think for a moment it has not been used to do exactly the kind of let down you mention.

Why is GPS paired with Radar....not approved for Let Downs over the Sea now?

Is it the fact GPS is a Yank DOD thing that is the hindrance?

We ain't talking about a Precision iLS replacement here folks....just a let down to Visual with the Oggiin are we not?

[Al-bert]

Sasless......I did know that really :ok: :E

[Hummingfrog]

Al-bert

TC - what's wrong with a radar letdown to 50ft over the sea and hop over the dunes as we always..............oh dear, no RADOP?

I think it is more to do with the rules that civilians have to fly under - once the SAROP is complete and you are just RTU then all the usual IFR/VFR rules apply so no hover taxing up the beach in fog!!

AH - the joys of the Lossiemouth foggy RTU - Radar letdown into the bay - line up with the ILS at 50ft, with RADOP backup, then hovertaxy up the beach find the runway lights and follow them to the turnoff for the flight dispersal. Only hazards were the mad golfers on the course through which the lead in lights were sighted - not sure what the penalty was for hitting a yellow Seaking - lose 1 stroke I suppose:E

HF

[Shackman]

There was certainly a Hunter that discovered the penalty! Martin Baker letdown and ac on the 12th fairway after golf ball went through engine on finals.

[llamaman]

Al-bert,

I'm not sure that the SK OCU became so lengthy due to crews becoming procedularly rated. This was and still is a relatively short phase (mainly sim-based), any SH cross-overs will already have done plenty and the ab-initios do a stack on the Griffin at. Shawbury these days. The OCU became painfully long due to being co-located with C Flight (guess who gets priority?), poor serviceability, and a dogged reluctance to entertain the thought of fast-tracking experienced guys through.

[Tourist]

Wow Crab

I must have imagined all the times we took casualties to Plymouth in IMC

Can't imagine how we did it without the wonders of a procedural IR.


Oh, and you should be careful using words like "unprofessional" when you seem to believe that you should be TUPE'd because the job is the same.

YOUR JOB IS TO BE AN AIR FORCE OFFICER.
DURING THAT JOB YOU MAY BE ASKED TO FLY.

To suggest that your job is pilot/SAR just shows the lack of professionalism of RAF SAR primadonnas. As does the fact that you are leaving just because your happy little easy SAR life is over. Go and do some real work with the SH boys.:=

[Al-bert]

YOUR JOB IS TO BE AN AIR FORCE OFFICER.
DURING THAT JOB YOU MAY BE ASKED TO FLY.


OO Tourist, that's a bit harsh! I believe it might be differant in the Navy. I was commissioned into the GD(Flying) branch, I'm guessing Crab was too. Could have been 'asked' to fly any jolly old kite though - wizard prang! :ok:

[HeliComparator]

On the subject of getting a job in civvy sar and procedural instrument flight, some on here need to bear in mind that to do that you need to be a pilot. To be a pilot you need a licence, and that includes an instrument rating, and that includes the need to be able to fly a competent procedural IF approach. SAR competence is a bit of icing on that cake, not the be all and end all, and no use without the licence and IR. So if you want to be a civvy pilot, best to remember that there is more to it than dangling someone from a piece of string. But I will grant you that it is not just mil SAR guys that have to be reminded of that!

[IFR Piglet]

There.....you've all been told!! Suppose that includes me to :O

Don't think you can fly an IMC ILS to a closed airfield for the purpose of cloud break or recovery, as the system is unmonitored for signal errors. Could be wrong and I'm sure someone will keep me right! :ok:

Pig

[[email protected]]

IFR Piglet - modern ILS are self monitoring and they switch themselves off if there is any degradation of the signal. There will be a panel of lights in ATC that highlights if any of the elements are misbehaving but the old adage of 'if it doesn't code, don't use it' applies.

Moderator - I won't respond to Tourist's post despite its tone in an effort to avoid being yellow carded;)

However, I seem to have been flying where and when I was told for the last 31 years, so I think my taking of the Queen's shilling has been vindicated:)

TC - the funny thing about using the ILS was doing it VFR - why? And if you are doing it single pilot, who is doing the lookout???

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: Because if you take off in marginal (VFR) weather and either try to get back in an hour later after the weather has worsened at base, OR..heaven forbid, you go IIMC, the CAA require police pilots who aren't IR, to make use of every safe opportunity to recover to a dedicated landing site like an airfield and if that airfield is marginal VMC, then you have to use the ILS. Can't stay above the clouds all day long can you? I had to mention the SVFR/VFR bit because legally police pilots who aren't IR'd cannot fly IMC intentionally.
I could elaborate, but the bottom line is that Non IR police pilots must in their OPC/LPC, demonstrate an ILS approach.

What's this business about lookout SPIFR??? Where did that come from?
How do all SPIFR pilots do ILS approaches regarding lookout? They are on their own???? They couple the cab and monitor the approach. If "lookout" is what they want to do, then so be it....Don't understand your comment?

To everyone else: sorry to digress from the thread. Crab perhaps we can discuss over a coffee next week.......

[Fareastdriver]

I was going to post a reply based on thirty five years of experience worldwide and including a massive amount of SAR and offshore flying but I have given up trying.

Keep up the bull****!

[212man]

FED - I concurr! Nuff said. Apart from Jesus wept!

[Myra Leese]

FED,

It would seem that you and I might be 2 of the few grown ups on here, if you can be bothered I would appreciate your thoughts. Who knows, we might even get the thread back on track but I won't hold my breath.

Merlin driver- many thanks for your views.

[jimf671]

Watch out guys! I think there are a couple of grown-ups watching. :eek:

[[email protected]]

Myra - please feel free to get the thread back on track but I suspect that until Bristow have an accurate idea of where their crews are coming from, there will be little real information available - save for the usual scuttlebutt and rumour;)

Just waiting now for a pedant to point out it should be 'Bristow has an accurate idea of where its crews' etc

[212man]

I hope Bristow factor in the 10 pilots and 10 rear crew that are coming our way next year.....:ok:

[HeliComparator]

That's interesting - does that mean you are going to have "proper SAR" in Brunei, and does that mean as a consequence you are going to do crew change flights at night?

[212man]

Yes, 'proper SAR' - dedicated primary SAR machine with 24 hour cover. Not sure about night ops yet. Lots of new 'Linkedin friends'.......

[heliminger]

HC,
I would like to think that having an SAR capabillity does not mean that they are going to expose themselves to an unrequired risk (night crew changes). In the the North Sea with the exception of mechanical failures almost every accident has happened at night.
If anyone is sitting doing risk assessments then the night offshore thing is not really a LARP. I am sure one can convince oneself that night crew changes are reasonable, but, with better planning, even in the far north, they can be avoided. How many of us have been in the position that the sea state is too bad to go, then, after dark it improves enough to go. Call me old fashioned but, I would rather take my chances in the daylight.
Best thing to do is let the SAR crew with all their kit and training do the night stuff and let us lesser mortals keep the rest of it as safe as possible.
HM

[212man]

HM, I agree. I think our operating model will echo that!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Is not the price of progress the fact that the entire top heavy edifice and
drastically reduced capability, which the brighter guys designed and got noticed
in, is about to be sh1t canned?


It would have happened anyway, 'top heavy edifice' or not. And how is the capability drastically reduced?



The OCU became painfully long due to being co-located with C Flight (guess
who gets priority?), poor serviceability,...


Not that it really makes much difference to anything (surely this thread is about the future rather than the past?), but your facts are largely wrong. For a start, the OCU isn't 9 months - except for one course just after the move to Valley where severe problems with SKIOS made everything grind to a halt. The course lasts between 5 and 7 months depending on how many students there are, and how many other tasks the OCU has to juggle at the same time.

The flying rate at the OCU is certainly affected by poor serviceability at times, but there are many other factors - crucially, insufficient staff, particularly rearcrew. Other problems include, but are not limited to, weather and restrictions on movements caused by the FJ operations at Valley (noone was in the least surprised that Bristow dropped all the mil bases like a hot brick!).



and a dogged reluctance to entertain
the thought of fast-tracking
experienced guys through.


Please explain how to do this - as in which parts of the course the experienced guys could skip. You are, of course, talking about experienced guys with no SAR background because you're well aware that there are refresher courses tailored to suit those with past SAR experience.

[Al-bert]

TOTD only one of your quotes attributable to me

And how is the capability drastically reduced?

Ops only, no seconds, shortage of rear crew, reduction in training with outside agencies...:sad:

[212man]

This thread must surely by the front runner in the competition for the largest quantity of gob****e in the least number of threads?

[llamaman]

Torque,

You're right, it's all quickly becoming irrelevant but I'll respond anyway.

All recent courses have over-run. For instance, last Jan's finished in August rather than the advertised June! Regarding the fast-tracking of experienced guys; there are myriad opportunities to get them through more quickly, for example is it really necessary for current procedurally green-rated pilots to do two separate instrument flying phases. I would suggest that a full basic IF phase and a separate procedural phase (the same number of sorties as an ab-initio student) is somewhat overkill or is SAR instrument flying more difficult? I think not.

Do you honestly think that a guy/girl who has completed three or more front-line SH tours needs to do exactly the same sorties at SARTU and 203 Sqn as an ab-initio student fresh out of Shawbury? The attitude of the die-hard yellow-hatters who have never done anything other than SAR that it is somekind of dark and mysterious art form is one of the reasons that the RAF SAR force became the unwieldy and inflexible empire that it did. Believe it or not there are non-yellow helicopters out there that can be fitted with a winch, fly in appalling weather conditions, rescue people and are even hovered quite accurately by non-SAR pilots.

It's interesting that Bristow are only stipulating 250 hrs SAR experience for their prospective captains and more onus is being put on overall experience isn't it?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

There has been a decline in recent years but

Ops only,

Not a recent phenomenon



no seconds,


Forced on us by external factors - yet it has proven possible to generate a second crew when needed even after the formal commitment was dropped (in the same way as the MCA guys have done on occasion recently, and like the old days outside the hours when a seconds crew was required).

shortage of rear crew,

Also not a recent phenomenon. What has changed is that we now prefer to admit defeat when we run out of people, rather than doing 48 hour shifts and other work-arounds. I would suggest that the capability of a crew, at a point where some of them had been on shift for 40-45 hours, wasn't much greater than no crew at all!


reduction in training with outside agencies...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif


If some lifeboat units used to get an exercise a month (not something I've seen myself), then a reduction will not have hurt capability that much!

[Al-bert]

Torque - from your response(s) it is evident that you never had the benefit that many of us enjoyed! It's been a long and slippery slope, soon to end, sadly for the best it seems :sad:

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Llamaman,

Having just seen you post, I feel obliged to correct the facts - again, not because it matters to Bristow and the people who will work for them, but because some of the nonsense on here paints some people in an unfairly poor light (and, worryingly, the nonsense appears to be borne of genuine ignorance rather than trolling!). So if I may:


All recent courses have over-run. For instance, last Jan's finished in August
rather than the advertised June!


