UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread

[Older and Wiser]

Clacton Airfield would be a good solution.

[Vie sans frontieres]

I thought the contract mandated something 'in the vicinity of Wattisham Airfield'. How the hell does Lydd meet that specification?

[[email protected]]

Maybe they used Ryanair's criteria where 'in the vicinity of' allowed great artistic interpretation;)

[Squadgy]

Apologies for the foray into this thread, but it seems the most appropriate place to ask.

Does anyone know how the new SAR fleet will operate in to airfields such as Caernarfon which have no instrument approach?
I've heard mention that GPS let downs will be used - however CAA rules dictate that this has to be overseen by ATC or AFISO (Caernarfon is Air/Ground), and in any case, in the case of Caernarfon there are two pretty big wind turbines on the airfield.

Anyone know ?

[leopold bloom]

Does anyone know how the new SAR fleet will operate in to airfields such as Caernarfon which have no instrument approach?
Easy, internal radar letdown to the coast followed by a short hover taxi over the beach:ok:

[Squadgy]

Sure, I don't doubt the aircraft are capable; it's more the level of ATS being offered that I was wondering about.

[jeepys]

Does it make a difference what they can offer? If the a/c does a poor vis approach/ let down then provided its done properly you don't need ats to give a service.

[The SAR RC]

Looking at Caernarfon's location, a prevailing westerly wind will create difficulties for an aircraft that only has a 120 degree radar and is trying to let down to the coast in poor visibility. The S92 can really bite when transitioning down with a sizeable crosswind component.

[P3 Bellows]

will create difficulties for an aircraft that only has a 120 degree radar



Oh no............ Not the radar debate again. :ugh:

[Thomas coupling]

Squadgy:
If they are coming back as a NON SAR asset then standard GA CAA rules exist.
Thus:
Outcas ClassG: all they have to do is call the ATS and get permission to enter thir ATZ. If no radio manned then simply avoid colliding with any other traffic. For ClassG <3000' this means fly at a speed to avoid crashing with the ground and or other a/c.
IF the wx is particularly pants then divert to Valley with a full ILS.
:)

[TipCap]

Lee-on-Solent has worked without a ATC let down for the last 25 years

[The SAR RC]

P3 Bellows


It wasn't a point for debate, merely a statement of fact.

[The SAR RC]

Bidders were required to nominate locations in the vicinity of current SAR flights such as Wattisham but alternative locations were acceptable to the DfT if bidders could demonstrate no overall increase in average response times to incidents throughout the UK.


Bidders had to reach all very high and high risk areas and 75% of the medium risk areas (as defined by the UK SAR Region risk profile map) within 60 minutes of take-off. The DfT used a complex 'Vicinity Tool' to verify evidence for alternate locations.


One has to assume that by moving from Manston to Lydd, Bristow are still able to achieve this, otherwise they would be in breach of the tender requirements.

[[email protected]]

And that '60 min after take-off' was where the fudge that allowed a 10-base solution came in.

The criteria should have been 60 min after being scrambled which would have been much more realistic and acceptable.

We always aimed to be airborne inside the RS (15 0800 to 2200 and 45 2200 to 0800) but those Dft figures allow up to 45 mins after scramble and then 60 mins airborne (at 140 to 150 kts) which means that in some areas, the casualties will be waiting for a long, long time before they get their helo.

When everyone saw the 60 minute criteria, they all assumed it was 60 mins from call to arrival and that allowed the 'fudge' to be accepted.

Sadly, members of the RAF helped do this to ourselves = lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Vicinity model or no vicinity model, a six year old child could look at the map of the new SAR locations and tell you it was seriously imbalanced. Where once the North Sea coast was covered by the likes of Manston, Coltishall, Leconfield, Leuchars and Boulmer, according to the vicinity model these lighting quick new aircraft can now cover the whole lot from Humberside. Do be serious DfT.

[jimf671]

To be fair Vie, that six year old probably hasn't looked at the risk level map. This is the first entirely planned such service and the DASA stats for current east coast bases tell their own story. However, I accept Crab's analysis of the timing fudge and a 150 knot aircraft doesn't do 150 when hover taxiing through the snow. Lydd does seem like a step too far.

[Sevarg]

Has Lydd been named, apart from on here as the alternative? Southend would not be out of the frame, though I can see that to have one on the Dover narrows isn't a bad idea.

[Pol Potty mouth]

The basing solution is indeed starting to look very sketchy for the east coast.

As a wider issue, however, I would suggest that the basing solution has always been a complete fudge. I think that the concept of using historical job data was a flawed concept from the start. Helicopter SAR bases will always create their own little hot spots in the local area. Who else remembers Leuchars closing as a SAR Flight? There was much grinding of teeth about 'who will do all those jobs in the Firth of Forth now as Lossie, Boulmer and Prestwick will take too long to get there?'. Well, how many jobs get done by helicopters in the Firth of Forth nowadays in comparison to when Leuchars was there? Not many.

I raised this with the female civil servant who was running the SARH competition (I can't recall her name nowadays) and she was unwilling or unable to grasp the point; the concept of using historical data was clearly ingrained in the process.

The opportunity to start with a fresh sheet of paper and create an innovative and effective basing solution was lost many years ago, and the birds are now coming home to roost on this issue.

[jimf671]

The Leuchars point makes some sense but beyond that the whole east coast picture is substantially different from the west and the MoD-DASA stats show this quite clearly. Add to this the greater extent of SRR westward and workload differences and the greater number of S-92 on the west is explained. Lossie bucks the trend but if there had been NVIS a/c on a contract with proper land SAR requirements at Stornoway and Sumburgh then Lossie would probably fit the pattern too.


Lochaber and Lakes hotspots are real and significantly distant from bases. Presumably, we will see if self-generated hotspots really exist when Portland shuts.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Is Manston really no longer an option? Lee is shut as a commercial airfield but still operates the SAR (and other flying machines). Portland is similar. Surely all Bristow need is the hangar and office space they were planning on building anyway, a fuel supply and a piece of tarmac. Is that not still possible in the future Manston housing estate plan (apart of course from the NIMBYs who will move in and then complain about the noise!)

Perhaps if it does move to Lydd then Lee could shut and keep Portland...:E

[jimf671]

Bristow require security at MAIN contract bases that was not required as a result of requirements of previous contracts. Secure airside locations are likely to make this easier than some more relaxed sites.

[shetlander]

AW189 now carrying a British reg:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7579/15853174616_8d526f9066_c_d.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7553/15878235072_8bee39da66_c_d.jpg

[Clever Richard]

East coast SAR provision was a result of the Cold War requirement to cover the North Sea. Another example of a SAR unit hotspot moving occurred when the Manston flight moved to Wattisham.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Another example of a SAR unit hotspot moving occurred when the Manston flight moved to Wattisham.


Perhaps the first time that 'Wattisham' and 'SAR hotspot' have featured in the same sentence...

[detgnome]

Do remember that whilst Wattisham is one of the quieter units, it is the centre of HAS winching excellence!

[[email protected]]

Yes, lots of wincing goes on at Wattisham;)

[Vie sans frontieres]

East coast SAR provision was a result of the Cold War requirement to cover the North Sea

That may be the case and it could be argued that those flights I listed before were a touch of overkill. However, what they did provide was back-up for each other to provide full and continuous SAR coverage for an infamous sea that has seen countless people rescued from its unforgiving waters over the years.

What happens when Humberside go u/s in the new plan? Let's look at a couple of standard North Sea jobs - assume 15 minutes to be scrambled and get airborne on top of what's calculated below and also assume 140 kts airspeed and still wind.

Fishing boat taking on water at Dogger Bank N55 00 00 E003 00 00

Humberside would take 1 hour 5 mins to get there. But they're u/s, so who else have we got?

Lydd - 1 hour 49, Prestwick 1 hour 52, Inverness 2 hours - assuming they can fly in a straight line. Those are not great response times.

How about Man Overboard from a Rig Support Vessel? N57 00 00 E001 30 00 - same conditions as before.

Humberside would take 1 hour 19 to get there, but they're u/s. That leaves Prestwick 1 hour 36 and Inverness 1 hour 35 - again, if they can get there in a straight line. Before you ask, Boulmer would, at 115kts, be there in 1 hour 12.

Now let's look at the English Channel. A boat has hit the rocks off Alderney - that's about as far away as I could plot a position before it was in French territory.

Same conditions as above - 140kts, still air.

Lee-on-Solent would be there in 33 minutes, but they're u/s. So who else can help?

St. Athan would take 48 minutes, Newquay 50 minutes and Lydd 1 hour 01. Compare these times to the North Sea times above.

It took me about half an hour to do that maths. How come the DfT haven't figured out that there's a gigantic imbalance in the planned SAR coverage in the UK? They need to do something about it before it's too late. The North Sea does not give second chances.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Maybe DfT were assuming that son of JIGSAW could take up some of the North Sea tasking...

[gasax]

That might be the case.

there are a significant number of people involved in offshore oil and wind on the east coast and the only government provision is this one.

Add in the North Sea ferries and commercial shipping and there is a sizeable population who may need to odd bit of help.

[pumaboy]

But has BP not decided to canx Jigsaw from 2016?

😣 :ugh:

[Spanish Waltzer]

Gasex - hence the use of the word "some"

PB- Hence the use of the words "were" and "assuming"

[[email protected]]

You can really tell by the rugged undercarriage on the 189 that it is a go-anywhere, land-anywhere perfect utility SAR machine................

As long as it doesn't have to land on beaches, rocks, mountainsides, boggy fields or moorland - or pretty much anything other than a helipad it will be fine:ugh:

[Spanish Waltzer]

Crab - apart from a couple of pictures what are you basing that on? Unlike you to speculate...

It looks not dissimilar to the British Army Lynx (mk9?) wheeled undercarriage (also from the Westland stable). Im sure some of the pilots that fly that machine operationally may have a different opinion.

Time of course will tell...

[Clever Richard]

Aren't those pictures good enough to base a judgement on then?

[P3 Bellows]

You can really tell by the rugged undercarriage on the 189 that it is a go-anywhere, land-anywhere perfect utility SAR machine................


Drip......drip.......drip..... From Captain Fantastic again.

Sour grapes and misery as usual :ok:

[jimf671]

AVAILABILITY

The original DfT spec was 98% availability. That was when the bidders still had the choice of how many aircraft to operate. It is believed that a typical solution at that stage involved 5 operational, 1 training and 1 spare of each type.

On 22nd October 2012, or a few days thereafter, the DfT changed their minds and decided that there should be enough aircraft of each type that in the event of an aircraft type being grounded, the other type could operate from all bases, thus making 20 operational aircraft essential.

Having demonstrated a plan for 98% availability with 14 aircraft they were now to have 22 aircraft of the same types. How easy will it be to maintain availability with over 50% more aircraft than was originally planned?