For a start 203 doesn't advertise finish dates (and hasn't for some time, because of the multitude of factors which affects rate of progress). Secondly, while that course last year did last longer than most, the course immediately before that one started in August 2011 and were all complete by Christmas (Christmas 2011, for clarity!). Thirdly, this time last year, the unit was hit by nearly half the rearcrew staff being grounded due to serious illnesses - this would affect any unit's progress, and sure enough the main OCU course was affected until replacements could be posted in and trained up.


is SAR instrument flying more difficult? I think not.


Probably not, though how much time do SH guys spend hovering in IMC 50' above the water? Of course, it's no harder than any other instrument hover - but there is minimal margin for error. Either way, whether you do all the IF in one go, or in two separate phases, the total time required is the same! The basic IF phase is definitely needed to set people up for the FCS flying; if you chose to get rid of the Proc IF, you would save a grand total of...one week.


Do you honestly think that a guy/girl who has completed three or more
front-line SH tours needs to do exactly the same sorties at SARTU and 203 Sqn as
an ab-initio student fresh out of Shawbury?


No - but very few of the guys and girls coming across to SAR have 3 or more tours under their belts. And most of the recent SH guys' hours have been either in theatre or training to go to theatre; these skills which they acquire, for which I have the utmost respect, don't necessarily prepare them for UK SAR. And there is now a generation of SH guys who have never done some of the core SAR skills (eg decks) because of changes within DHFS.



there are myriad opportunities to get them through more quickly


At first sight, this seems to make sense - yet you offer no examples at all other than the IF which, as I have said, would make little difference. Please pick three examples from your myriad to illustrate your point.

[llamaman]

Torque,

I'm not keen to drag this thread any fiurther away from it's intended path, I think it's abundantly clear that we could argue this one all night long. My point was that there has been ample opportunities for the RAF SAR Force to be more efficient/flexible in their approach to converting experienced crews. Your vehement defence is admirable but symptomatic of a Force that has been very reticent to change with the times. Sad though I am to see the crown jewels being sold to our civilian friends it could be just the breath of fresh air that.SAR needs. A commercial outlook will certainly bring an element of innovation that has been sadly lacking in recent years

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Exactly - we'll have to agree to disagree, mainly for the sake of anyone looking at this thread in the hope of finding out something useful!

You call it a defence, I call it an explanation - there are those in the SAR Force who are resistant to change, but they, like me, are the pond life. The people in exec positions in the Force in recent years are mostly people with eyes wide open, either from a long background in SH (who usually arrive with an understandable desire to shake up the cosseted little SAR world) or from being the best of the bunch in the SAR world - some would seek to change the Force in a genuine attempt to improve it, others for self-serving attempts to get promoted, yet neither group has made much difference. My personal view is that this is more because it's harder to do than it may first appear, rather than solely because the stove-pipers have sabotaged any attempt to change.



it could be just the breath of fresh air that.SAR needs.


Agreed.

[[email protected]]

A commercial outlook will certainly bring an element of innovation that has been sadly lacking in recent years I don't think that is a fair comment, especially on the front-line - the management wheels do turn in predictable and ever repeating circles though and no-one wants to listen to the unpalatable truths of manning and aircraft shortages.

[jimf671]

If it's innovation you want then get hold of the aircrew and some of their management that have made it possible to keep SAR Sea Kings in the air in recent years against the odds, maintained remarkably high standards with old weary kit, constantly developed SH operations in theatre and generally kept the whole show on the road and kept smiling.

If you expect the same innovative approach from Southampton or Abbey Wood then I fear there may be some disappointment. We've already had the KPI conversation on here and getting those numbers in the right boxes and on the right colour of paper could easily be what becomes important if the normal pattern of public procurement prevails.

[llamaman]

Crab,

Don't take it personally. I'm not talking about innovation at the coal-face, that has always been there through the need to make things work when all else is against you. I'm referring to innovation at a more strategic level. I don't think many in the military have the first idea how forward thinking [B]some[B] commercial companies can be. Not every Organisations' decision making is driven by senior managements' desire to get promoted every few years.

[llamaman]

Norma,

Innovative and progressive? Really? Apart from being among the last to properly adopt NVGs the RAF SAR Force is pretty much doing things the way it was a decade or more ago. Not necessarily a bad thing but innovative and progressive it isn't.

[HeliComparator]

This thread must surely by the front runner in the competition for the largest quantity of gob****e in the least number of threads?

Yes, and is it any wonder that civvy companies regard recruitment from the military as high risk (except for Bond of course!)?

[Rigga]

Please dont mistake Innovation for Good Ideas. There is a huge difference between strategic management and fleet changes and reactions to shop-floor diffculties.

[SASless]

Night Crew changes are much more dangerous than Day Crew Changes?

Do Airlines operate only in daylight?

I would suppose the Oil Companies might find a way to improve the safety of night operations if they wanted to do so....but probably the cost benefit is such that maintaining the Status Quo is where the cost savings lies.

Why even F-18's land on Aircraft Carriers at night....why should landing a helicopter on a platform be that much harder?

[[email protected]]

10 yrs behind civvy street with FLIR, last in the mil to go NVD. Check lists designed to compete with War and Peace, no GPS back up procedures unlike every other mil flying outfit out there hmmm.... brought in FLIR of a significantly higher quality than was being used in civsar at the time; taught RN SAR NVD; checklists!!!!have you ever compared a mil set of FRCs with the equivalent document set carried on a AW139 for example???; how do you mean no GPS back up procedures? we carry 2 hand-held sets and the CDNU and RNAV can be operated on doppler and or VOR/DME and Loran in the case of the 3A.

If you are going to criticise, at least get some of your facts right.

Oh and who was it who drove paramedic qualifiactions leading to the raising of the bar in medical care available on a SAR helicopter???? oh yes the RAFSAR Force

[Thomas coupling]

Prime minister approves of Long SAR contender:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/512063-margaret-hilda-thatcher-rip.html#post7782498

'nuf said!

Crab:

Reading your response to ST, it's agreed then - you don't disagree with each of his facts then? :E

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Why are you all on here bickering. Surely you should be working on your CVs???? Its over - Bristows 1 - Military 0

I agree with 212Man - Never has so much ****e been talked by so few, for so little progress!!!

SAR - Navigating, Searching, Hovering and Hoisting. Is it really all that difficult??

Go Bristows!! The Inventers of SAR!!

[llamaman]

HC

Yes, and is it any wonder that civvy companies regard recruitment from the military as high risk (except for Bond of course!)?

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding military aircrew, I wonder why? If military guys are such high risk it doesn't make sense to me that everyone I know who has left in recent years has secured employment with quality aviation employers all round the world. I agree, it's a different mindset but the vast majority of them make the transition smoothly and have plenty to offer. Bristow will no doubt utilise some of the expertise currently residing within military SAR, to not do so would be high risk indeed.

[Bravo73]

HC



You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding ...

'A' chip??? Don't worry about it, llamaman, HC has many, many 'chips'. :hmm:

[[email protected]]

SAR - Navigating, Searching, Hovering and Hoisting. Is it really all that difficult?? no, but doing it well is;)

[jungliebeefer]

"taught RN SAR NVD"

Might have to pull you up on that one crab .... Mk4 SK operating NVG since 1982 and it was Junglie NVGIs that passed on that expertise to our SAR brethren ....

[Thomas coupling]

Junglie beefer.
Let me see now, I was on hold over as a stude with 826 sqdn (wessex5) Culdrose in august '79 and recall flying in the back of a SK with some crabs flying who were learning low level night navex on NVG. It was the NFSF doing the teaching (either TL or SP).
By george I think the RN were already fiddling with NVD way back then even...spiffing.

[Hummingfrog]

DB

SAR - Navigating, Searching, Hovering and Hoisting. Is it really all that difficult??

I don't suppose you have done any real SAR but SAR isn't a bit like flying in the N Sea which is dead easy when it is sunny, the wind is in the right direction on the rig and you aren't pushing the performance envelope. When it is night, the wind is blowing through the rig or it is light so you are pushing the performance envelope then it is more difficult.

When the visibility is poor, the cloudbase is low, the freezing level is low and there is lightning forecast a deputation troops up to the Senior pilot to suggest you all stay in the Ops room. This is when it gets more challenging and difficult for an SAR crew as they operate in these conditions so yes it can be really that difficult:eek:


Go Bristows!! The Inventers of SAR!!

I think we have to give the title of inventers of airborne SAR to the Navy with its' Walruses etc

HF

[Tourist]

It is astounding how some people think they can just state things like

"taught RN SAR NVD"

and think that they become true!

My @rse taught by the crabs!!

[2papabravo]

This thread is in the gutter.

I am almost tempted to retract my application. Working surrounded this horrendous chat would drive me to distraction.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Humming frog. Thank you for the lesson in Ops Despatch. I have the utmost respect for the SAR crews but was being a bit naughty. Of course all kinds of flying is easy when we are well trained and the kit is good and serviceable.

[Fareastdriver]

This thread is in the gutter

Most of them will be switching the lights out in 2015. However, they will probably still be slanging away until 2026 trying to justify which arm of the miltary should take over again.

[[email protected]]

Tourist - so who did convert and train the NVGIs at Gannet then????Not the RN;)

[HeliComparator]

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding military aircrew, I wonder why? If military guys are such high risk it doesn't make sense to me that everyone I know who has left in recent years has secured employment with quality aviation employers all round the world. I agree, it's a different mindset but the vast majority of them make the transition smoothly and have plenty to offer. Bristow will no doubt utilise some of the expertise currently residing within military SAR, to not do so would be high risk indeed.

In truth mostly pisstaking due to some of the BS on this thread. We have plenty of good guys who are ex-mil. We have a few who have never really left the mil and spend their civvy lives saying "when I was in the RAF/RN we did it like this...", not very good at CRM and always want to buck the system. These guys can be a pain!

[llamaman]

HC

not very good at CRM and always want to buck the system

Sadly, you get them in all areas of aviation. If only there was a system of interviewing/psychometric testing that could weed them out, we'd all be better off!

With the risk of actually getting the thread back on track are there any thoughts on the new basing solution?

[Al-bert]

TC Culdrose in august '79 and recall flying in the back of a SK

79? I see your 79 TC and raise you to '76! My only computer run down in 16yrs WX flying, take off at Bessbrook Mill, section of 8 hooligans down the back, on PNG (anyone remember them?), fortunately missed the rocket fence and trees :E Goggles got much better after that. ;)

[HeliComparator]

Sadly, you get them in all areas of aviation. If only there was a system of interviewing/psychometric testing that could weed them out, we'd all be better off!