TEN BASE SOLUTION

As mentioned previously, this is the first entirely planned such service. The links to the relevant documents are still on GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-search-and-rescue-helicopter-service under the title 'UK Search and Rescue Helicopters Infrastructure'. Worth a look.

Bristow have published a coverage map (http://bristowsar.com/index.php/uk-search-and-rescue/sar-coverage-map/) and a surge map (engagement event presentation) for their version of the solution. The surge map shows only one area (about 1.5deg x 1.5deg) of the central and southern North Sea in UK SRR where only a single base (Humberside) will be able to cover it inside of 90 minutes flight time. All other areas of the North Sea south of Fair Isle have a surge coverage of 2 to 5 helicopters in the same period. And yes, differences in the way timings are measured is pain (more fudge?) and comparing like with like is difficult.


SH1T, FAN, HITTING

And what happens on a really sh1t day when the holes in the cheese are lining up? Wouldn't it be best to have a helicopter based every 50 miles along the coast and an extra one in Richard Drax's back garden?

On a really sh1t day in the 10 base future, I expect the aircrew and ARCC controllers will do what they have always done really well. They will make it up as they go along (https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/4261).

[heli1]

Hey Crab....Re your comment on the AW189 wheels....remind me which of the following SAR helicopters had a skid landing gear...Sea King?...Wessex..?Whirlwind..?...Sycamore...?

[snaggletooth]

I don't think Crab was advocating skids, rather a beefier set of wheels and some increased ground clearance, n'est ce que pas?

[[email protected]]

Skids are for kids and the Mk9 Lynx was never a SAR helicopter!

All the 189 needed was a double set of wheels to spread the weight or just a fixed undercarriage if retracting wheels were too difficult.

It is what happens when you take a corporate helicopter and try to turn it into a SAR machine - was nothing learned from the 139?????

P3 - just stating the obvious - I don't have to drip, AW and the MCA seem to be scoring own goals - all very avoidable:ok:

Heli 1 - I've landed the Wessex and the Sea King in plenty of places that the 139/189 just couldn't have managed - the last thing you need on a SAR job is to be hamstrung by a poorly designed undercarriage.

[Vie sans frontieres]

jimf671


The trouble with the geographical risk profiling that has been used as the entire basis for the 10 base solution is that every task (excluding false alarms) has been given equal weighting. An ECMO, a hospital transfer, searching for red flares, chasing an inadvertently activated beacon or providing top cover for an RNLI task are statistically at least considered the equal of proper, hardcore winching rescues/medrescues. Additionally, tasks in supposed hot spots are inevitably clustered around a small stretch of coastline where there is scope for the local authorities to repeatedly use a well known local asset because of its proximity - irrespective of whether it was the most appropriate asset for the task or not. Conversely in somewhere like the North Sea, there are roughly an equal number of worthy tasks but they usually involve a much greater flying time and are more widely spatially distributed, giving small individual cells on the risk map the appearance of being lower risk areas.

The upshot is we end up with half the North Sea and its coastline covered by just one flight because the bulk of it is somehow considered a low risk area - which as half the population of Britain knows is boll0cks.


Shocking naivety displayed by those that provided the analysis. It will only be a matter of time before those chickens come home to roost. The papers will have a field day.

[Margins]

It is what happens when you take a corporate helicopter and try to turn it into a SAR machine - was nothing learned from the 139?????

Heli 1 - I've landed the Wessex and the Sea King in plenty of places that the 139/189 just couldn't have managed - the last thing you need on a SAR job is to be hamstrung by a poorly designed undercarriage.

The 139 is currently operated in SAR role in more than 80 units around the world.
Some of them fly in the Alps where sites like the highest British mountain is mererly a high ground or small hill. In these places Sea Kings have never been seen.

[Older and Wiser]

Margins makes a good point - why do we naturally assume that UK Mil SAR :-
a) is the best there is
b) Knows everything and can learn nothing
c) Has always had the best aircraft for the job

It is time for many to wake up and smell the coffee!
SAR is conducted worldwide by Military & Civil Operators with many different aircraft types.

Lets face it the only reason AW189 and S92 were chosen was for range/payload.

[jimf671]

... ...

Lets face it the only reason AW189 and S92 were chosen was for range/payload.

The DfT specification for
- Sloping ground limits,
- Altitude, met and load,
- Side and tail wind,
- Avionics and
- Operations in icing conditions
also narrow it down a bit.

What happens in the alps is nearly all about altitude.

[Older and Wiser]

What happens in the alps is nearly all about altitude.

and maybe a bit about:

- Sloping ground limits,
- Altitude, met and load,
- Side and tail wind,
- Operations in icing conditions

I am sure the AW189 & S92 met the DfT requirements which many other aircraft could have met with the exception of range/payload and OEL at range.

[[email protected]]

O & W Margins makes a good point - why do we naturally assume that UK Mil SAR :-
a) is the best there is
b) Knows everything and can learn nothing
c) Has always had the best aircraft for the job

This thread is all about UK milSAR and its replacement!!!!

However a. It is pretty good at UK SAR and has an enviable history
b. Everyday is a schoolday and we never stop learning
c. Has had to make the best of what the MoD would give us - fortunately constantly evolving techniques and SOPs along with some equipment upgrades have allowed us to develop wide-ranging capabilities.

Few other countries in the world have such varied environments coupled with such changeable and often unpleasant weather. UKSAR crews, civ or mil, have to be able to operate equally well in the mountains at night or miles out to sea over a heaving fishing vessel.

Being an alpine high altitude specialist in UK is irrelevant.

[P3 Bellows]

Crab,

This thread is all about UK milSAR and its replacement!!!!

Or more correctly, it's about how fantastic UK milSAR is and how sh1t civSAR will be for ever more.

Is that sour grapes I can smell yet again

[[email protected]]

Do you want salt and vinegar on that giant chip sir????

[Older and Wiser]

Few other countries in the world have such varied environments coupled with such changeable and often unpleasant weather. UKSAR crews, civ or mil, have to be able to operate equally well in the mountains at night or miles out to sea over a heaving fishing vessel.


Norway
Sweden
Finland
USA
Canada
Chile
New Zealand
Iceland
Portugal
Germany
Italy
Spain
France

I am sure there are others.

[Thomas coupling]

In fact does England have any mountains?

[[email protected]]

And in how many of those other countries do the same SAR operators cover all of the country?

Many countries have specialised mountain SAR and many have just maritime SAR, many countries have dedicated Air Ambulance/HEMS for inland work but not dedicated SAR assets who also do everything else.

Strange that the US coastguard liked to send their pilots to us (RN and RAF) on exchange - to a man they went away far better SAR pilots for the experience.

[Thomas coupling]

And spoke proper!

[Al-bert]

and Luftwaffe Crab - just don'tmention the w......;)

[jimf671]

Norway
Sweden
Finland
USA
Canada
Chile
New Zealand
Iceland
Portugal
Germany
Italy
Spain
France

I am sure there are others.

A broad church. And yes there are others.

I had the good fortune to sit down and talk air rescue with aircrew and rescuers from 7 of those countries a few weeks ago. There are many comparisons one could draw with SAR across the world. However, this corner of the North Atlantic is a small and varied and meteorologically turbulent place where the Icelanders and Irish and British and Norwegians play with their clunky big helicopters in a particular way. They are very good. They do not have many accidents. So it will continue.

[shetlander]

Speaking of Bristows Plan B... Another new machine on the UK register. :ok:

http://s14.postimg.org/s53ncsfht/image.jpg

[jimf671]

Registration Details

Mark: G-CIJX
Current Reg. Date: 02/12/2014
Previous ID: NEW ITALY

Manufacturer: AGUSTAWESTLAND SPA
Type: AGUSTA AW139
Serial No.: 31579

Generic Name: AW139
Aircraft Class: HELICOPTER
EASA Category: CS-29: Large Rotorcraft
Engines: 2: 2 x PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA PT6C-67C

MTOW: 6800kg
Year Built: 2014

Registered Owners:
BRISTOW HELICOPTERS LTD
FORTIES ROAD
DYCE
ABERDEEN
AB21 0NT

[Sumpor Stylee]

Yep, good luck getting a stick of MRT in the back of that in Inversnekkie.......:ugh:

[cyclic]

I hate to agree with Crab but from that angle the undercarriage does look a bit puny but only time will tell. Landing at the bottom of Corrie an Lochain might test its resilience.

[ericferret]

"I hate to agree with Crab but from that angle the undercarriage does look a bit puny but only time will tell. Landing at the bottom of Corrie an Lochain might test its resilience".

Well it isn't puny. It is a fairly solid piece of equipment.
Where there might well be a problem is that they are narrow high pressure (200psi) tyres not ideal on soft ground.
.

[cyclic]

Never seen it up close but it just looks that way - must be the the thin wheels. I'm sure it will do the job just fine. I have seen all around the corries though so have a good idea about the punishment it will take.

[[email protected]]

Where there might well be a problem is that they are narrow high pressure (200psi) tyres not ideal on soft ground. that is exactly the problem - no ability to spread the weight on boggy, icy, sandy, shingly or pretty much any type of ground except a hard, compacted surface. Where you need the equivalent of a fat mountain-bike tyre, you have got the equivalent of a high-pressure racing road bike tyre. Even a double-bogey would have helped.

[212man]

Interesting development here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1070.pdf

Although they seem to miss out one essential stakeholder here:

throughout all flights pursuant to this permission no persons shall be carried other than the flight crew members, SAR Technical Crew Member, CAA authorised persons and other persons directly involved in the SAR flight and whom it is necessary to carry for that purpose.

What about those people being rescued? :confused::confused:

[Robbo Jock]

Perhaps they're considered "directly involved in the SAR flight" and "necessary to carry for that purpose" :-)

[212man]

You could interpret it that way, but that wording is more appropriate to specialists like MRT or dog handlers or medical staff I would have said.

[Rigga]

...no camera crew then?

[MightyGem]

What about those people being rescued?
CAA authorised persons perhaps?

[jimf671]

Well, that took a while.

[[email protected]]

Not sure how the casualties can be classed as CAA authorised persons since you don't know who they are or how many there are until you pick them up. Would have thought that CAA authorised persons would be their flight ops inspectors and the like.

What do the rules and regs say for Air Ambulance work?

[Fareastdriver]

I don't know what the fuss is about. It has been a CAA requirement for yonks that nobody be carried on a public transport winching detail except the crew, trainers/checkers and of course, the people being winched.

[[email protected]]

Except that the document linked in 212 man's post is about operating in reduced minima for VFR and special VFR flights - not winching.

[Bluenose 50]

BBC Scotland is carrying a story that the ARCC at Kinloss Barracks is to close although no date is given.


Although this has long been rumoured, still a sad day.


The functions of the ARCC in the future will be carried out from the National Maritime Operations Centre at Fareham. A steep learning curve for the Coastguard ....

[jimf671]

... Although this has long been rumoured, still a sad day. ...

It certainly is.


... A steep learning curve for the Coastguard

Best climbed with the ears and mind open. Ho hum ...