With the risk of actually getting the thread back on track are there any thoughts on the new basing solution?

I suppose my particular bugbear with mil pilots is the tendency to want to point-score all the time, as is being well demonstrated in this thread. It does seem to be something in the mil psyche, but of course is very bad in terms of CRM.

[Thomas coupling]

Llamaman: OK new bases:

Pro's:

No MoD landlord to worry about.
No mixed airspace to squabble over.
Build what you like and never worry about a 2nd hand nissen hut with corrugated roofing and no heating.
Can move quickly if the situation changes.

Con's:

Can't IFR home (I follow roads). Can't grub beneath the cloud base and make landfall - CAA watching!
This means for those sites which don't have recovery aids, the cab could be out of position until the weather clears.

Might need their own security precautions - which is costly.

overall - civvy bases are best.

[Al-bert]

HC
tendency to want to point-score all the time, as is being well demonstrated in this thread. It does seem to be something in the mil psyche,


tee hee!:}

[John Eacott]

SAR - Navigating, Searching, Hovering and Hoisting. Is it really all that difficult??

Go Bristows!! The Inventers of SAR!!


RN SAR 60 Mess Dinner (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/512054-rn-sar-60-mess-dinner.html).

:hmm:

:p

[212man]

I envy the Bristow set-up where a properly-resourced training team will be able to train people in new aircraft at locations which don't have two circuit embargoes a day for display aircraft to practice, where fuel bowsers aren't delayed every time because they can't cross the runway, where every other IF approach isn't broken off due to yet another Darth Vader running short of go-juice, where the only serviceable aircraft isn't requisitioned for a whole day for a spotters' photo-shoot etc etc. The future's bright and it's not yellow!

Wash your mouth out with soap and water.......;)

[212man]

I think this thread will end up as the web based 'Bonfire of the banalities'....

Some may need to google that....

[jimf671]

... With the risk of actually getting the thread back on track are there any thoughts on the new basing solution?


OK, llamaman, here are the thoughts that I shared with someone by email earlier.

"Bristow's choice of bases, including a training centre for Agusta Westland AW189 at Inverness, is good for Inverness and very good for Highland mountain rescue. A training centre for Sikorsky S-92 will be located at Stornoway, so all SAR training will be in the Highlands and Islands. However, I and others, with our sea boots on rather than our hill boots, see trouble ahead for North Sea response when the next nearest east coast base to Inverness is Humberside Airport."

[DoobyDoo]

Most SAR crews will be ex mil. Still at some point, with SAR being more and more civilian operated, the military will not be training as many SAR pilots anymore, so how will people get to be SAR pilots in the future?

In the existing programs, who is getting hired? Is it pretty much like the North Sea job market, or much harder to get into?

[HeliComparator]

Most SAR crews will be ex mil. Still at some point, with SAR being more and more civilian operated, the military will not be training as many SAR pilots anymore, so how will people get to be SAR pilots in the future?

Not true, many current Bristow SAR crews including those that TUPEd to CHC are Bristow trained. We are quite capable of training our own crews, although with the sudden expansion coming up this will obviously need to be supplemented by mil crews, but that is a one-off event.

[Fareastdriver]

Can't IFR home (I follow roads). Can't grub beneath the cloud base and make landfall - CAA watching!

When EASA gets there act together and aircraft are allowed to fly GPS approaches to LPV at least the civilian SAR aircraft will have the appropiate GPS fit to be able to carry them out.

[SeaKingDriver]

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread, but am amazed at the surprise some of you display at its descent into the gutter. Any area of discussion involving all of the fraternities, and our respective abilities/future employment was bound to go this way in one form or another! :ugh:

Suffice to say, I think there could be less 'tarring with the same brush' - @r£3holes exist in our field, some walk into an AFCO, and some fork out for their own training... end of dit! :ok:

On a sensible note, has anyone heard any information about the road shows?

Cheers, SKDriver

[onesquaremetre]

This thread can be very informative SKD but when the questions get too difficult, the defenders of the Coastguard faith just clam up.

Do the CAA have sufficiently experienced SAR pilots and aircrewmen to fully evaluate the performance of an entire crew?

Recent and extensive experience would be an important requirement for any credible external evaluater.

This is not a difficult question to answer but there is a deafening silence.

We were told that the CAA conduct external audits of Coastguard SAR but where's the credibility in that if the people doing the checking aren't experienced SAR personnel who can evaluate the capabilities of both pilots and aircrewmen?

I'd like to think that the CAA's team is capable of evaluating all aspects of SAR but no-one will answer the question. From this we have to assume that the answer is that they aren't and this may well remain the case when military SAR is no more. A service to the public will be being run for profit by a private company without a credible external audit to assess its flying capability.

[NRDK]

I believe that the AOC holder is normal responsible to the Authority to ensure that the unit meets the required UK Legal requirements. The CAA audit this.

Internal company procedures are audited from within and the CAA check that those procedures that are within their remit are being met. Company procedures and standards are dealt with by well qualified members of the team. Any issues that do not come up to scratch are addressed and rectified.

I believe that at least one CAA flight ops members does attend a SAR base for continuation training as well as audits and that he has had a previous SAR (civ) background. Enough said.

[Fareastdriver]

Which non-miltary outside agency audited the RN and RAF SAR.

[Lala Steady]

The crabs have SAR Staneval and the RN have RNFS(RW) - not non-mil outside agencies but then the MoD haven't been charged with making a profit out of SAR so there is little conflict of interests. Try being beasted by Flying Standards and there is no box-ticking allowed.

When it comes to a decision between saving money (or maintaining profit) and giving extra training hours to meet a required standard - if there's no external audit to ensure the standard is being met, what incentive is there for a contractor not to tick boxes knowing that no-one is there to catch them out.

Will a CAA examiner take every crew member out on a SAR role check sortie every year? No it'll be left to internal checkers who will ensure that the company meets its KPIs no matter how low the operating standard actually is.

Rumour is that the co-jo slots will be filled by minimum spec, potentially overseas newbies with no SAR experience who will fly for peanuts. If that is true then someone really does need a reality check about how dangerous that will be. That would be like taking all the current co-jos in the mil SAR outfits and replacing them with student pilots who possibly just had their SAR famil. The highest workload in a SAR mission is often the co-jos - nav, radar, comms, monitoring the pilot etc and someone wants to put guys with NO experience in there - what could go wrong there?

Also - who get to fly the gnarly left side on deck or cliff winch when the wind doesn't allow right side on? The low time co=pilot with no SAR skills????/

[bigglesbutler]

When it comes to a decision between saving money (or maintaining profit) and giving extra training hours to meet a required standard

As someone who has had extra training BECAUSE my standards slipped I can hand on heart say that the training standard and thus safety comes first. I know from the outside our Target Zero initiate looks like PR and hot air, but I assure you once in company you quickly see it is more than that. Proof is in the pudding though, put your cv in and get a job and you will see.

Si

[Fareastdriver]

potentially overseas newbies with no SAR experience who will fly for peanuts

Get a reality check, will you. It's not RyanAir that's taking over; it is an established company that was doing SAR professionally probably before you were born. They have, and they will, despite all the tearing of sackcloth and knashing of teeth by several of these posters, be able to carry out this task on the basis of skill and experience.

Plus, they will have some decent kit to do it with.

[Thomas coupling]

NRDK. Well said that man. One squaremetre: The AOC does all the work for the CAA. It's this that is audited not the individual. You can be excused though for not being up to speed with civvy audits.

Which brings me onto Lalasteady - I love that handle by the way...genuinely funny.
However you comments really do leave much to be desired, methinks.
Let me address your 'scorn' in order:
Staneval ARE SAR. Much of what is taught and practiced by the SARF has been either modified or designed by Staneval, so when Staneval (the ONE pilot and ONE crewman:oh:) visit, they are checking not only the individual but that their work is being practiced in reality......a conflict of itnerest I would say.
Again (like onesquaremetre) you seem not quite able to grasp who or what the CAA is all about. The CAA aren't ensuring the company they are auditing are/are not making a profit. They are technical (engineering inspectors) and operational (pilots/crewmen) inspectors. They have only one desire - to make sure the AOC is being sustained ...safely.
It doesn't mean they have to fly with anyone in fact. The company TRE's do this. Now company TRE's can be ramp checked at any time and without notice. It is beholden upon the TRE's/IRI's/CP's of this world to maintain standards and with something as serious as FLYING, do you honestly think there are checkers out there who turn a blind eye to safety in order to tick company profit boxes?? Seriously, do you? Can you imagine the irrevocable damage that would ensue if a compay like Bristow were found to be derelict in their duty due to internal cover ups? It would finish them off as a future contender for any work.
So let's get real where it comes to how and why the CAA function.
PS: They already have civvy SAR pilots in their midst and guess what........all of them are ex mil:oh:

Your final comments aren't worthy of a response.

lalalalalalalalalalal

[NRDK]

Could happen, Bristow used to stick new CPL holders with approx. 250 hours on SAR units a long time ago. The bar has raised somewhat but perhaps not high enough to prevent that again.:O The only thing stopping that will be the level of applications and the 'best judgement' of the HR/recruiting team. Since this is high profile and needs to work, they will choose wisely:ok:.

HRH WW was from scratch with experienced staff, after 2 weeks he was flying in command:} so it is likely to happen in the Civ world too, albeit it will be about closer to 10 years before a low time make command:rolleyes:

The MOD has internal audits for these standards, but at mega billions of tax payers £'s. It should have been under tighter scrutiny by the NAO, perhaps the expensive beast that has been MIL SAR would have been axed years ago:{

Anyway......it has now. It needs good crews, it will get them barring a few numpties that will get in, much like they did into the RAF/RN/Civ world of flying. Probably ok on Non-SAR ops but not really what we want. Hopefully keep HR out of the decision, use good word of mouth and bob's your Uncle! People do get moved on you know:ok: That's why we have audits (closed session chats as well:E)

[JimL]

SAR comes under the direct remit of the DfT and ipso facto the CAA - as do all State (aviation) activities other than the military.

EASA do not (yet) have a dog in this fight.

As with others, I cannot believe the amount of unadulterated nonsense that is being spouted on this thread. If this is indicative of the level of knowledge (of civil aviation practices) possessed by the average SAR pilot, they have quite a lot of catching up to do.

Jim

[jimf671]

Surely the command structures amongst current SAR brands, RAF/RN/CivSAR-CAA are not three different kinds of apple but perhaps a pumpkin, a turnip and a cabbage, so comparing them is no straight-forward matter.

[Lala Steady]

TC - what you are doing is agreeing with me - the CAA inspectors who are supposed to ensure the AOC is being complied with, don't actually fly with the SAR crews - they only fly with the TREs! So as long as you have competent TREs, the operational crews can be crap and the CAA won't know!

NRDK - this is a rumour network and the co-jo info allegedly comes from the contractor:{ Since the DfT placed the spec for go-jos so low, how can Bristows be criticised if that;s what they provide?

[onesquaremetre]

Thomas Coupling and NRDK.

Thank you for your explanations. It does seem though that through the system you describe, the CAA are trusting that the AOC holder will never fall victim to any commercial pressure to keep the service fully manned.

Thomas Coupling

The CAA...are technical (engineering inspectors) and operational (pilots/crewmen) inspectors.

It doesn't mean they have to fly with anyone in fact. The company TRE's do this.

Previous posters have suggested that the CAA conduct flying audits to ensure full operational capability is being maintained. Your first point here suggests that this is done by both pilots and crewmen in the CAA's employ. Yet other posts, including the second one shown above, suggest that this is devolved to company TREs.

:confused: So is it the CAA or TREs that conduct the capability checks? And how can TREs check the performance of the aircrewmen?

[Fareastdriver]

Lal Steady.

You have to understand that Bristow is the leader in the civil helicopter world as far as it's crew training is involved. When the new offshore co-pilots come through the system they have to be mothered for the first couple of months but after that it's a coast. The quality of co-pilots is so good that being an offshore captain is probably one of the easiest jobs in the business. I know, because I am a bone idle sod. There is absolutely no doubt that the training for SAR co-pilots will be of the same standard.

Way back with the S61s there wasn't a lot of equipment on the aircraft so there was not so intensive to carry out the job ie, on a Wessex there was only one jockey., so low hour co-pilots could be fed into the system without jeapadising the operation, as did the military.

Years and years ago a Chinese helicopter company joined forces with Bristow to start offshore and other flying in China. This was to reassure western passengers that they were in safe hands over the South China Sea. This continued for years even after they had sufficient crew trained to North Sea standards; the Chinese captains gaining CAA licences and flying from Aberdeen. They still required Bristow to stay on because of the standard of training which they thought might slip in it became an all Chinese operation.

For various reasons I will not go in to but nothing to do with aviation Bristow pulled out of China, quite suddenly. I, and three others, were approached by COHC has asked to stay on on OUR T&Cs because they valued the quality of our (Bristow) training so highly.

This we did and to keep me on they moved heaven and earth to keep my Chinese licence going until I was nearly sixty nine. They are now by themselves with the standard offshore work plus the SAR contract in Shanghai and I am proud of what I have contributed to that organisation.

Don't knock Bristow, I may have worked for them but I have seen others in the world and they are the best.

[bigglesbutler]

the CAA inspectors who are supposed to ensure the AOC is being complied with, don't actually fly with the SAR crews - they only fly with the TREs!

Careful, I know of one CAA inspector who used to be a company TRE on a SAR unit and did many of my OPC's, he will take exception at not holding the standard high. He sure as hell held it high for me and others and I don't doubt he has kept it there, quite rightly soo.

Si

[Hedski]

Not so sure about Bristow being leader above everybody else when it comes to training. Maybe in the past but there are others out there far more up to speed and modern in their training, mentoring and attitude towards new and developing copilots.

[HeliComparator]

This thread reminds me of when I first joined Bristow in 1980 as an S61 copilot straight from (Bristow's residential 9 month) flight school with CPL and no IR. Most of the captains were ex mil. Wow, the job was really complicated and these gods did it with such aplomb and style! How could I ever aspire to getting a command.

.... a year or two passed...

And I realised that the job was really pretty easy really, a bit of skill and experience, and a knowledge of the rules and client issues, and Bob's your uncle. So these self-elevated ex mil captains were making a huge meal of a relatively straightforward job and wallowing in their superiority.

Now my sole experience of SAR is doing drums (badly) a few times and once winching a live crewman down onto a ship on a nice day (well I think he was still alive) so I am no expert, and I found it "challenging", but I suspect doing SAR is like oil and gas - yes, really difficult if you don't have a bit of skill and experience in the role, but with some training its really not that hard, especially with the modern kit with rock steady auto-hover, fancy navaids, homers and FLIRs etc to at least be a cojo.

When I joined Bristow, nearly all the trainers were ex mil. Now virtually none of them are. Funny how we still manage to do training without the gracious benefit of ex mil trainers! It aint that hard unless you make a huge meal out of it!

ps there were of course exceptions and we had some great ex mil guys as well, but at the time they seemed to be in the minority!

[Rigga]

Nicely put, HC, absolutely correct.

[Al-bert]

HC said

Now my sole experience of SAR is doing drums (badly) a few times and once winching a live crewman down onto a ship on a nice day (well I think he was still alive) so I am no expert, and I found it "challenging", but I suspect doing SAR is like oil and gas - yes, really difficult if you don't have a bit of skill and experience in the role, but with some training its really not that hard,

oh dear HC, hope no-one ever needs your help around the 'back of the Ben' on a dark n stormy night! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

btw when is flying to a rig really difficult (yes, I have - frequently)

[HeliComparator]

Al-b I'm sure no-one will, because as I said I am not a SAR pilot. Do you have difficulty with reading?

[[email protected]]

HC - sadly, though I value your knowledgeable posts elsewhere, your view of SAR is typical of many who haven't actually done any of it.

The majority of SAR jobs are straightforward but a significant minority do require a skillset above and beyond basic hovering.

The auto hover is no use to you when the boat you are trying to get the winchman on is bouncing around in 40 plus kts and 5 metre seas (especially in the dark) - nor when you are holding max power to combat downdraughting and turbulence against a cliff face whilst the winchman extricates a badly injured climber from the mountains.

Inland/urban SAR can be equally challenging as those who have been to the major flooding incidents in the last few years can tell you and if you think the co-pilot's job in any of these conditions is easy then you really ought to have a go.

In many situations, the technology and automatics allow you to take yourself beyond your level of talent.

Those, like Al-bert, who have been there and done it, know that critical situations are not the place for inexperience because it can go wrong so quickly.

Yes, we have new boys and girls in the LHS but a. they are very well trained and tested (both as handling ad non-handling pilots) and b. that inexperience is highly diluted across the SAR Force.

If what lala rumours is true, the whole of the UK SAR force (or a very great proportion of it) would suddenly have LCR co pilots with next to no experience of helicopter flying in general and SAR in particular right across the board. Now tell me that is a safe strategy.

[Fareastdriver]

co pilots with next to no experience of helicopter flying in general and SAR in particular

How do you get the experience?

[Hummingfrog]

In my time on the Seaking, (swing the lamp) co-pilots were passed out of SKTU as fit to fly the a/c as captain during training sorties. This meant that once they had passed squadron acceptance then they flew all their allocated training hours from the RHS and signed for the a/c as captain. The on shift "operational" captain flew in the LHS and let the "operational" co-pilot get on with planning and flying the sortie with minimal interference. This allowed the co-pilot to develop not only handling skills in the RHS but also captaincy skills under supervision.

As the co-pilot gained experience it was in the remit of the "operational" captain to allow the co-pilot to fly, but not captain, simple SAR sorties from the RHS, this was particularly useful if a scramble was activated during a co-pilots training sortie. This allowed a gradual introduction to being "in charge" during a SAR sortie

Will this be the case for Civ SAR or will the co-pilot remain in the LHS at all times?

HF

[HeliComparator]

Crab, as I said I've done just enough SAR training to know that SAR requires its own set of skills and without adequate training, its a very difficult job. With adequate training, its a job like any other (well, maybe a more interesting one at times if you can stand the hours vegetating in the crew room!). When Bristow had the northern SAR bases its funny how we managed to train numerous copilots, many of whom are now very experienced SAR commanders.

The only major crash I can recall was when an ex mil up-himself commander managed to reverse an S61 into the sea. He was the type who thought that his copilot should be seen and not heard, an attitude inherited from the mil that I'm glad to say we have totally stamped out a long time ago.

All I am saying is that its just a job that, like any other aviation role, needs adequate training, but there is no myth, mysticism nor magic about it, you don't have to be a god to do it. In fact, am I not right in thinking that at least for the RAF, during initial training the hotshots go to fast jets, the also-rans go on to helis? So not exactly the cream of the crop!

HF Bristow have sensible command progression schemes - why would you imagine that we would keep a copilot in LHS copilot role for years, then suddenly expect him to become captain over night? Rather daft question if I may say so!

[Al-bert]

HC In fact, am I not right in thinking that at least for the RAF, during initial training the hotshots go to fast jets, the also-rans go on to helis?

not exactly HC - I know at least one pilot who never made Capt on Sea King but who then went on to Tornado, and I also know another who never made CR on SH but went on to be a BAH Captain.

All I am saying is that its just a job that, like any other aviation role,

no, it also needs guts and dedication to really do it properly. I'm sure that many folk at Aberdeen have that quality but far too many of the ones that I met there were interested in one thing only - their pay packet. :=

[HeliComparator]

no, it also needs guts and dedication to really do it properly.

You are surely forgetting telepathy, psychokinesis and the ability to turn water into wine (for the bar after the mission of course).

Or to put it another way, you typify my concerns!

[industry insider]

Hmmm, I have pretty well kept away from this thread as the quality of much of the debate is lacking. But now, I can't help myself.

HC and Fareastdriver, I agree with you both completely. Plenty of Bristow HP Co-pilots went straight from ab initio training to SAR roles on the S-61 and are now experienced Commanders.

HC The ex mil up himself commander you refer to ended up working for me....until he had to go because of co pilot and customer complaints, I think he scared the passengers and I know he scared the co pilots....all that military superior training eh?

The notion that you have to be military trained, possess superman like skills and be a superior Sky God to be a good SAR pilot is just laughable. Those that attempt to join Bristow with that attitude are destined to spend some time at the local Job Centre.

[Al-bert]

The notion that you have to be military trained, possess superman like skills and be a superior Sky God to be a good SAR pilot is just laughable. Those that attempt to join Bristow with that attitude are destined to spend some time at the local Job Centre.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=7786208)
I don't think anyone has suggested that, certainly not I, since I was an advocate of civilianisation of UK SAR back in the mid '80's and almost joined Bristow in '86 (with job offers from Bond and BCal too!).
Just that it takes a bit more interest in 'the job' than 'how big a house and how new a car I've got' which was usually the topic of conversation in Aberdeen when I was there. There seems to be a bit of 'chip on shoulder syndrome' from a few civvie posters. HC? :hmm:

[Hedski]

I think it's fair to say there are pro's and cons on both sides. Of late it has been noted that the most recent mil turned civ SAR and offshore commanders display exemplary CRM and an even better attitude toward copilots wishing to contribute and progress than many a HP graduate. Whilst true that ex mil commanders of old sometimes had a horrendous attitude I can say from experience that the same still exists within the large helicopter companies in the offshore and SAR games but is now perpetuated by non ex mil people who seem to make the point that they suffered in the past therefore everybody else should have to. Indeed the most arrogant and condescending in my experience all came from a pure civilian background so it works both ways. Knowledge is power and all that.