[John Eacott]

Further to Bluenose's comment:

Anger at Kinloss rescue-helicopter control centre move to south coast (http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2014/12/11/anger-at-kinloss-rescue-helicopter-control-centre-move-to-south-coast)

The coalition Government has announced that the air rescue control centre will be moved from Moray in Scotland to Fareham in Hampshire and combined with the National Maritime Operations Centre.

The Aeronautical Rescue and Co-ordination Centre at Kinloss is responsible for mobilising the RAF, Royal Navy and Coastguard helicopters that are used in mountain rescues throughout Britain.

The move comes as the date for the privatisation of the UK’s search and rescue helicopter service approaches. The ageing Sea Kings used by the RAF and Royal Navy will be replaced by new aircraft under a contract with US company Bristow and will carry the livery of the Coastguard.

The first new helicopters are due to enter service next year.

The Westminster Government said: “The relocation of the ARCC to the National Maritime Operations Centre at Fareham will combine the aeronautical and maritime rescue co-ordination functions, resulting in a better service for those in distress.

“The new UK search and rescue service will use brand-new faster helicopters to cut average response times and providing a more reliable overall service.”

But the Scottish National Party condemned the move, calling it devastating for the staff involved.

Westminster SNP leader and defence spokesman Angus Robertson MP, whose Moray constituency is home to Kinloss Barracks and the rescue centre, said: “This is devastating news for the personnel at Kinloss, for Moray and for Scotland more generally.

“It is the latest in a series of disproportionate MoD cuts to defence bases, capabilities and personnel.

“Two out three Scottish airbases have been cut, the entire maritime patrol fleet has been scrapped and we have the lowest military personnel numbers in Scotland in living memory.

“That the closure announcement is happening in the middle of a life-threatening storm and comes only weeks after the independence referendum tells you much about the cynical approach of the MoD and the UK government.”

The ARCC scrambles the military Sea King helicopters and communicates with the voluntary mountain rescue teams and other civilian search and rescue teams who can request assistance from the aircraft.

[[email protected]]

Let's hope they have a better computer system than NATS at Swanwick;)

[cyclic]

That the closure announcement is happening in the middle of a life-threatening storm and comes only weeks after the independence referendum tells you much about the cynical approach of the MoD and the UK government.

Life threatening storm - it's cold and snowing in Scotland in December, big news.

He doesn't mention how the SNP would have paid for its own SAR service with oil at $60/barrel compared to their calculations of $110. The lovely Miss Sturgeon is also very quiet about this. The ARCC was always going to move.

I hope the HMCG can use the expertise available from Kinloss as they have a lot to live up to.

[llamaman]

I hope the HMCG can use the expertise available from Kinloss as they have a lot to live up to.

Highly unlikely. To expect personnel to transfer to HMCG and relocate from Moray to the (vastly more expensive) south coast for the salaries that are on offer means this is not a realistic scenario. They'll be on their own post-transition, fingers crossed they'll recruit some high calibre people from the local catchment area.

[shetlander]

Highly unlikely. To expect personnel to transfer to HMCG and relocate from Moray to the (vastly more expensive) south coast for the salaries that are on offer means this is not a realistic scenario. They'll be on their own post-transition, fingers crossed they'll recruit some high calibre people from the local catchment area.

I beg to disagree. I've heard that there is a handful of staff willing to relocate and continue with civvy ARCC. At least that's what the story was yesterday when I was on the phone to the ARCC.

The ARCC was always going to move.

Exactly, this has come as no surprise to those in the industry. It has been talked about for the past 2 years if not more. Suitable transition plans and staff transitions have been in discussion for at least the last 6 months.

Typical politics and press trying to cast their own views on things and stir everything.

[edwardspannerhands]

Considering the MCA are making a complete "Horlicks" of their own "Future Coastguard" re-organisation (don't expect them to publicly confirm this!) , I worry about the new setup for the ARCC. Especially if the MCA cannot get over their "if it doesn't happen on the South coast it's irrelevant" bias.

[jimf671]

Considering the MCA are making a complete "Horlicks" of their own "Future Coastguard" re-organisation (don't expect them to publicly confirm this!) , I worry about the new setup for the ARCC. Especially if the MCA cannot get over their "if it doesn't happen on the South coast it's irrelevant" bias.

The Weakest Link.

[cyclic]

Time will tell how well they know the Scottish hills. Combined with new crews at Inverness it could make for interesting times for the MRTs.

[shetlander]

Considering the MCA are making a complete "Horlicks" of their own "Future Coastguard" re-organisation (don't expect them to publicly confirm this!) , I worry about the new setup for the ARCC. Especially if the MCA cannot get over their "if it doesn't happen on the South coast it's irrelevant" bias.


Proof will be in the pudding. However the RAF isn't perfect and the ARCC have made some massive cock ups in their time, not to mention the daily cock ups of forgetting to organise a HLS or call the ambulance to meet the helo.

Not everyone/everything is perfect. That's life.

[Al-bert]

Not everyone/everything is perfect. That's life.


That'll be ok then - carry on! :ok: :ugh:

[shetlander]

That'll be ok then - carry on!

Well carrying on is what we have to do everyday just now.

All this chat about privatisation and ARCC being handed over to civvies, the fact of the matter is there are daily failings with RAF ARCC so handing it over to civvies to make daily failings isn't much of a change.

[Al-bert]

handing it over to civvies to make daily failings

In spite of or maybe because of my thirty RAF years, 21 in SAR, I have no objection to 'handing over to civvies'. In fact I'm surprised that it didn't happen over twenty years earlier. What would concern me if I were still involved in aviating as opposed to yachting would be handing it over to a Coast Guard who recruit ops staff straight 'off the street' without any aviation (or maritime) background.

[jimf671]

Time will tell how well they know the Scottish hills. Combined with new crews at Inverness it could make for interesting times for the MRTs.

A good portion of the Transition Team are expected to start the contract off at each base as the Managed Transition guys leave the service the day before and start their training. At Inverness, the expected eventual outcome is that we will often be met at the door by the same old faces.

(By 'old' I mean experienced of course!:E)

[jimf671]

... What would concern me if I were still involved in aviating as opposed to yachting would be handing it over to a Coast Guard who recruit ops staff straight 'off the street' without any aviation (or maritime) background.


I share your concerns Albert.

[shetlander]

Second Bristow UK SAR AW139 arrives in the UK :ok:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8567/15386899223_f986941076_c_d.jpg

[Vie sans frontieres]

A few pages back it was discovered that even a large bodied S92 SAR variant could only seat 9 persons in the cabin. How this is the case is anybody's guess and unlikely to be revealed by the very reticent civsar fraternity. From that though and from other PPRuNe discussions that have been had, we can deduce that to put it mildly, meeting the contract specifications AND carrying all the necessary role and medical equipment for the UK SAR environment is going to be a bit of a squeeze for the AW189.

Therefore it is a racing certainty that the AW139 is not going to be able to meet that minimum cabin carrying capacity requirement. So my question for those that know about these things - who pays the penalty? Bristow every time they put an aircraft on the flight line that is below the minimum capacity specified or Agusta Westland for not producing the 189 on time? How hefty are the penalties likely to be? We may be talking about more than just a few months here.

[jimf671]

... ... How hefty are the penalties likely to be? We may be talking about more than just a few months here.


In the contract as published, there are definitions of availability and other contract measurements including aircraft availability at 8.2 but all the interesting numbers and definitions are redacted.

I know there are ppruners who know this stuff in detail but I am not expecting them to blow their cover.


Second Bristow UK SAR AW139 arrives in the UK :ok:


Two now, two later.

[Sevarg]

As a matter of interest, where would the interested parties here go instead of the AW189, if they had a free hand? The un-writern part in the request for tender was two different types, one to be built in UK and of course the size. It doesn't give much room for manuever.

[[email protected]]

No, but I have heard a rumour that the 189's performance, especially with the higher AUM brought about by the added fuel tank, might not be what people were expecting - could make it interesting in the mountains in Summer;)

As for the ARCCK, they might not be perfect but for the most part they do a very good job - will we be saying the same thing about the MCA centre if and when it is up and running? Part of the ARCCK's problems have been getting SAR experienced controllers, especially those with helicopter experience - where are the MCA going to get any aviation SAR experience from?

[llamaman]

From Shetlander;

However the RAF isn't perfect and the ARCC have made some massive cock ups in their time, not to mention the daily cock ups of forgetting to organise a HLS or call the ambulance to meet the helo.


the fact of the matter is there are daily failings with RAF ARCC so handing it over to civvies to make daily failings isn't much of a change.

Pretty harsh. The boys and girls at the ARCC are a professional bunch that, on the whole, do a very good job with limited resources and sometimes under significant pressure. Forgetting to organise a HLS or booking an ambulance is certainly not a daily occurrence. Ambulances are not always available to meet crews due to operational priorities elsewhere or simply, due to the nature of SAR, not enough notice being given. Nobody is perfect and of course mistakes are occasionally made (like anywhere) but to accuse the ARCC of making "massive cock ups" and "daily failings" is doing them a disservice. This is a unit that is proud of the support it gives to UK SAR and has just had it's notice of termination. Show a bit of respect.

[[email protected]]

Llamaman - :ok::ok: Completely agreed - it is often the ambulance authority who can't provide the ambulance due to operational overstretch or undermanning.

[shetlander]

Pretty harsh. The boys and girls at the ARCC are a professional bunch that, on the whole, do a very good job with limited resources and sometimes under significant pressure. Forgetting to organise a HLS or booking an ambulance is certainly not a daily occurrence. Ambulances are not always available to meet crews due to operational priorities elsewhere or simply, due to the nature of SAR, not enough notice being given. Nobody is perfect and of course mistakes are occasionally made (like anywhere) but to accuse the ARCC of making "massive cock ups" and "daily failings" is doing them a disservice. This is a unit that is proud of the support it gives to UK SAR and has just had it's notice of termination. Show a bit of respect.

What I was trying to highlight with my post is that although the RAF and other people may be annoyed that it is moving to the MCA, however it is wrong to start casting aspersions on if/how and how well or not the MCA will conduct ARCC ops.
There have been a few comments about training, do people know that ARCC management and controllers will be going to the MCA to deliver a bespoke ARCC course? DO they know that during the transition arrangement current ARCC controllers will be running ops from the NMOC at Fareham?

Furthermore, the ambulance situation may have been a bad example but all this talk of the MCA crashing and burning when it comes to ARCC ops, in turn what I was looking to highlight is that there is current failings and as we have agreed – everyone makes mistakes, yet it is ok for is to gloss over it when its RAF ARCC and accept that mistakes have been and are being made however when it comes to MCA ARCC we are going all guns blazing and shooting them down before they have started!?

I accept the unit is proud to have served UKSAR however shouldn’t we sit back and wait to see how the MCA fair, before writing them off before they begin?

[Margins]

No, but I have heard a rumour that the 189's performance, especially with the higher AUM brought about by the added fuel tank, might not be what people were expecting - could make it interesting in the mountains in Summer;)


As far as I know there is neither mountains nor summer in UK

[jimf671]

Shetlander, although in your neck of the woods it might be hard to find somebody that didn't know about boats or helicopters or both, let's be realistic and acknowledge that it is the other way round in most UK districts.

Albert's 'off the street' comment is a valid one in my experience of people I have known who have worked for the Coastguard in the lower echelons. They don't seem to pay well either.

[jimf671]

I expected great things of the AW189 but the long-range fuel tank in particular looks like a c0ck-up from a weight point of view. :{

I also suspect that the drag from the fuel tank, searchlight, FLIR and double hoist had not been properly considered at an early stage.

Disappointing.

At least it has storage space, so I am hoping that the seats won't be full of rucksacks. :ok:


[I][COLOR=green] ... ... As far as I know there is neither mountains nor summer in UK

I think your Univers must be too near the Equator. :E

[shetlander]

Shetlander, although in your neck of the woods it might be hard to find somebody that didn't know about boats or helicopters or both, let's be realistic and acknowledge that it is the other way round in most UK districts.

Albert's 'off the street' comment is a valid one in my experience of people I have known who have worked for the Coastguard in the lower echelons. They don't seem to pay well either.

Yes I agree, but that does not mean that competent individuals cant learn and receive training.

Is anyone a born ARCC controller? Winch Op? Or Pilot? No! They receive training from those that are skilled in the subject and learn the trade. They make mistakes and learn from them.

The same can be said for Ambulance and Fire Control.

[Al-bert]

Just wait 'til the CG/ARCC ops calls are coming to you from 'Keith' or 'Ruth' in Delhi! Savings have to be made after all :E

And Shetlander, have you ever had to go through ambulance control recently, where a 'trained person' reads from a script? I have had advice that would have killed the casualty that I was resuscitating whilst awaiting the ambulance if I had carried out the scripted actions.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Is anyone a born ARCC controller? Winch Op? Or Pilot? No! They receive trainingExcept some will need more training than others. :hmm:

Come on Shetlander, use your loaf. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Aircrew that have been selected at OASC and have survived a flying training system where the chop is only ever a couple of sorties away are generally going to catch on quicker than your average bloke off the street, are likely to have more foresight and be more capable of lateral thinking.

I expected great things of the AW189 but the long-range fuel tank in particular looks like a c0ck-up from a weight point of view.And ground clearance, don't forget. You're catching on though.

At least it has storage spaceOh, maybe not!

The concern around penalty payments for not meeting the contract specification is that as well as spending all the extra money to bring in 139s and extra 92s - and the training and re-training costs that will be required of aircrew and groundcrew - any penalty payments are going to bleed the infamously low £1.6 billion budget dry. This already has the look of something that is being done on a shoestring (dirt cheap NVG we were told a few pages ago) so where else are cost savings going to be made to balance the books? Less training? Less qualified aircrew? Oh, that's right. Shetlander says no-one is born aircrew. Very true, but some people are born more aircrew than others. (Sorry George Orwell.)

[shetlander]

Ok guys it was only an opinion. I still think you should just give it time. If it turns to cr@p then your justified in saying so, but at such an early stage you've already made your minds up before giving it a go. Anyway ... I will just stick to my civvy SAR in my S92.

Before I go... In my opinion, the local Coasties made a far better job of things than the ARCC have to date.

Off for some dinner before I get shot down by the RAF again.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Once you've had your dinner Shetlander could you explain why you can only seat 9 people in a big aircraft like the S92. And while you're there, please update the forum on how the S92 crews' NVG training is going and roughly how many NVG hours on type you expect those crews taking over on April 1st to have on that date. Thank you.

[jimf671]

... ... spending all the extra money to bring in 139s and extra 92s ... ...

Four 139s, for "vicinity of Wattisham" and for St Athan, provided by AW.

Two S-92s, for Inverness, brought forward in the programme that would eventually go to ... Culdrose (or ... what's the current spec at Sumburgh).

That gets us into Q4 of 2015. 2016? Oops.



... ... dirt cheap NVG we were told a few pages ago ...

Maybe it's true. Or maybe the numbers I heard mean Bristow are paying what one would expect for the best kit that those damned colonials will sell to security vetted Brits. Those numbers are significantly more than the stuff on the website price lists and way way more than a Lidl special offer.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/511282-uk-sar-2013-privatisation-new-thread-59.html#post8718998

[llamaman]

Shetlander wrote;

Before I go... In my opinion, the local Coasties made a far better job of things than the ARCC have to date.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion but it would be interesting to see how you substantiate that particular one. I'm sure the service at a local level from the local coastguard was fine but having Co-ordinaton at a national level makes eminent sense otherwise you are always faced with the attitude of "it's 'our' asset". This is fine when it's a simple mission in your own 'patch' (as most of Shetland's are) but having a national Co-ordinator as arbitrator when things get a bit more complex is a must. Thankfully the MCA intend to adopt that model and not go back to the days of local CGOCs 'owning' the asset, something of which you are clearly a proponent.

Maybe I shouldn't have bitten but find it hard not to in this case!

[JulieAndrews]

When will the 'new' dates for declaring 189 'fit for purpose' be announced?
Wilkos are running out of bodge tape ;-)

[[email protected]]

It's almost as if Bristow weren't expecting to win lot 2 - they seem to have been behind the drag curve all the way.

[snakepit]

It's almost as if Bristow weren't expecting to win lot 2 - they seem to have been behind the drag curve all the way.

Yes I see your logic there capt fantastic.
It would have been much better if bond had won lot 2 then they would be bringing in the much superior........AW189!
Or CHC who bid with the world beating and 20% betterer.........AW189!
Maybe, just maybe the issue here is one of certification problems. Who's fault is that? AW, EASA, CAA, UK Gov? Or maybe all or none of the above and it's just process? Bit harsh to lay it at Bristow door though?! But where would the fun in crab's world be you couldn't stretch the truth a little ;-).

[jimf671]

... Bit harsh to lay it at Bristow door though?! ...


If they had been on top of their game then surely they would have been ready to move the process forward with ink on contract on 26th March 2013 and not wait four months.

Bristow Group Sign Contract for 11 AW189 Helicopters for UK Search & Rescue | AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/bristow-group-sign-contract-11-aw189-helicopters-uk-search-rescue)

[snakepit]

I admit I should have put "all" in that sentence Jimf671

[[email protected]]

Or maybe you just know a little bit less than you think you do snakepit;)

[Vie sans frontieres]

Question

Once you've had your dinner Shetlander could you explain why you can only seat 9 people in a big aircraft like the S92. And while you're there, please update the forum on how the S92 crews' NVG training is going and roughly how many NVG hours on type you expect those crews taking over on April 1st to have on that date.

Answer - ................................................

That'll be the sound of silence then. (Apologies to Paul Simon this time.)

[jimf671]

... the sound of silence ...


Sounds familiar.

[jimf671]

Stop-gap SAR helicopters arrive at Bristow as AW189 approval nears - 12/18/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/stop-gap-sar-helicopters-arrive-at-bristow-as-aw189-approval-407271/)

[jimf671]

Two more SAR S-92A registered on Friday. That's nine so far.

Registration Details
Mark: G-MCGH
Current Reg. Date: 19/12/2014
Previous ID: N234TR
Manufacturer: SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT
Type: SIKORSKY S-92A
Serial No.: 920234
Ownership Status: Chartered
Registered Owners: BRISTOW HELICOPTERS LTD, DYCE


Registration Details
Mark: G-MCGI
Current Reg. Date: 19/12/2014
Previous ID: N235U
Manufacturer: SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT
Type: SIKORSKY S-92A
Serial No.: 920235
Ownership Status: Chartered
Registered Owners: BRISTOW HELICOPTERS LTD, DYCE

[[email protected]]

Have they actually got their SAR training centre at Inverness on line yet?

That would have been my first priority since nothing clogs quicker than a training system without adequate resources.

[Vie sans frontieres]

I hope you're not expecting an answer. As soon as you ask anything resembling a searching question to the current UK civvy SAR fraternity the shutters come down and a form of Omerta comes into play. One contributor suggested this was down to 'commercial sensitivity' a few months ago but that's nonsense. Those same people that shut up shop when asked a perfectly reasonable question are more than happy to breach 'commercial sensitivity' and fly the flag when they want to brag about something. Put them on the spot though and the code of silence reappears. Do they not realise that these are often questions that are in the public interest and a public forum where straight answers (ie non-management speak) can be given is the ideal place to allay fears and inform others that aren't in the know of how things are progressing? But those opportunities aren't taken and that can lead to the conclusion that things aren't going well.


A commonly expressed concern is that the 'no reduction in quality of service' principle will be compromised by the inadequacy of some aspects of the training that is undertaken. Not practising night wets appears to be a classic example. How can you expect to be able to rescue someone from the water at night if you haven't practised it? A few months back I asked someone/anyone to reassure us by giving us details of the currency requirements for frontline crews and therefore, as part of that, whether they did indeed practise night wets and that the concerns were unjustified. What did we get back? NOTHING. What conclusion should we therefore draw from that?


We constantly hear that civilian crews have been performing SAR in the UK since the mid 80s but when challenged to prove that they practised one of the most fundamental SAR disciplines, they didn't take the opportunity. I guess night wets must be a piece of p1ss. What else don't they practise I wonder?

[jimf671]

Have they actually got their SAR training centre at Inverness on line yet?

That would have been my first priority since nothing clogs quicker than a training system without adequate resources.

I can tell you that the building is complete and has been for a few weeks. Recruitment for several roles took place some time ago. Need an aircraft now. I'm sure there'll be one along in a minute.

[jimf671]

I hope you're not expecting an answer. As soon as you ask anything resembling a searching question to the current UK civvy SAR fraternity the shutters come down and a form of Omerta comes into play. ... ...

Yes. The Coasties branch of MI6 in play again. Hard work. And not conducive to good team work.


... ... I guess night wets must be a piece of p1ss. What else don't they practise I wonder?

I think that we need to cut them some slack over such issues. Not too much slack but a measured amount from April 2015 and at least until all final Inverness crews have done a few jobs.

The reason I say that is because even though CivSAR has been in the UK since 1971 it is only in April 2015 that a contract becomes operational which has a full appropriate range of technical requirements (including a low light requirement).

[Vie sans frontieres]

I can't agree. There should be no reduction in the quality of service. Full stop. That's what has been promised since day one.


This isn't about technical aspects of the aircraft, it is about currency and re-currency. We are constantly told that civilian SAR crews have been producing a world-leading capability (Bristow's words, not mine Rescue Helicopter ? SAR Helicopter ? Search & Rescue Helicopter - bristowgroup.com (http://www.bristowgroup.com/helicopter-services/search-and-rescue/) ) yet they don't even practise night wets. And neither are they going to. There is no currency requirement to do so and neither will there be. No one here will admit it but it's true. How can that be a world-leading capability and how is that no reduction of quality of service in the UK? Night wets can be flucking hard work even for those that practise it regularly and they have the potential to fluck you up in a major way if you attempt it without having done it before.