As for qualifications and experience the only worry to me is where those of distant previous S61 SAR experience, sometimes only as P2, get parachuted into positions as their offshore experience, while beneficial, and previous SAR time are believed to suffice for currency and type experience. The game has changed a lot and the goalposts have moved a long way since Bristow last conducted SAR in the UK or Ireland. It is certainly a far more intricate and complex task with modern technology and capabilities than the relatively simple days of the 'sticky bun'.

Devils Advocate.....:E

[meanttobe]

Bristow have picked up 6 P1 Sar commanders from CHC Ireland. The 6 worked for developing assets on the CHC Ireland transition team. All are ex RN & RAF Sar commanders with civil SAR and IR rating to boot. Bristow will be supplying them with S92 rating and give them the required hours via O&G flying before they go on the UK SAR contract.

CHC Ireland will also have at least 36 S92 qualified pilots by tie end of the year. Some with an eye on possible employment with Bristow.

[HeliComparator]

Just that it takes a bit more interest in 'the job' than 'how big a house and how new a car I've got' which was usually the topic of conversation in Aberdeen when I was there

That might be fair comment for those crews involved in oil and gas crew change, but to presume that those same people, when given a more interesting task such as SAR, would exhibit the same behaviour is I think wrong.

[Hummingfrog]

HC

I not right in thinking that at least for the RAF, during initial training the hotshots go to fast jets, the also-rans go on to helis? So not exactly the cream of the crop!

No you are not right I think that is a typical "civilian, chip on shoulder remark!":ugh:

During my training they were looking for flying ability foremost - my course started with 16 - all of whom had been through the UAS system so were assessed as able to fly - but 8 of those got chopped as not making the grade once the ability to operate, rather than just fly, an a/c became of greater importance. So nobody was an also ran as you quaintly put it. The assessment for allocation to future roles was then made on 2 accounts - ability to fly and ability to operate as a captain as soon as one reached a Squadron. Those who had good captaincy skills went to single seat FJ and helicopters as at that time all RAF helicopters were single pilot. Good captaincy skills were essential as even as a first tourist one could be working alone and away from supervision be asked to do all sorts of tasks by the Army!! I arrived on my 1st Squadron as a Captain with approx 290hrs.

RAF selection and training was tough and you only got through on ability so your childish "also ran" comment perhaps reflects on you rather than contributing to the debate.

HF

[HeliComparator]

No you are not right I think that is a typical "civilian, chip on shoulder remark!":ugh:

During my training they were looking for flying ability foremost - my course started with 16 - all of whom had been through the UAS system so were assessed as able to fly - but 8 of those got chopped as not making the grade once the ability to operate, rather than just fly, an a/c became of greater importance. So nobody was an also ran as you quaintly put it. The assessment for allocation to future roles was then made on 2 accounts - ability to fly and ability to operate as a captain as soon as one reached a Squadron. Those who had good captaincy skills went to single seat FJ and helicopters as at that time all RAF helicopters were single pilot. Good captaincy skills were essential as even as a first tourist one could be working alone and away from supervision be asked to do all sorts of tasks by the Army!! I arrived on my 1st Squadron as a Captain with approx 290hrs.

RAF selection and training was tough and you only got through on ability so your childish "also ran" comment perhaps reflects on you rather than contributing to the debate.

It was a question, not a remark, and you give a different answer from the one I got from Al-bert (who implied that my suggestion was correct with a few exceptions) so perhaps it is you who has the chip?

Whether or not I have a chip really doesn't matter since I already have a job with Bristow, Bristow already has won the SAR contract, defined it training programmes etc etc. The question of chips is rather more significant for those who may be seeking employment with the UK's soon-to-be only SAR provider.

I am not in the "SAR division" so probably of no consequence to me personally, but I still have a slight dread of a large influx of SAR gods with superiority complexes who will exhaust themselves saying "we should do it like This - as we did in the military" and pouting and sulking when they don't get their way, rather than just getting on with the job as defined in Bristow's SAR ops manual. Hopefully I am quite wrong, but it is the tone of some contributers on this thread that makes me think otherwise!

[Al-bert]

and you give a different answer from the one I got from Al-bert :mad: can you not read HC, subtlety not your strong point? :=

[meanttobe]

BRS latest update on UK SAR. Might answer some of the rumour mill stuff:ok:


http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTc5NDA4fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZ T0z&t=1

[HeliComparator]

Al-bert - yes, I can read that you said my suggestion was not exactly right, and cited two examples where it was wrong. Not exactly right means to me, generally right but not in every case. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you should write more clearly? Communication is so important in SAR, or so they tell me! If your message was intended to be sarcasticly contrary to what you meant, again I would say that is not a good way to communicate in professional aviation.

[Hummingfrog]

I am not in the "SAR division" so probably of no consequence to me personally, but I still have a slight dread of a large influx of SAR gods with superiority complexes who will exhaust themselves saying "we should do it like This - as we did in the military" and pouting and sulking when they don't get their way, rather than just getting on with the job as defined in Bristow's SAR ops manual. Hopefully I am quite wrong, but it is the tone of some contributers on this thread that makes me think otherwise!

Again perhaps you are showing your chip with the term SAR gods with superiority complexes:ugh:. What evidence do you have for this SAR god mil pilot you seem to want to tar every SAR mil pilot with?

When I left the RAF to fly in the NS I found it enlightening to see that I was only wanted as a pilot no other duties were required. I didn't feel the need to change the way they operated!! I couldn't even be a crusty old captain as the first ten years of my time on the NS I flew single pilot;)

I have no interest in who has got the contract as I am now retired and even if I was still flying in the NS I wouldn't want to go back to SAR - it is a younger man's game - once I started wearing glasses the thought of trying to peer through a rain and salt caked windscreen while trying to formate on a wildly pitching deck wasn't my idea of fun. I'd rather be sitting on an oil rig watching Sky TV before picking up the "lads" from an unmanned platform at the end of their shift:ok:

With want now appears to be a huge number of people wanting to go SAR will Bristow start a new business unit with new payscales that disengage the salaries from those paid to oil and gas pilots? I would:E

HF

[HeliComparator]

HF - my chip, as I mentioned, is not relevant and anyway I am more of a frites man.

My evidence that we have in the past recruited some SAR gods is my personal experience, admittedly some time ago. My evidence that the SAR gods still live, is this thread!

New business unit with lower payscales? Well it would make sense only in the short term for new recruits. Those lining up to go across to SAR from O&G would think again, and in the longer term it would make it very difficult to recruit from oil and gas into SAR once the eflux of mil sar was depleted.

[Al-bert]

anyway I am more of a frites man. spelling a challenge too HC? :E

Like Hummingfrog, I too am retired and don't care who gets the contract. I'm all for Civ SAR and wish the boys and girls (some of whom will undoubtably be sar gods/godesses) all the very best of luck for the future :ok:

ps I was once likened to a Jedi, not a God as such! ;)

[HeliComparator]

spelling a challenge too HC
Not so far as I am aware. Perhaps you are referring to frites and not familiar with the word?

[Hummingfrog]

HC

in the longer term it would make it very difficult to recruit from oil and gas into SAR once the eflux of mil sar was depleted.


Why would you have to recruit from oil and gas? Once the SAR contract is up and running I presume that wastage would be low as, unlike the military who tend to spend 3yrs in one location before moving on either by promotion, rerole or retirement, pilots would stay in SAR for some time.

The wastage caused by retirement would then be managed by promoting co-pilots to captain and then recruiting new co-pilots who would be put through the Bristow equivalent of SARTU before being allocated to a base. There would be no need to recruit from oil and gas so salaries can remain lower than oil and gas and more profit can be taken by head office;)

HF

Al-bert - I think he means pomme frites - those things from the bratty wagon we used to smother in mayo.:ok:

[Bremen]

Rotorhub April/May . Editor piece on SAR Contract award.


In a move that will be watched closely by other government
agencies around the world, the UK has moved ahead with plans
to privatise SAR services across the country.As we report this issue in the news pages, the UK Department forTransport (DfT) announced the award of the £1.6 billion ($2.4 billion) contract to Bristow Group, bringing an end to military involvement in the SAR arena. Bristow will now provide a fleet of new S-92s and AW189s to operate from ten bases across the country from 2015 to 2026.
The knee-jerk reaction from some sections of the wider UK media was as predictable as it was amusing – painting the move as a US corporate giant doing Prince William, a flight lieutenant who commands a SAR crew at RAF Valley in Anglesey, North Wales, out of a job (one television
correspondent helpfully informed us that ‘there are two types of Sea King helicopter: one is yellow and one is red/grey’).
I am certainly not a fan of privatisation for its own sake, especially when it comes to critical national infrastructure, but the announcement should be regarded as a positive development for the UK as it looks to life beyond the Sea King from 2016. While the smaller internal capacity of the AW189 in particular has been seized on by some, the capabilities of the new aircraft, including increased speed and modern avionics/flight control systems, will make life a lot easier for pilots on more demanding SAR missions.
Certainly, the question of whether the ‘ethos’ surrounding the SAR mission will change once civilian crews take over from the military is an emotive but valid one. However, there is no doubting Bristow’s commitment or expertise in the SAR arena, any more than there would have been if Bond or CHC had secured the contract.
For a feature published in this issue, Matthew Smith spoke to many of the operators providing SAR services for government and oil and gas customers (before Bristow’s latest success was announced), and their dedication to the SAR mission is clear. Bristow itself, which had a long British heritage before being acquired by Offshore Logistics in 1996, has been providing SAR services in the UK since 1971. This includes more than 15,000 missions, during which more than 7,000 people were rescued by company-operated helicopters.
With the AW189 slated to be built at AgustaWestland’s UK facility in Yeovil, Somerset, the contract will help shore up the helicopter manufacturing capability resident in the UK. The DfT has also done well in putting the previous botched privatisation attempt behind it in awarding the contract.
For those who weren’t watching, the earlier SAR-H programme was abandoned after allegations that a former member of the joint Ministry of Defence/DfT integrated project team had assisted the Soteria consortium in its bid preparation by providing access to commercially sensitive information.
Losing the preferred bidder status effectively amounted to a £6 billion penalty for Soteria team members CHC, Thales and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The delay caused by the SAR-H drama did not remove the simple fact that the Sea Kings will reach the end of their working lives in 2016. Handing the keys over to Bristow will allow the military, which is itself increasingly being squeezed by reductions in staff and cuts to equipmentprogrammes, to focus its attention on frontline duties.

[SeaKingDriver]

meanttobe and Bremen,

Thanks for the useful and relevant posts, I had almost lost hope!