[jimf671]

Have you bothered to find out anything about this contract?

Do you understand that if you judge a contract that hasn't even started yet by the performance on contracts with substantially different, and lesser, requirements, then you are not being fair?

[[email protected]]

I think the point Vie is trying to make is that I and others have been shouted down by the assertion that Civ SAR is at least as good as milSAR and cheaper too! That was the foundation of civilianising us in the first place.

So, now there are questions about the provision of aircraft and training (none of which get answered) we are being unfair to them because the contract hasn't started yet!!!!!

Perhaps HMS Bristow don't do night wets because the RN never did either......

[Vie sans frontieres]

jimf671


I very much doubt anyone has bothered to find out as much about the contract as you have. However, that does not make you the font of all SAR knowledge. Stick to your mountain stuff and you'll be fine.

[jimf671]

I think the point Vie is trying to make is that I and others have been shouted down by the assertion that Civ SAR is at least as good as milSAR and cheaper too! That was the foundation of civilianising us in the first place. ...

And my position is that it has not been as good so far ("We are not contracted to ..."). However, this new contract puts them on a quite different contractual footing. Until we have seen operational work under the new contract and new regulatory framework then we have no evidence for adverse criticism.

June 1971 to March 2015? Hey, on you go. Knock yourself out.

Questions linger over the bases that are still GAP until 2017 of course. How those are managed will be interesting.



... ... Perhaps HMS Bristow don't do night wets because the RN never did either......

Ouch!

[P3 Bellows]

Vie sans frontieres

Calm down dear. You may burst something if you keep this up.

Why don't you phone up Bristows and ask them to post on here for your piece of mind. I'm sure they have so little to do right now, they would be more than willing to mop your fevered brow.

[[email protected]]

Jim, you are right that the contract has still to begin and, in theory, should provide no lesser service.

However, the provision of SAR training, both initial and front-line, is what I have done for many years so I do have concerns that the new training pipeline isn't fully established yet and that the 'on the job' training (based on the number of contracted flying hours) will be woefully inadequate.

It is not enough to have a clever and shiny new aircraft (I know the S92 is a very capable machine) if the crew are only ever going to rely on those automatics to get the job done.

To be a truly equivalent service, lots and lots of time 'hands-on' will be required.

Fortunately, the number of already well-trained ex-mil crews will have a very sound base to work from but for those without such experience they face a life of being 'children of the magenta' slavishly doing only what the automatics will let them.

[Vie sans frontieres]

P3 Bellows

Thank you for confirming my argument. So you won't be doing night wets then? What about trapped decks? Or multi-seat dinghies? Or a cliff hanger? When was the last time you practised any of these? (Don't worry, I know I'm not going to get an answer.) Omerta.

[SARowl]

Vie sans frontieres

So you won't be doing night wets then? What about trapped decks? Or multi-seat dinghies? Or a cliff hanger?

The present CHC AW139 Units at Portland and Lee do practice the above.

[[email protected]]

Possibly because their rear-crew trainers were ex-RAF:ok:

[SARowl]

Crab

Possibly because their rear-crew trainers were ex-RAF

All ex RN I'm afraid...

[P3 Bellows]

All ex RN I'm afraid...

Ouch :ouch:

[jimf671]

You will appreciate that crew member responsibilities and career structures vary across SAR helo providers. CivSAR crew are not on a three year tour and some roles are narrower than in the military. I think we have to factor this into any assessment of the training time. Initially of course there will be a large training load and the three month lead in will go a long way go address this.

I remain concerned about rear crew status in the regulatory framework and possible effects on training. SAR is not BIG HEMS. It is principally about access, often in extraordinary circumstances. In a SAR helo this means that the principal skill set for all crew is airmanship, with the boy scout first aid badge or BSc Med Sci coming second. It may be time for the CAA to get over reorganising and create a bold and practical new approach to this.

[[email protected]]

SarOwl - I know 2 that came from the RAF and became senior trainers with CHC - they aren't there now but I suspect it is their legacy that night wets are completed.

The present incumbents may be ex-RN but perhaps they were educated into the ways of the light-blue;)

Jim, the fact that both the S92 and AW189 have rear crew stations with moving map/FLIR/TV/radar displays means that they most certainly are involved very heavily in the safety of the aircraft and as such should be licensed and paid appropriately.

[SARowl]

Crab,

[QUOTE]I know 2 that came from the RAF and became senior trainers with CHC - they aren't there now but I suspect it is their legacy that night wets are completed.

The present incumbents may be ex-RN but perhaps they were educated into the ways of the light-blue/QUOTE]

We still used to do all those evolutions on the S61 under the Bristow contract before the aforementioned 'light blues' arrived.

[Older and Wiser]

SAR is not BIG HEMS. It is principally about access, often in extraordinary circumstances. In a SAR helo this means that the principal skill set for all crew is airmanship, with the boy scout first aid badge or BSc Med Sci coming second. It may be time for the CAA to get over reorganising and create a bold and practical new approach to this.

Jim as one of the people originally responsible for moving the Medical Skills of Winchmen forward beyond the Boy Scout Big First Aid Badge I could not agree with you more.

It is unfortunate that those that came after me dictated the HCPC Paramedic qualification as a minimum requirement for SAR. The previous 'Paramedic' standard whether on SAR, Oil Rigs or Ambulance Service allowed a tailoring of training to meet the needs of the casualties whilst not taking away the clear requirement for all SAR rearcrew to be first and foremost Aircrew or in EASA speak 'Technical aircrew'.

The HCPC qualification and educational requirement within the UK was driven for one reason only - to ensure better pay rates for Ambulance Staff not, initially, as a way of improving provision or training.

There is still no legal impediment to SAR Winchmen being trained to 'EMT' level with additional skills and access to Drugs granted under medical supervision.

The future UK SAR and any other SAR Contract let by HMG have been hamstrung by the MOD and DfT specialists dictating HCPC registration and creating what will be a future career progression from NHS Paramedic to Winchman and later Winch Op resulting in lower pay rates and the demise of professional 'Technical Aircrew'.

[Vie sans frontieres]

SAR Owl.

That's encouraging to hear but I'm willing to bet that it's down to individuals going beyond the basic currency requirements and in doing so, going the extra mile to create the conditions that will permit that training (eg safety boat for night wets). It is the currency requirement that is important because it has to cater for those that like to achieve the bare minimum. Therefore if that currency requirement doesn't include night wets (and it won't) then there is an enormous deficiency in training that will only show up when a rescue attempt fails or is refused. Message to future fast jet pilots - I'd eject over land at night if I were you.

[shetlander]

AgustaWestland's AW189 has achieved EASA certification in the search-and-rescue configuration.

Finmeccanica – AgustaWestland has achieved European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification for the search-and-rescue variant of the AW189, paving the way for the delivery of aircraft for the U.K. search-and-rescue program.


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10855137_10152935663021661_1603993918964777012_o.jpg?dl=1

EASA certifies AgustaWestland AW189 SAR variant | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/EASAcertifiesAgustaWestlandAW189SARvariant)

[jimf671]

Such hard work being a journo at Vertical. That's a straight copy of the AW Press Release.

[[email protected]]

We still used to do all those evolutions on the S61 under the Bristow contract before the aforementioned 'light blues' arrived

So why won't it be done under the new contract if it was a Bristow 'thing'?

[P3 Bellows]

Captain Fantastic

SarOwl - I know 2 that came from the RAF and became senior trainers with CHC - they aren't there now but I suspect it is their legacy that night wets are completed.

The present incumbents may be ex-RN but perhaps they were educated into the ways of the light-blue

Of course. How silly of us. If it's fantastic it must have come from the Royal Air Farce

If it's sh1te it must be the RN or HMS Bristow.

Your arrogance never fails to impress :D

[Same again]

Don't bite P3. If the Holy Trinity didn't have Pprune they might just have a life.

[handysnaks]

Message to future fast jet pilots - I'd eject over land at night if I were you.

I'm sure that by the time the contract is fully up and running, they'll both take your advice!

[heli1]

Jimf671...Aahhh.....you need to read HeiiiData for the full truth!

[jimf671]

Jimf671...Aahhh.....you need to read HeiiiData for the full truth!


Surely there's not a secondhand 189 for sale already! :)

[heli1]

Ha ha..News Issue,not the free Classified!:ok:

[[email protected]]

Just too easy P3;) Happy Christmas:ok:

[jimf671]

What happened to the idea of an RN vs RAF bitching thread?

Not enough support? :E

[The SAR RC]

It needs to be appreciated that a number of things can conspire against non-military SAR crews that are trying to achieve their wet winching training and wets with a live survivor in a dinghy are much less likely to take place than in the military. The reasons for this include, but are not limited to

1. The inability to live winch when committed. This can be the biggest barrier to a number of forms of winching training. An airspeed of under 15 knots in the hover is unlikely to give torques low enough to permit live winching and depending on the conditions of the day, nearer 20 knots may actually be needed for wet winching

2. A surface vessel has to be sought locally rather than one being contractually required to provide support. This therefore requires a third party to be both agreeable and available

3. Using a survivor may result in that survivor's Flight Time Limitations and European Working Time Directive hours approaching or accumulating to beyond their limit. Their mandatory time off between shifts may be compromised and any survivor coming in whilst off duty may claim an overtime payment. For all these reasons, wets with a live survivor as military SAR may know it is less likely to take place.

4. Safety equipment may not be available. Full time SE Fitters are not employed and therefore rearcrew will be reliant upon the employee whose secondary duty is Safety Equipment having prepared and serviced sufficient wet drill equipment. If they are on leave, this may not be the case.

5. Deploying a survivor in a dinghy from the aircraft is much more hazardous in stronger downwash. The survivor therefore needs to be pre-prepared to deploy from the surface vessel in support.

Night wets as you may know them with a survivor in a dinghy are therefore not an impossibility but there are considerable challenges getting all the pre-requisites in the right place at the right time.

[jimf671]

Live winch in training also an issue for MRT but bearable.

[[email protected]]

The SAR RC - and all of that was known before the contract was let - so much for 'like for like' service; it goes to show what extra the milSAR and its add-ons brought to the party.

[Older and Wiser]

If it all gets too much the Air Ambulance Services and Police Helicopters can always fit winch's extend their AOC's to CAP999 and take quite a lot of the smaller jobs inland. In fact no need to bother with a winch, just short line the rescue man in.

Maybe some of the more well off MRT's could fund raise for their own local helicopters and therefore provide even faster response times.
SAR provision in the UK will change. Who would have thought 30 years ago that there would be so many Air Ambulances in the UK funded by public donation.

The die has been cast and the new DfT/ HMCG service will, no doubt, provide a suitable service. It will draw on those with previous SAR experience from both the Military and CG Contracts and in less than 5 years everybody will have forgotten that there was Military SAR as other organisations and agencies increasingly provide a service. By then the bitching will be why the CG service is superior and the MRT/RNLI/Police rescue helicopters are not!

By then the Military will decide that it might just need an Expeditionary SAR force but without any experience left it will be left to new blood to re-invent the wheel with new aircraft and new equipment.

As the advocate to the devil - Happy Christmas and may the New Year and subsequent years bring more change to keep us busy on PPRuNe.
:ok:

[jimf671]

A Scottish MRT went to a contractor a few years ago for a proposal for a local MR helo. The price for a very modest service was as much as the entire budget for MR in Scotland. The location also had amongst the worst aeronautical condition in the UK. A really stupid idea.

There was a RUSI conf in April 2012 about this stuff. I was appalled by the English air ambulance situation where most of them seem to prioritise bitching on a scale that puts the RN/RAF stuff on here completely in the shade.

The DfT contract is the only show in town. Quite a lot of things are going well and we will get a good service. What we need now is for some of the details to get sorted so that we can get an excellent service. The flyers at Bristow know what is needed. Hopefully the management are on side. We need the CAA to make a few more small adjustments to the regulatory framework.

[jimf671]

MADE IN ENGLAND.

Registration Details
Mark: G-MCGN
Current Reg. Date: 23/12/2014
Previous ID: NEW UK
Aircraft Details
Manufacturer: AGUSTAWESTLAND LTD
Type: AGUSTA AW189
Serial No.: 92001
Aircraft Class: HELICOPTER
EASA Category: CS-29: Large Rotorcraft
Engines: 2
MTOW: 8600kg
Total Hours:
Year Built: 2014
Owner Details
Ownership Status: Owned
Registered Owners: AGUSTAWESTLAND LTD, LYSANDER ROAD, YEOVIL, BA20 2YB

[MightyGem]

Drove past Humberside Airport the other day. Nice new shiney SAR hangar. Nothing else, just a hangar.

[HAL9000]

As a disinterested lurker on this thread, it would appear that Crab is regularly hitting raw nerves that certain interested parties are keen to play down. How else do you explain the ad homs deployed vice any sort of effective counter-argument?

[[email protected]]

HAL9000 - wait and see what happens when I ask again why TUPE hasn't been applied to the military SAR people in what is, to all intents and purposes, a transfer of a service from one provider to another - exactly as catered for in TUPE legislation:ok:

The military are not exempt from TUPE despite what some believe - it is the service provision that is covered by the legislation and that has simply been moved from MoD to DfT - ie one government department to another - discuss.

Yes I know Bristow couldn't afford the ex-mil pensions.....

For the uninitiated, an ad hom stands for ad hominem (literally to the person) where you attack the person making the argument in the hope that by discrediting them you also discredit their logic - never happens on here.......

[Same again]

See the superiority of a Cranwell edumacation?

[alfred_the_great]

By then the Military will decide that it might just need an Expeditionary SAR force but without any experience left it will be left to new blood to re-invent the wheel with new aircraft and new equipment.

The RN already has, and thus has people continuing SAR training at Valley and elsewhere.

[snakepit]

HAL9000 - wait and see what happens when I ask again why TUPE hasn't been applied to the military SAR people in what is, to all intents and purposes, a transfer of a service from one provider to another - exactly as catered for in TUPE legislation:ok:

The military are not exempt from TUPE despite what some believe - it is the service provision that is covered by the legislation and that has simply been moved from MoD to DfT - ie one government department to another - discuss.

Yes I know Bristow couldn't afford the ex-mil pensions.......

Did you ask Acas? They might be the best to actually give you the answer instead of a rumour forum where you will only get wild guesses?

I think it's more the free housing, private schooling, dentistry and everything else necessary to keep a vital fighting force full of steely eyed killers that might have been perceived as unnecessary to a strictly civi operation and therefore not tupeable. But that's just a guess and only my opinion. ;-)

[handysnaks]

Yes I know Bristow couldn't afford the ex-mil pensions.....
and having read all about TUPE, you would know that they wouldn't need to!:p

[Vie sans frontieres]

The SAR RC


Thanks for that comprehensive explanation. However, that appears to be a very restrictive training environment that you work under. Not being able to live winch unless you have a 15-20 knot wind in the hover must lead to an awful lot of missed training opportunities when the weather is good. As for a dearth of safety equipment, that's just sinful.


All those restrictions you describe would be less of a problem if everyone that was being recruited had years and years of SAR experience behind them. But that's not the case is it? SAR novices are being recruited and of course as time progresses, Bristow will have no option but to recruit more SAR novices as military SAR becomes a distant memory. With that being an inconvenient truth, Coastguard SAR really needs to look at removing some of those barriers you describe because a few years down the line, there is going to be a notably high proportion of UK SAR aircrew who have never practised some of the most basic SAR training exercises. CAA take note.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I am shocked and stunned VSF, are you really suggesting that the authorities take a reality pill ??? live in the real world ??? get with the risk-management business ???

Everything to do with SAR is about managing risk but to imagine that you can somehow make it 'risk-free' is to live in a world that is far removed from the one I have spent my life in.

The risk/benefit ratio of the training I am sure can be managed closer to the margin than the 20 kts of wind you suggest. SAR people are resourceful people so just watch this space. I am sure they will find a way just as soon as they acquire the skills to make their case effectively.

We found a way round a similar dilemma in the offshore world by using 'probability' theory. Will this work for SAR? Sorry - I don't have the required number of brain cells left to work that out. Maybe JimL will comment?

G. :}

[[email protected]]

Good point handysnaks - it just reinforces the question about not being TUPE'd across:ok:

As for training - surely the new super-shiny helicopters can manage a safe single- engine hover in light winds by limiting the fuel load towards minimums?

Not doing wets training in light winds means not training for the effect of the mega downwash, means getting surprised when Johnny on his lilo/surfboard takes off when you are trying to rescue him, means ever higher hover heights to mitigate the downwash just in case, means ever more reliance on the Hover Trim for rescues, means ever more reliance on the underpaid and non-licensed rearcrew!

The risk of winching 'committed' has been managed quite successfully for many years in the mil and, to my knowledge, we haven't had a single incident cause by engine failure in that condition (ignoring OTG trips when drum winching).

[Vie sans frontieres]

Geoffersincornwall


I'm shocked and stunned that you're shocked and stunned. What are you talking about? Where did I say SAR training should be risk free? What a strange post.

Not doing wets training in light winds means not training for the effect of the mega downwash, means getting surprised when Johnny on his lilo/surfboard takes off when you are trying to rescue him, means ever higher hover heights to mitigate the downwash just in case, means ever more reliance on the Hover Trim for rescues, means ever more reliance on the underpaid and non-licensed rearcrew!

Multiply by a factor of about three for not being required to train for these eventualities at night. Experienced guys might be able to get away with it, not the novices and a team is only as strong as its weakest link.

[Sandy Toad]

VSF - "All those restrictions you describe would be less of a problem if everyone that was being recruited had years and years of SAR experience behind them. But that's not the case is it? SAR novices are being recruited and of course as time progresses, Bristow will have no option but to recruit more SAR novices as military SAR becomes a distant memory"

I'm sure things have changed since my time as SAR pilot but I don't remember coming out of a box labelled "Very experienced SAR Pilot". We required training too.

[louisnewmark]

Crab, I'm intrigued on two counts:

Firstly, regarding the non-applicability of TUPE: surely, as long as their current employer was prepared to release them - possible sticking point there - mil SAR personnel that the contractor thinks would be an asset would be snapped up in the recruitment process anyway?

Secondly, why on earth would higher hover heights necessitate "ever more reliance on the Hover Trim" in, for example, an S-92? Just curious.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Sandy Toad


Yes, you did require training. More than 50 hours per month per unit (ie ten hours per month per person). And you needed training in a variety of different disciplines by day and by night.


If it's modern risk matrices that Geoffersincornwall wants to bring into it to try and quantify the unquantifiable, multiply (ambulance paramedic with next to no time on helicopters) by (civilian pilot who has never worn a set of NVG before but will be required to do so operationally on April 1st) and see what you get. Alternatively, multiply (a pilot that's never hovered over the water at night without a close external reference) by (the remainder of the crew not having the SAR experience to know which jobs merit the extra risk and which don't). Finally, increase by a factor of 1.5 if you only have 10 hours of training available to you per month and that training is restricted by rules like not being able to live winch with the torques above a certain figure.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I'm sorry that my (extreme ?) sarcasm was lost on you. If I have a message at all it is that we breed resourceful SAR crews that have a good track record of getting the job done.

The naysayers can postulate the catastrophes they believe lay ahead but for me I'll sleep well knowing that we got it right in the past and I don't see the need to get too upset about the way the future is shaping up. Some things may be better and some worse but only the nitpickers and going to fuss themselves into lather about it.

G. :ok:

[ShyTorque]

I think it's more the free housing, private schooling, dentistry and everything else necessary to keep a vital fighting force full of steely eyed killers that might have been perceived as unnecessary to a strictly civi operation and therefore not tupeable. But that's just a guess and only my opinion. ;-)

Free housing and private schooling? Since when were those part of the military package??

[snakepit]

[quote]
Free housing and private schooling? Since when were those part of the military package??


Without getting into semantics you summed up my point nicely. "Military package" is exactly what it is and therefore the point I was trying to make! You cannot tupe someone on a military package into a civi job! The cost would be prohibitive. And as none of the current military are contracted to do SAR but rather to be warfighters who do SAR until their next posting you cannot tupe them over. I have no idea if that's the real reason nor am I making a judgement on the rights or wrongs just my humble thoughts on the subject of Tupe.

[Vie sans frontieres]

only the nitpickers and going to fuss themselves into lather about it

Can pointing out that our future nation's SAR helicopter crews will not be required (and it seems, in many circumstances not be able) to practise winching people from the water at night really be described as nitpicking? It's a core skill and an essential aspect of providing 24 hour SAR cover.

Who'd be a man overboard/fast-jet ejectee/missing diver/fisherman washed off a pier/kid swept out to sea at sunset?

[ShyTorque]

Snakepit,

I might be missing your point because of some obtuse reverse logic of yours but you certainly are missing mine. I replied to your post because your "facts" are wrong. There is no point trying to discuss whether a benefit should be transferred under TUPE when that benefit never actually existed in the first place.

The military don't get the benefit of "free" housing. They pay rent like everyone else. A rent is paid to some formula based on the average paid for civilian owned property of similar standing. This is so personnel neither gain nor lose out because of the vagaries of the military posting system and different rents charged in different areas.

Dental treatment was, and probably still is, given on base because poor dental care has always been regarded as a potential flight safety issue for aircrew and getting registered at a civilian practice can be difficult for people who move to different locations at very short notice. Getting emergency treatment at short notice can be impossible.