SKD

[Al-bert]

Al-bert - I think he means pomme frites

naturlich :E

[Bremen]

Again people starting to say the right things about UK SAR

Civilian flying rules relaxed for Bristow search and rescue service deal - Scotland / News / The Courier (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/civilian-flying-rules-relaxed-for-bristow-search-and-rescue-service-deal-1.82554)

[Norma Snockers]

BRS latest update on UK SAR. Might answer some of the rumour mill stuff

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1


Thanks for this, the slide about managed transition and how it is a legally binding agreement is especially interesting and somewhat goes against what Baldeep has been saying :)

[llamaman]

So the CAA are happy to relax their rules where it won't cost them any money (weather limits) but not where it will (licencing)?

I know everyone that has already paid for and jumped through the hoops for their ATPLs and IRs will disagree but it's a real shame that the MOD at every recent opportunity, and transition to SAR-H was probably the best, have not pushed harder for a decent set of exemptions for military pilots.

[Rigga]

Okay, so it's off topic - but I just had to quote this from the Bristow briefing...no doubt quoted from elsewhere:

"SAR is not a front line activity, so the UK government is able to release people back to the military".

So...which rear-echelon personnel hasn't got DPM's?

[hot_spud]

I agree. The thread seems like its getting back on track and providing a more useful debate and fact sharing thread.

I do wonder how the experienced current mil SAR guys are going to be able to get S-92/AW189 experience before they can be Capts at same time maintain SAR cover (crew levels)? ala Managed Transition.

Maybe these guys will have to accept Copilot slots and play catchup, hoping for natural wastage and Capt slots becoming available a few years down the line?

I am not under the illusion that there will be lots of immediately ex-mil SAR guys/girls getting the jobs but I would expect, a hand ful? So even 1 or 2 from each SAR Flt released 'early' to get S92/AW189 experience on oil & gas, for eg, will hurt manning of the flts, a lot, and go against Managed Transition (MT) philosophy. In summary, I guess I'm concluding that MT might have a huge negative effect on the mil guys in otherwise good positions to join Bristow SAR UK.

Ideas welcomed?
HS

[llamaman]

HS,

Spot-on with the 'elephant in the room'.

To my eyes MT has really been devised strongly in favour of military manning to somehow maintain control over the exodus (however small or large) and therefore maintain flights on-state until endex. Bristow can call all the shots, they are essentially free to recruit whom they like so long as the DfT contract requirements are fulfilled. There is nothing to stop anybody who holds a licence PVR'ing and negotiating on their own terms with Bristow. The 'mutually agreeable PVR date' relies totally on an individual's loyalty to the MOD. IMHO MT doesn't appear to be robust enough to guarantee a smooth transition to SAR-H which is surely what it's one and only purpose was meant to be? I'm hoping the Bristow road-shows will prove me wrong but I'm not holding my breath.

[Pink Panther]

Yes, thanks meanttobe and Bremen for the links:ok:, thats just what I was looking for. I was starting to get tired of the willy waving competiton that has been going on.:E

[[email protected]]

There is nothing to stop anybody who holds a licence PVR'ing and negotiating on their own terms with Bristow. 2 problems with that statement llamaman - firstly, we have been told that Bristow won't employ people who do exactly that (if one had already PVR'd prior to contract award that might be different) and secondly mil manning can hold on to anyone who PVRs for a minimum of a year and have the ability to extend that in the interest of the Service.

Additionally, the flying pay and pension hits that those not on PAS will take if they PVR may also sway many.

It is in the greatest interests of both sides that the managed transition works.

Interesting thoughts about lower pay scales for SAR than offshore - what will stop low time pilots taking the co-pilot slots, getting their type rating, IR and time on type before departing for oil and gas and rock-star wages?

The same could be said of anyone going in to SAR in the next few years - if the pay isn't right, there will be an exodus to where it is better giving a constant dilution of experience and a higher through-life training cost (which is expensive) for the contract.

The Bristow name has a lot of credibility in UK - some American business practices do not - let us hope that the desire to make money does not outweigh the need to provide the quality SAR service everyone is expecting.

[jimf671]

... before departing for
oil and gas and rock-star wages?
.
.
This is where engaging fully with Managed Transition makes huge sense for Bristow.
.
.
What have you given up to keep doing SAR and to fight for SAR standards and kit? Make that leap out from the page and the job's a goodun.

[NRDK]

Those (non TUPE) joining UK SAR without a type rating will be under a bonding agreement to Bristow(normal company procedure UK wide with all operators)
. After that has expired they are free to move to UK oil & gas with who ever they want to. If UK SAR is a different BU within Bristow, then that may not be so easy in terms of T's & C's (as is the CHC problem).

With BSP setting up SAR 2014, Bristow & CHC stand to lose up to 20 SAR qualified crew. However some Northern UK/Ireland crew waiting patiently for a UK base of choice may stay for that rather than the Far East and not miss the boat back in the UK. After a stint with BSP, it will be only the less attractive UK SAR bases open to those that return on completion of their time there. As 212man mentioned..the timing for Bristow has come at an unfortunate period. The great news being this healthy need for crews everywhere is great for terms and conditions.:ok:

[ShyTorque]

I see no mention of the age limits - bearing in mind they are asking for ex-military crews to apply. Anyone seen info on this?

[Thomas coupling]

It's against the law to mention age for recruitment/retirement. The only limit is Captains can't be captains after 60. A CAA/ICAO limit I believe.

[farsouth]

The only limit is Captains can't be captains after 60. A CAA/ICAO limit I believe.

Is that some SAR specific rule I have never heard of, or are you confusing it with the fact that a Captain aged 60 or over cannot fly with a co-pilot who is also 60 or over - i.e. ONE of the crew (Captain OR co-pilot) must be under 60

(I spent many hours flying as co-pilot on the North sea with Captains who were between 60 and 64 years 364 days old........)

[meanttobe]

Along with the presentation posted yesterday please clink on the link below. This is a webcast from Bill Chiles CEO Bristow along with commercial and ops directors. This webcast deal entirely with the UK SAR contact win, its over 3 hrs long with some safety stuff at the beginning. Again it may fill in some blanks and put pay to some rumour and BS.

Bristow Investors ? Event Details ? BRS ? bristowgroup.com (http://ir.bristowgroup.com/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=91226&eventID=4935803)

[ShyTorque]

The rules about age differ depending on whether or not the role is classed as Public Transport. A full career military retiree will be aged aged 55, or possibly slightly older. Hence my question.

[HeliComparator]

ST the rule for public transport is that you can be captain up to 65 for multi-pilot ops, provided the other pilot is less than 60. For single pilot ops its 60 but that is not relevant for SAR. I can't see the company being able to put any other upper age limit on it, that would be discrimination on the grounds of age - illegal. However I suppose if you were 64 they would probably try to wriggle out of giving you a type rating, which is not unreasonable law notwithstanding.

[High_Expect]

An observation from over the fence chaps if you don't mind. Why does this Managed Transition make any sence for Bristow? A mate who recently attended and interview for a SAR captains role said the place was full of ex mil American and Canadian SAR pilots. Why would a commercial company want to give a speaking chit to the RAF over who they recruit. This is a commercial world chaps and they will make there own decisions based on meeting contracted obligations with minimum costs ( the contract states the experience minimums I believe - 500hrs on type being the main one for captains) don't believe everything manning tell you - you make your own destiny!

I would put £10 on the fact Bristow know nothing about this "managed path" Bristow need full manning and trained (500hrs on type) aircrew ready for the midnight handover. When the ship is full it will set sail without you.

[High_Expect]

+ would it not be illegal for the RAF to attempt to block an application from a civilian to a civilian company. They can only hold you to more than 12mths under exceptional circumstances.

[snaggletooth]

HE,

it is 'Managed Transition', not 'Managed Path'.

If Bristow know nothing about it why pray tell is there a specific MT application process on the BristowSAR recruitment page?

Conspiracy theorists please desist and let those that wish to apply to do so and succeed or fail by their own efforts, best man/woman for the job and all that.

Good luck everyone.

[ShyTorque]

ST the rule for public transport is that you can be captain up to 65 for multi-pilot ops, provided the other pilot is less than 60. For single pilot ops its 60 but that is not relevant for SAR. I can't see the company being able to put any other upper age limit on it, that would be discrimination on the grounds of age - illegal. However I suppose if you were 64 they would probably try to wriggle out of giving you a type rating, which is not unreasonable law notwithstanding.

Thanks, I'm aware of the rules for PT (I've been working under them for quite a long time) but that wasn't actually the intended meaning of my question. ;)

It was rather about practical age limit if that's more clear, for application.
Is it to be classed as PT? Survivors don't often need to buy a ticket to get a ride in a SAR helicopter.

[High_Expect]

Snaggle I did say I was an outsider. But realistically how do you expect it to work. Don't the mil hold the cover up until a certain date and then Bristow take over the next day? That would mean the Mil need full manning as do Bristow. That doesn't leave a lot of transition to manage in my unqualified opinion. I would hate to see guys having blind faith in a "system" that may be subtly flawed?

Do you work for manning? :cool:

[hot_spud]

The mil guys (and we are talking RN and RAF current SAR) might be aged early 30s upwards. The era of guys of this age poss finish their contracts with mil at aged 38, so if early 30s and they have the hours then prob looking at accepting a lesser pension from mil, or if timing is in their favour, a guy aged 36 now will be out within 2 years and hopefully retain their pension. These are the youngest realistically, then you might get guys who are on a PAS contract and they will be any age from 38 up to 55 (or greater if on continuance). Hope this makes sense?

HS

[[email protected]]

The links that meantobe has posted show Bristow are serious about the managed transition whatever the naysayers may believe.

However, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that any people that are being taken on now with the promise of SAR seats are a contingency plan B in the event that not many ex-mil apply or make the grade.

[ShyTorque]

HS, I have no problem understanding your post; I'm ex mil rotary myself.

[llamaman]

Of course Bristow are serious about managed transition, they have to be but only to make it work from their perspective. I suspect they're not overly fussed about the potential manning problems that the military will have to deal with as crews start to jump the fence. As previously mentioned by more than one poster just how will it work? The military SAR flights have to be suitably manned to maintain UK SAR cover up to handover and Bristow have to be suitably manned to pick up the reins from day one. Something has to give. Despite the handover of flights being staggered I fail to see how military crews of any significant number will be able to depart early enough to make the whole thing work. It's not 'neersaying', just some relevant questioning that merits debate within this forum.

[hot_spud]

ST, ok fair enough. I was just quashing a potential for anybody to assume that the mil guys applying for SAR UK would be mainly 55 years +.

HS

[HeliComparator]

High Expect - presumably your mate was attending for an interview in USA for a job in USA? Ex Us and Canadian mil pilots would need EASA qualifications for UK SAR, something they are highly unlikely to have. Bit of scaremongering?