There was a boarding school allowance in my time in the service, and no doubt still is, but as far as I'm aware, it certainly didn't ever cover the full cost of the fees. The reason for this allowance was to allow the children of serving military personnel to have some stability in their education, while their parents were moved to different parts of the world at ever decreasing intervals. I never actually claimed the latter; the only time I did was as a civilian, in later life. In retrospect I perhaps should have, because my son had been in eight different schools by the time he got as far as taking his GCSE exams at the age of fourteen. For civilian employees living with better family stability, it's not such an issue.

[Geoffersincornwall]

....any more 'Doom-sayers'' for the skylark?

Reality hurts, now get real, we can't afford to save everyone.

To save 100% of all potential survivors would mean no money for something else - like cancer care, Trident, a bunch of good teachers, a new school to replace the one that's falling down. We elect people to make those choices and you have the blessed right to winge about it but to put it simply we have, it would appear, decided to save 98% of potential survivors. To save everyone might put up the cost of a Rolls Royce service by a factor of 50% but for me 98% will be good enough.

I can imagine that to know you can do it better and be denied the resources is tough but think of those lads and lasses making do whilst they fight Ebola on our behalf. They too know they could stop it in it's tracks if they had the resources but they are doing what the Brits have been doing since Agincourt, Waterloo, and Dunkirk, we make do and make it work as best we are able. Usually it works out. How about getting behind those now with responsibility for our new SAR service and give them your support. You don't have to stop your critique but do so constructively with a little less of the 'It will never work' and a bit more of the 'well done lads."

G. :ok:

[shetlander]

man overboard/fast-jet ejectee/missing diver/fisherman washed off a pier/kid swept out to sea at sunset?

With the exception of one, im pretty sure Bristows and CHC have all successfully completed this sort of tasking.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Reality hurts, now get real, we can't afford to save everyone.

But Geoffers, there's supposed to be no reduction in service and today's crews DO practise night wets. :hmm: Do you want to inform the DfT or should I?

Thanks though for displaying the candour that's been absent from so many other apologists for the new service.

Shetlander

By day or by night? And by the seat of their pants or through well-honed skills and procedures? Please tell me, what is your SOP for a night ejectee?

[[email protected]]

And as none of the current military are contracted to do SAR but rather to be warfighters who do SAR until their next posting you cannot tupe them over.
That is certainly not correct - many RAF crews do more than just one quick 'rest tour' on SAR, many have over 10 years (some many more) experience. If you were to write their job spec it would read 'SAR Crew' - that is why the TUPE rules should have applied.

When you replace one service with another, under TUPE, you are required to offer the existing employees to transfer - that is completely different to allowing the new employer to select which employees they want.

Reality hurts, now get real, we can't afford to save everyone. so what metric are you going to use to decide who lives and who dies? Surely the only answer is to try as best as is humanly possible to rescue everyone - that requires the best training possible to provide the best qualified and trained crews possible.

Does milSAR rescue everyone? No, but we try as hard as possible and train as hard as possible to make that our aspiration.

[dingo9]

The military don't get the benefit of "free" housing. They pay rent like everyone else. A rent is paid to some formula based on the average paid for civilian owned property of similar standing. This is so personnel neither gain nor lose out because of the vagaries of the military posting system and different rents charged in different areas.

Don't think this is quite true - you pay effectively a wear and tear tarrif and a charge in lieu of council tax. Before I left ( last year ) I paid £120 per month for a 4 bed detached house in Hampshire outside the wire. I'd love to find a similar property on the civ market. The council tax equivalent was £150 per month.

[Norma Snockers]

Dingo9 Don't think this is quite true - you pay effectively a wear and tear tarrif and a charge in lieu of council tax. Before I left ( last year ) I paid £120 per month for a 4 bed detached house in Hampshire outside the wire. I'd love to find a similar property on the civ market. The council tax equivalent was £150 per month.

Must have been a run down grade 4 house for that price, most are grade 1 or 2 for which you will pay £320-£450/month for a 3 bed. (check out RAF Community - Food & Accommodation Charges (http://www.raf.mod.uk/community/accommodation/foodandaccommodationcharges.cfm) then click on accomodation charges for 2014/2015) and for a grade 1, 4 bed expect to pay £600/month (and they are all unfurnished costs)

Yes this is still cheap compared to the UK average but then the normal civilian doesn't have to move every 2-3 years.

[jimf671]

Don't think this is quite true - you pay effectively a wear and tear tarrif and a charge in lieu of council tax. Before I left ( last year ) I paid £120 per month for a 4 bed detached house in Hampshire outside the wire. I'd love to find a similar property on the civ market. The council tax equivalent was £150 per month.


Good point. Although in the civilian market there is a troublesome little problem called building regulations which does not seem to have bothered the MoD until very recently. Then there is the fact that in the civilian market the drains usually work: not something you see around airfields, generally.

Rather like a SAR Helicopter Service, it's not always easy to work out what an equivalent service really is.

[jeepys]

From an interest perspective what does a SAR Flt Lt earn these days?

[dingo9]

It was grade 4, but in good shape. Don't think there are many grade 1 houses about, at least Odiham way anyway.
Flt Lt. pay depends on level and on what flying pay increment you're on. Top level Flt Lt (level 9) plus enhanced flying pay is about 60K, maybe 62k now. So on average probably looking anywhere between 50-62.

[Geoffersincornwall]

With respect the previous SAR service tried its hardest to rescue everyone but inevitably failed to reach the 100% mark. Maybe 100% is achievable if you doubled the number of units around our shores - but I doubt it. Some things are just not possible no matter what money is spent.

If you want a metric to go with I reckon that between 95 and 99% of missions achieved would be a fair return on investment.

Who'd be a man overboard/fast-jet ejectee/missing diver/fisherman washed off a pier/kid swept out to sea at sunset?

With my tongue slightly in cheek I could say the the man overboard should be better trained/equipped or shouldn't have been fooling around on deck after a skinful of booze. The ejectee should be well enough equipped/trained to survive until a pickup is possible after all the Air Force don't confine their activities to the waters covered by any/our SAR service. The missing sports diver should consider the risks of a dangerous pastime and a professional diver will have proper support anyway. The fishermen are involved in what is acknowledged to be a very dangerous occupation and I know from personal experience that they are champions at pushing the envelope when they feel the need to fish and they are not the best at maintaining their boats. Any fisherman on a pier in bad weather deserves what he gets - he should know the risks. As for the kid swept out to sea at sunset - what the hell were his parents doing. Stupid is as stupid does, our world is full of consequences and we cannot possibly cover off all of them.

As I said before we can do the best we can with what we have got. When we had a lot of winch wire 'bird-caging' we couldn't train for weeks. **** happens.

G.

[jeepys]

Thanks Dingo.

So a consideration to all. If TUPE should apply then I assume those SAR crew should get paid the same salary to what they were used to in the mob. If a Flt Lt is on say 55k then under Tupe he stays on that as opposed to his civvy colleagues making a Captain grade in the region of 90k.

[dingo9]

Have a look at
http://www.mod-abc.co.uk
It calculates civilian equivalent of MOD pay scales with benefits.
Interestingly I answered the questions based on top level Flt Lt on enhanced flying pay , living in a married quarter with no kids at boarding school... As it happens it calculated its equivalent to a salary outside of 86k.

[[email protected]]

Conversely Jeepys, SAR rearcrew, many of whom were on £45-55K would still get that instead of the £35-40K they will be paid:ok:

The difference is that there is competition against N Sea wages for the pilots - although that might change following the crash in oil prices.

Louis Newmark - sorry, in answer to your question - over calm seas at higher heights the best service for the survivor and winchman will be provided by hover trim controlled by the winch-op rather than hover attitude and patter when it is flown by the pilot - even the new shiny helicopters don't give the pilot a view of what is happening underneath the aircraft.

Geoffers - according to your logic we should only rescue sensible, clever and well prepared people - that would cut out about 70% of UK SAR jobs. There you go , you have just saved the Chancellor several billion ££££s!

[Vie sans frontieres]

Geoffersincornwall

With my tongue slightly in cheek I could say the the man overboard should be better trained/equipped or shouldn't have been fooling around on deck after a skinful of booze. The ejectee should be well enough equipped/trained to survive until a pickup is possible after all the Air Force don't confine their activities to the waters covered by any/our SAR service. The missing sports diver should consider the risks of a dangerous pastime and a professional diver will have proper support anyway. The fishermen are involved in what is acknowledged to be a very dangerous occupation and I know from personal experience that they are champions at pushing the envelope when they feel the need to fish and they are not the best at maintaining their boats. Any fisherman on a pier in bad weather deserves what he gets - he should know the risks. As for the kid swept out to sea at sunset - what the hell were his parents doing. Stupid is as stupid does, our world is full of consequences and we cannot possibly cover off all of them.

Tongue supposedly in cheek or not, the fact that ypur mind works in such a way is deeply concerning. You may find there are other web-based forums where your latent views are the norm. This one is however about rescuing people who have had a bad day and need help - one day that may be you or someone close to you.

Shetlander

Please tell me, what is your SOP for a night ejectee?

Well you've had enough time to drive to Sumburgh and check to see if there's an SOP. Let's face it, there almost certainly isn't and even if there is, it rarely if ever gets practised anyway. You're out of your depth fella.

[shetlander]

Please tell me, what is your SOP for a night ejectee?

Well you've had enough time to drive to Sumburgh and check to see if there's an SOP. Let's face it, there almost certainly isn't and even if there is, it rarely if ever gets practised anyway. You're out of your depth fella.

You guys really do think your God. Well your not. Face it you're all just throwing your toys from your God given prams because your loosing your precious service. Yes at times you may be the best, at others you are far from it.

In recent times having to turn down taskings due to not having an aircraft available for days on end. Lack of crew. Lack of "flying hours" etc etc etc.

You think that no one else comes near to performing SAR taskings, however MCA SAR, has managed so far. Military SAR is not the be all and end all.

I might be out of my depth with regards to a military tasking. However I have managed quite fine in all my other years of SAR taskings, whether it be on the end of the wire or not. I will continue to sit back and watch you guys spit your dummies but in the meantime I will keep doing the day job and I look forward to the first time I have to rescue a pilot having crashed his jet!

[[email protected]]

Excellent use of complacency as a SAR training tool Shetlander - perhaps you look forward to a 2-Tornado mid-air so you can use your 'been alright so far' skills to deal with 4 guys (not all safe in dinghies) in the water in varying stages of peril:ugh:

[P3 Bellows]

Excellent use of complacency as a SAR training tool Shetlander.

There goes another dummy :-o .........{

[Vie sans frontieres]

A round of applause for Shetlander for such a high quality and very revealing rant. :D :D :D

You guys really do think your God (sic).

Wrong. Everybody f*cks up. The name of the game is to try and minimise the risk of those f*ck ups.