[charlieDontSurf]

Ok, enough about who will fly, mill transition etc...

Can anyone who has some insight tell me about the conditions planned for the SAR-crews (civ or mil, whoever, it's Bristow now...!)?

-What roster will it most likely be? Is it possible to live some distace away from the base, or do you need to move close by?

-What salary can one expect? I assume it will be higher than offshore CAT? Right? What is a typical salary for a co-pilot in Aberdeen?

-Is it difficult to get a UK work-permit? I personally have standard JAR-FCL (soon EASA I guess) certificates, and live in Norway.

Here in Norway we have many pilots from UK, Germany, Denmark, Holland etc. In my eyes it seems pretty stright forward to work abroad as long as you have the right certificates?

But before someone starts a long thread about foreign pilots, I'm most interested in information about the roster..... :)

[Hummingfrog]

I would be surprised if non EU pilots would be eligible for a work permit for SAR due to the large number of EU qualified pilots available to fill the role. Can you imagine the Sun headline if non EU pilots are recruited and ex mil pilots are not!

Sacked and Redundant
Our SAR boys are ignored by American firm
in favour of cheap foreign labour
by Dick Chopper our aviation consultant;)

I am sure that Bristow wouldn't want to see those headlines in the Sun!!

HF

[jimf671]

The contractor could end up carrying the can publicly for all sorts of things on this contract. It's no wonder that they are carefully managing the public and media relations including using outside specialists.

If there is change that people don't fully understand, and very few understand this one, they will tend to have a go at the most obvious target. In spite of the BIG letters on the side of the aircraft, the contractor is more likely to collect the flak than the customer.

=================

From an MR point of view, some of those foreign or non-EU pilots are welcome in the mix. There is clearly a good variety of pilots across the entire Bristow fleet including some from Norway, or the Alps, or Alaska, or Nepal, for whom mountains are nothing new. Diversity fuels evolution.

It seems to me that it will end up with a good mix. I expect part of this mix will be a large number of Managed Transition pilots and probably even more MT rear-crew. Inevitably, there will be one or two guys who are currently working in SAR in neighbouring territories, who might be Brits or might not. Then a wedge of NS bus-drivers who've always wanted to do this or wanted to return to it. Maybe a few guys and girls from further afield.

If most of them are people who really love doing the job and a few are shekel-counters who are just passing through, and if some have monster log-books and some are relative newbies, then we are in no better or worse place than we are at present.

[onesquaremetre]

How can CAA approved TREs check the performance of the aircrewmen?

Another nil return to a simple question that is obviously too difficult for some. It looks like they can't, which means that 50% of the aircrew will be operating with no form of external verification of their ability (except for their medical skills).

For the pilots, Lala Steady said

the CAA inspectors who are supposed to ensure the AOC is being complied with, don't actually fly with the SAR crews - they only fly with the TREs! So as long as you have competent TREs, the operational crews can be crap and the CAA won't know!

That doesn't seem too wide of the mark either judging by what others have said about the sorties that the CAA may fly on.

So is that not self-policing?

Profit making services to the public that are ultimately paid for by the Treasury must not be in a position to sign themselves up as competent without all aspects of their operation being rigorously checked by an independent external evaluation team.

[Hedski]

CAA FOI's fly with SAR crews as part of their inspection visits. They revalidate the TRI/TRE's separately. Oversight is present and has been since the first dedicated civ SAR unit in Manston in the 70's. Does that answer the question?:ugh:

[onesquaremetre]

It would do if they had recent and extensive SAR experience and were able to check the performance of the aircrewmen.

[jimf671]

From bigglesbutler:
Careful, I know of one CAA inspector who used to be a company TRE on a SAR unit and did many of my OPC's, he will take exception at not holding the standard high. He sure as hell held it high for me and others and I don't doubt he has kept it there, quite rightly so.

Si

Do you think BB might know what he's talking about?

[212man]

It would do if they had recent and extensive SAR experience and were able to check the performance of the aircrewmen.


He does (and still flies regularly with a SAR unit)

[HeliComparator]

Bristow also has its own Global Standards division, a separate business unit who role it is to set and monitor operational and engineering standards throughout the company. This includes crewmen, since a member of this unit is an ex and very experienced (and originally military) crewman. This unit is very independant and not profit motivated, and quite used to making themselves very unpopular when they find something wrong!

So compared to the mil, we have our own internal standards division as the mil do, but we also have external monitoring from CAA, some of whom as has been mentioned, are experienced SAR pilots.

Therefore those ranting about the lack of standards / supervision / checking are talking out of their .....

[onesquaremetre]

How does a CAA pilot check the performance of the aircrewmen? He's a pilot!

Bristow Global Standards = Self-policing. Who will determine that they've adequately replaced the capability of military SAR? That's what should be being reported back to the Transport Select Committee in a few years from now. Of course Bristow Global Standards are going to say their crews are up to the job. Why wouldn't they?

[Thomas coupling]

1m2

Give it a rest now. You've been on this forum for 6 months and never started a thread, just done the armchair judge bit on everyone and everything else.

In fact - you're not even a pilot perhaps that's why you can't grasp the way this industry police's itself? :mad:

[onesquaremetre]

Great answer. One that confirms the fears of many.

[212man]

1m2
How independent are CFS Standards then? Are trappers (or whatever they have now) not internal policing?

[HeliComparator]

Is im2 a journo? I think he and Pitts should get together - match made in heaven!

[212man]

I don't know, but maybe his username gives an idea of how wide his horizons are.....

[snakepit]

OSM
I think the replies you are getting represent the tediousness that everyone is feeling with your groundless argument. Why do I say groundless? It has already been pointed out to you that the success or otherwise of the UK SAR contract will in no way be measured by whether “the winch op” can do drums on one particular day of the year or whether “the winchman” can face forward during decks on a still wind day! Any more than you could accredit the success of otherwise to “the co-pilot” or indeed the “the captain” having a good or bad day during wets or on an LPC. It’s nearly a £2 billion contract and I am sure that there will be sufficient checks and balances to prove to Jonny public and the Transport select committee that things are as they should be.

You accuse contributors’ to this thread of ignoring your concerns but you continue to ignore their replies. Is the current so called "golden standard” SARF (RAF and Navy) externally validated or not! I know the answer to this as well as you do but though it’s been mentioned several times you choose ignore it. The answer of course (for those who don’t know) is NO. So how do you maintain such high standards and how are the public to believe that they are high and not just what your SAR STANEVAL claim (this is the very same argument you are using btw)? Moreover, as your standards are internally validated, how on earth do you propose that any independent organisation (who would not be privy to MOD SARF standards) could measure Bristow rearcrew to see if they could meet your amazing standards?

As you are well aware there is no crewman licensing atm so as with the SARF no external agency or standard exists that crewmen can be measured against! So how on earth does the current military exist and measure its self? I would suggest it’s due to a great deal of professionalism and pride! And you OSM, with your continual ranting on this subject are effectively suggesting Bristow and all civi SAR crewmen have none, and that dear chap is very narrow minded.

So rather than moan incessantly, come up with a valid solution (maybe you could be the CAAs first crewman examiner) or join the other side and use your professionalism to help keep the standards up in the future. Beware though, there are plenty of very professional crewmen already outside so don’t expect to jump in at the top, which I personally think this topic of yours is all about.

[212man]

Snakepit - well said!

[Flounder]

Hear, hear. Well said.

Now OSM can go about setting up his own SAR rearcrew evaluation unit as part of his obsession with high standards that no one but the RAF or RN operate under.

Last chance to answer the question OSM or leave this topic well alone: which external independent agency audits the work you do?

[jimf671]

.. ... the fears of many.

OSM, the fears of the many are usually based upon a position of ignorance. It can be a long hard path drilling down through the mists of time, the rather chaotic unplanned evolutionary nature of previous services, the really cr4p Sea King myth, the obscurations of the SAR workload by incompetent departmental reporting, and the years of highly specialist knowledge and experience that stand between the external observer and the practitioners.

After a lot of time spent asking stupid questions, my conclusions are that the contractor is up to the task (as would their 2 nearest competitors clearly have been) and the CAA is up to the task. In the early stages, I expect the same minor capability droop that one would expect with any introduction of new types.

The customer, on the other hand, continues to be a concern. The customer is the DfT and they are effectively British Rail by another name. They have done a pretty good job of handling the two recent SAR contracts and the specialist help they have recruited has resulted in a good set of requirements. The customer's agent is clearly specialist in Maritime and Coast matters. So there we have specialist knowledge in Rail, Maritime and Coast, yet the overwhelming majority of the UK SAR jobs are Land. That is where my principal concerns about this service currently lie.

I remain interested in the details of other matters such as pilot or rear-crew standards, or aircraft capability and SAR role fit. I cannot fail to be impressed by the highly professional individuals that I have met and communicated with who are progressing such matters.

The DfT and the MCA have two years to notice that this is not same old same old and that the workload on the ten bases is not Portland or Sumburgh writ large. I wish them success.

[snakepit]

Jimf671
We are going to have to stop agreeing old chap! Makes for a mighty boring thread! He he

[jimf671]

We are going to have to stop agreeing

Do you mean the bit about me asking stupid questions? :O

[snakepit]

Yes and me getting you to smash mugs lol

[winchop]

The good news is that the CAA have indeed allocated an individual to oversee Rear Crew standards.
The bad news is he is also the CAA Chief Cabin Crew Safety Inspector. His background is as a flight attendant with no Rear Crew helicopter experience.
When I quizzed him on this, he indicated that the CAA do not deem Rear Crew Standardisation and oversight important enough to warrant it being a fulltime position allocated to an individual experienced in the role.
I hope and pray once the transition is up and running, they realise the folly of such an attitude but I'm not holding my breath.

[jimf671]

Splendid. So all is not lost regarding the demise of the Sea King water boiler? :ok:

[winchop]

Yes, new additions to the Crewman patter....'chicken or beef, chicken or beef!'

[jimf671]

Tell him you have questions about the Welsh version of the safety brief for Caernarfon, the Kernow version for Newquay and the Gaelic version for Stornoway. That should keep him out of the way for a bit.

[snaggletooth]

The good news is that the CAA have indeed allocated an individual to oversee Rear Crew standards.
The bad news is he is also the CAA Chief Cabin Crew Safety Inspector. His background is as a flight attendant with no Rear Crew helicopter experience.

Dear God, please tell me that is a wind up?!?! Have these people really so little understanding of the nature of SAR? Aghast! :ugh:

[snakepit]

No it's not. So for those who wish for CAA oversight. Be careful what you wish for

[NRDK]

Snaggle

Sorry no wind up, tis true:{ But if you feel so highly qualified perhaps you and One Square can apply for a position with them and oversee what has been happening quite well for 25+ years. OSM isn't really welcome in the new SAR picture if indeed he is even remotely qualified to apply.:ok:

[queueaitcheye]

Nicely put NRDK. The current system works and doesn't require any ex-mil self-serving input!

[snaggletooth]

queueaitcheye, an interesting point. Without us how will you man UK SAR? I try to be inclusive and judge people objectively on their merits. Try it one day. Just for a laugh.

[queueaitcheye]

Mil input is fine and most welcome. It is the agenda-pushing that is distasteful.

[snaggletooth]

I have no agenda. I just think it makes sense for SAR helicopter rearcrew to be overseen by someone with experience of that role. If they have no experience they have no credibility, n'est ce que pas?

[snakepit]

Snaggle

The reason you are linked with OSM is that you too seem to suggest that civi (mostly ex mil) rearcrew need some form of validation that only you or he (or a trolly dolly from the CAA) can provide.

Just maybe thats the agenda that queueaitcheye is referring to?

I try to be inclusive and judge people objectively on their merits. Try it one day. Just for a laugh.

I think you and a few others on this thread could do with a dose of your own medicine.

You are needed and will I am sure be welcome if thats where you want your career to go. Just be inclusive of the organisation that you might (MIGHT) be trying to join!

[SeaKingDriver]

Miles Gustaph, could you offer any further insight into the content of the roadshow for us?

Many thanks :ok:

SKD

[212man]

Miles,
Somehow your post ended up in the wrong thread. You posted in the grown up, facts only, corporate knowledge based discussion but instead it ended up in the hysterical, wild ignorance based opinion, Daily Mail letters-esque thread.

Nice post though! :ok:

[snakepit]

212man
Humour? And a suggestion of facts? That's not allowed, wash your mouth out

[meanttobe]

As already stated maybe contributors should educate themselves. I added the BRS PowerPoint link and webcast link in the hope that interested would so just that . However it never ceases to amazes me how this thread can turn into pure BS. In some case some of the contributors only prove that they will not or cannot accept civil SAR but will still try and get a job when the the time comes. It's too small a world .

In relation to SAR crew external validation some of their skills sets may be receive external validation and auditing from the NHS / HPC .

[212man]

This thread would be humorous if it wasn't so full of ill-informed crassness.

[212man]

Meanttobe, thanks for the links - I wish more had followed them! You're comments about how small a world it is are probably lost on some.......!

[meanttobe]

212 agree completely its lost on some. But not lost on the people who have being following this and the original SAR H thread over the years . I'd go as far as saying some of the contributors and their comments may have changed the entire rational about filling the bases with personal directly from the Raf and RN.

[212man]

Quite! There are some individuals who have written themselves (literally) out of the equation. Some have gone very quiet of late.......

[llamaman]

I'd go as far as saying some of the contributors and their comments may have changed the entire rational about filling the bases with personal directly from the Raf and RN.

Somehow I doubt that Bristow's recruitment strategy will be massively affected by what is posted (anonymously) within this forum. For every dim-witted opinion expressed within these pages there are plenty more that are worthy of merit. Bristow will recruit whom they need to fill seats with enough experience to make it all work. Some of them will be ex-military, some won't.

[212man]

What, you think the recruitment strategy will be HR based? You honestly think they will recruit 100 pilots for a SAR contract on anything other than a client based requirement? Gap-SAR will be a test, I think, based on other stakeholders demands.....

[Lala Steady]

Yes, there is some good info on the Bristow web cast and slide show but, since they seem to have nothing to prove, why did they deliberately fudge the comparison of the Sea King with the S92 and 189?

Their slide gives the max speed of the Sea King as 100 kts so that it looks much much slower than the new aircraft. The max speed is 127 kts but at normal operational fuel states it is around 120 kts.

Why did they feel the need to manipulate the stats so unfairly - we all know the newer aircraft are faster, why lie about how much faster?

The range is also quoted as 'above 200 nm' and the S92 as 'above 250' nm with no mention that the S92 needs extra tanks to achieve this figure and the Sea King is actually good for 250 nm at max fuel.

Have they been taking lessons from 'Noo Labour' about spin?

[212man]

GAP SAR is a TUPE job, what recruitment do you think Bristow has to do, maybe one or two people.

They'll need to replace the 8-10 S92 captains we're taking..........;)

[llamaman]

Miles,

If you're aim is to scare people from posting anonymously on a rumour network then your post is most effective. I think that there are very few in the military world who deem it a God-given right to be handed a SAR role with Bristow on a silver platter. Just take a step back from the petty bickering for a moment and imagine how it might feel if you were told that Bistow's Aberdeen operation was being taken over by a new contractor. Imagine you were then told that you had to re-apply for your current job, possibly moving you and your family to a new location, if you failed to get that job the company would move you to another location anyway, possibly not in a flying role. The future for Bristow and civilian SAR is bright and rosy at the moment. The atmosphere within mil SAR is somewhat different, people are a bit nervous and have every right to ask a few questions on PPRuNe. The majority of the posts on this thread have stimulated some decent debate. To suggest people who post in this forum will be black-balled because 'we know who you are' is most unhelpful at this time.

[Thomas coupling]

Seems he's retracted his post?

[llamaman]

Interesting!

[SeaKingDriver]

Just got round to listening to the webcast that was linked on page 22. Lots of good stuff on there, and there does seem to be a real passion for SAR - a real shame our media can't hear it!

The number of applicants they speak about is a bit daunting: 800 with half applying for managed transition! :bored:

SKD

[Fareastdriver]

if you failed to get that job the company would move you to another location anyway, possibly not in a flying role.

If I was a GD officer in the RAF that was what I would be subject too; SAR privatisation or not.

[Lioncopter]

Lala the S-92 at Stornoway is good for over 250nm with no more prep than filling the tanks up that are on board (plus still having some payload left)... Is it the same for the Sea King?

Having never flown one.. Is 120KIAS the typical cruise speed of the Sea King? It's about 140-145 in the S-92 for reference.... Though long range speed is a little less.

Cheers

Lioncopter

[merlin_driver]

LionCopter:
do you carry a ferry tank for very long missions? Btw, what's the longest distance a S-92 has flown in SAR/medevac, does anyone know?
(In Portugal, our longest distance in the Merlin was 380 for a medevac from a ship, and 360 for a rescue.)
Thanks

[Lioncopter]

Yes we have a extra internal tank installed at all times.

Good question... Not sure is the answer... Ill see if I can find out.

Though the longest by time was about 10 hours and over a 1000nm including 2 refuels I think... Again not 100% sure as I was not on the crew that did it.

Though I do realise that's not that much compared to come places. :)

[merlin_driver]

Our 380 miles rescue also had 2 refuels, they did 200+380x2+200, so almost 1200 miles, 12 hours or so, and to the West of the Azores you are literally in the middle of the Atlantic, these are very uncomfortable flights. The 380 leg was made from (and to) an airport that has no VOR or ILS, just a NDB, and the closest viable alternate is 200 miles away.:}

The weather is very bad in the winter (45+ kts, BKN002, etc), but I'm sure not as bad as in the North Sea!

Best wishes from sunny Portugal

[Adroight]

Is Crab on holiday?

[handysnaks]

He's probably going through the Bristow selection process.....

[Hedski]

Merlin,

With BKN002 I don't think Portugal is anywhere near as sunny as the North Sea has been for about the last 2 weeks. Speaking to a few former Sea King pilots 250 sounds optimistic and for max range I wonder what speed the cab is flown at? Also is there much payload left when it's turned into a flying gas can? But anyway no need for a hangup with the fuel on the 92, a 262NM ROA with 30 mins on scene and 30 mins IFR reserve on landing is enough thanks. Could be eeked out if you scoop and run and reduce landing reserve with discretion, might see 300 ROA but wth no proper TOP COVER anymore who's going to come and get you at 300 if there's a problem? Where's that Nimrod gone again? Can my local MP raise a question in parliament re lack thereof?

Can of worms open. End rant. :E

[John Eacott]

I'm going back to a previous life but our ASW SK had 5,300lb of fuel at 1,000lb/hr, and the SAR machines sold to Germany, Norway and Denmark had a full centre tank where the sonar well was, increasing fuel to ~7,000lb. In my book that gives 6+ hours, and as to payload then you will burn off 40% of your fuel to get to the scene: there's 2,000lb at least!

That was with underfloor tanks, which made no intrusion into any cabin or cargo space nor had any extra effect on CoG.

Or don't the current SAR Sea Kings have the full fuel capability?

[[email protected]]

6371 lbs is full fuel on a Sea King 3/3A but you do have to strip out some of the role kit to keep within the 21,400 MAUM. The Vmax starts off low at that weight (105 kts) but quickly increases giving an average speed over a 4 to 5 hour long-range rescue of about 110 kts.

Our standard planning has 30 min on scene, a min landing fuel of 400 lbs and a 10% reserve for contingency and the aircraft will typically land with 1000 lbs.

As far as the S92 goes, perhaps Lala is thinking of when the S92 was originally introduced in Stornoway and Sumburgh without the bigger tanks fitted as standard.

[John Eacott]

Thanks for that: I know we're a bit OT but that helped clear up actual figures instead of some of the guesswork that has gone on!

1,000lbs land on, eh? Luxury! When I were a lad that were s'mthin to dream of, 12 minutes were enough to call fuel state chicken in the port wait....... :p

[merlin_driver]

For longest range, the Merlin does 110 TAS, but that is after you shut down #3 engine, it increases range by 7%, more or less. If you use 3 engines you make 120 TAS, but range is reduced. Our max fuel is around 5000 Kg to comply with MTOW, but we could carry 5300.

Payload ,with unnecessary stuff left on the ground, is enough to carry all SAR equipment, 2 pilots, winch operator + winchman, and because of PtAF regulations we still carry a doctor and a nurse for SAR! Space inside the cabin is not a problem...:E

You won't carry top cover from now on? We always take a C-295 or a P-3 to the longest ones, they fly ahead, identify/search the target and pass the coordinates to us. When the target is small, and the weather is bad, it makes all the difference. We've been averaging less than 30 minutes on top of the ships on the medevacs, and it's only because of this.

Also, I've had a nasty failure in the main rotor 250 miles from land, at night, and we had a P-3 on our wing on the way back, we weren't sure we'd make it, and we were 450 miles West of the other Alert Merlin in the Azores, at 500 feet with no comms, so in terms of safety, it's certainly a plus!

I remember reading somewhere a 300 miles range for the S-92, and looking at your SRR to the North/Northwest there is a lot of open sea, hence my original question.

[SeaKingDriver]

In theory we have a Hercules at 3 hours notice for long rangers, yet to be used I believe. It has just become the norm to go solo... Gets lonely out there!

[pasptoo]

The Coastguard Cessna 404 (?) can be and has been used for similar long range tasking. Always good to talk (or have commas relayed).

Pas