I have managed quite fine in all my other years of SAR taskings

Oh sorry. Everybody f*cks up except you.

I look forward to the first time I have to rescue a pilot having crashed his jet!

He won't. :hmm:

[[email protected]]

There goes another dummy :-o .........{ and there goes another pointless post by P3......

[Same again]

Geoffers and Shetlander. The 'Naysayer Trio' with Vie on Lead Vocals backed up by Crab (repetitive soprano) and Jim (tenor) will always have a negative refrain so why not do what the rest of Bristow SAR has done and leave them to it. That way we don't have to keep looking to see if something constructive or informative has been added to the thread and can get on with training. Then if we need a good laugh we can have listen now and again.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Amen - They take what you say and twist it round without doing one the courtesy of actually comprehending the message.

Geoffers - according to your logic we should only rescue sensible, clever and well prepared people

Where did I say that?

What I actually said was -

As I said before we can do the best we can with what we have got

.... do our best for one and all and that includes those in your list of unfortunates. Nowhere did I say that we don't offer them a service but you implied that any attempt to help them would fail due to the shortcomings you believe you have identified. I have more confident view because my glass is half full and yours is profoundly half empty.

Happy 2015

G. :ok:

[[email protected]]

And nowhere did I say this you implied that any attempt to help them would fail due to the shortcomings you believe you have identified

I still want it to be the best SAR service possible but some of us are concerned that trying to provide that within all the constraints imposed by EASA, CAA and most of all training provision make that a difficult task.

Happy 2015:ok:

Same again - welcome as a new member to the ad hom club;)

[Vie sans frontieres]

we..................can get on with training

Just not very comprehensive training. :hmm:

[Same again]

The lead vocal always gets the last word.

[jeepys]

"even the new shiny helicopters don't give the pilot a view of what is happening underneath the aircraft"

Some of the SAR cabs have a number of cameras on them one of them pointing down which is a nice gimmick.

How many times in the last ten years have the RAF had to rescue ejectees from the ocean?

[[email protected]]

Some of the SAR cabs have a number of cameras on them one of them pointing down which is a nice gimmick. hmmmm, you might be confusing footage you have seen from the FLIR/TV turrets with the camera mounted on the tail on some of the new shiny ones.

As for ejectees - don't know the exact stats but there have been a few, mercifully far fewer nowadays than used to be the case but a person in the water is a person in the water and there have been lots of those rescued both by day and night - so what was your point?

[shetlander]

but a person in the water is a person in the water and there have been lots of those rescued both by day and night

By civvy SAR just as much as Military.

[jeepys]

No the cameras I have seen are totally independent showing a good picture directly below the a/c.

As for the ejectees question I was curious. Your compatriots bang on about ejectee training and how will the new SAR service provide for this but you have put it quite nicely thankyou, "a person in the water is a person in the water". Case closed.

[llamaman]

I see this is turning into the usual civvy v military bitch-off. UK SAR is being civilianised whether we like it or not, will it be any better or worse? Impossible to answer as it will be un-quantifiable; there is no current mechanism to judge overall success in SAR nor will there be in the near future. Will there be less training hours? Yes. Do the military currently over-train? Arguably, yes (I know Crab won't agree but we are, at times, guilty of 'tick chasing '). Will the new cabs be faster/more reliable? Yes. Will there be less bases? Yes. Will the new crews be any less capable? Probably not. All of which means, in all probability, the service will on aggregate be as effective. Some areas will be slightly better, some slightly worse. For those of you unable to accept the inevitable, have a bit of dignity and try supporting those who will do their best to make things work despite limitations that have been imposed outwith their control. Oh, and a safe and successful 2015 to you all.

[Vie sans frontieres]

That's very gracious of you llamaman but I'm not convinced by your reckoning that crews probably won't be any less capable. Irrespective of the capabilities of the individual, they're hamstrung by regulation and limited training resources. On top of this though, the SAR pedigree of some of those being recruited is shaky to say the least - more than anyone, those being recruited without a proper SAR background will need more thorough initial and continuation training than that currently provided/required by Bristow. (Whatever happened to the six month rearcrew OCU? That soon died a death didn't it?) To help prove the point, on this page alone there appear to be at least two of the current Bristow SAR aircrew who seem to think that hazards associated with ejectees are nothing to write home about. Heaven help us. Whatever happened to learning the lessons of the past?

[llamaman]

VSF, I don't think you should tar all of the Bristow's crews with the same brush based on the opinion of a couple of characters on this forum. I'm very sad to see the military SAR force go but going it is. I believe my point that the crews will be capable is valid and that they will do their utmost to overcome any limitations imposed upon them. Just as military SAR does. Constant negativity will achieve nothing, a bit of support would not go amiss.

[noooby]

crab, all 139's and 189's can have up to 8 external cameras fitted. Standard fit with the external load kit is to have 2 cameras in the belly, one pointing at the hook in case of a hang up with an external load, and one pointing straight down where the external load would be. They are mounted under the belly in a pod on the right hand side of the belly near sliding door. Great picture with very high resolution. Very useful. Image can be brought up on either of the MFD's up front, or at a crew station, or the 5th screen (if fitted) or all of them.

[louisnewmark]

Sorry Crab, but why are you so insistent that the best service for the winchman and survivor in calm winds and high hover is provided by a winch op using 'hover trim', rather than by the pilot using what is available to him/her? Besides which, the pilot can't see what is going on directly below the aircraft anyway, either day or night, so surely that's irrelevant? (Except, of course, for those downward-pointing dedicated cameras...)

[leopold bloom]

Sorry Crab, but why are you so insistent that the best service for the winchman and survivor in calm winds and high hover is provided by a winch op using 'hover trim', rather than by the pilot using what is available to him/her?
Years and years and years of experience.

[Cabe LeCutter]

It doesn't matter how many cameras that you fit to the helicopter, they are only of use to monitor a situation. You do not have the field of view to give you peripheral vision to be able to hover on them, otherwise you may as well buy drones to carry out all your SAR tasks.

There are some really useful comments posted by experienced guys on this thread, just a shame that the bitching comes up time and again and the voice of experience gets drowned out.

SAR is being privatised, the individual guys will do their best within the limitations that have been shouted about. There will be jobs that cannot be carried out, that has always been the case. When deployed with the RN, my diver was able to explore the cabin of a sunken yacht for casualties, the RAF could never do that, nor will the new service. My current organization has started carrying out night wets training, wow what a shock that is to the guys, but they are expanding their envelope. I suspect that the Mil guys have always tried to do that and are questioning whether the limitations placed on the Civ guys will allow them to do that.

Society is changing, when I started flying, if it wasn't written that you couldn't do something you tried it (within reason). Today, if it is not written that you are allowed to do it, then it is avoided at all costs. There is, in many cases little incentive to do more than the bare minimum, that is what you will get with contractorisation. Live with it.

I have had my rant, I will look in again in 6 months and see if the pointless bitching and back biting continues.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Cabe

[[email protected]]

Jeepys, not quite case closed - the additional risks from dealing with an ejectee are from entanglement with their kit or, the really dangerous one, the parachute if it is still attached.

The same risks might be encountered with a kite-surfer, parascender or even base jumper - the need to avoid re-inflating the canopy (or just blowing the kite) is paramount for the safety of the aircraft, crew and casualty.

More often than not, the safest method is a very high hover - to ensure the downwash is clear of the canopy - then a hover trim recovery of the winchman and casualty.

Absolute bread and butter stuff for milSAR rearcrew as they train for it regularly. Why? because the potential for f**kup is enormous.

LouisNewmark - the hover trim is often used for small vessels where maintaining visual from the cockpit is not possible - the difference in reaction time between verbal patter, pilot action and subsequent movement compared to winchop adjustment using hover trim means that hover trim will inevitably be the best option to provide the best service to the winchman. I was on one job where we used hover trim on a 3-masted schooner with 180' masts because there were no hover references in the overhead - trying to use attitude and patter would have been horrendous (I know because we tried it as a dummy, oh yes and it was dark)

Geoffers - I would like to be 'glass half full' but when the rearcrew, who do all the really nasty and messy stuff on SAR, are shafted on pay because they don't have a union or a licence, I have grave concerns about their motivation to go that extra mile beyond the minimum spec in the contract - no matter how professional they are. If you have a set of hard-won skills which rely on personal bravery to achieve and maintain, those skills should be accurately valued and I don't believe the UKSAR payscales do this at all.

Let us hope that 2015 brings some changes in this area.

[jimf671]

Nice one. Crab.

[louisnewmark]

"Years and years and years of experience."

Yes, for which I have a great deal of respect....but most of those years were spent on Sea Kings.

Thanks for the concise explanation, Crab; I understand your point, and recognise that there may be a time when 'hover trim' is useful, but I thought that the discussion was centering on wet winching, specifically ejectees, particularly at night. I respectfully suggest that, in such scenarios and with doppler-driven autohover systems being something of an anachronism, the 'hover trim' is virtually redundant and the best service would be provided by the pilot manipulating the AHRS-supported AFCS modes at whatever height might be necessitated by the scenario.

[[email protected]]

LouisNewmark - I believe both the S92 and the AW189 have very clever autopilots with GPS/inertial nav autohover capability - either the pilot or the winch op can fly the aircraft in this configuration - just the same as the Sea King (the 3A has a more flexible HT arrangement than the mk3 AHT).

So, despite the increase in accuracy - ie laser ring gyro type technology instead of doppler - it is still better (and easier) for the winch op (who can see exactly what is going on under the aircraft and what the winchman is doing) to control the aircraft using a hand controller with both the winch controls and the hover trim controls, than it is for him to verbalise the required movement and for the pilot to react to it.

There will be times when the winch op has to hand back control to the pilot (assisting cabin entry for winchman and survivor for instance) but that can be done quickly as a verbal handover.

There are plenty of rescues where the pilot gets to earn his pop-star wages but at night or when there are limited hover references over water, the hover trim operated by the winch op will be the weapon of choice.

S92 and AW189 SAR will be the same as Sea King SAR but hopefully a bit faster - no matter how shiny and new the aircraft, what happens underneath it hasn't changed much for many years, and for good reason - it works.

[Geoffersincornwall]

He'll find out all about it when he does the TR course.

Happy New Year to all those living in the present and not in the past. Happy though those memories may be.


G

:ok:

[[email protected]]

He'll find out all about it when he does the TR course. not a very likely event:ok:

[louisnewmark]

The point that I'm trying to make, probably rather clumsily, is this: new types/technologies can provide new solutions/procedures to old problems.

For the night ejectee scenario on a flat-calm night, where references will be virtually nil at the necessary high hover height, modern systems allow perfectly acceptable lateral pilot control and accurate height-holding (with no 'top-box' limits) using AFCS modes which can be easily overridden if a faster movement is required. The absence of doppler removes the risk of flat-surface 'unlock', sea movement error etc. That, to my mind, is a far better way of dealing with this scenario than using 'hover trim' in a modern system, whereas HT is doubtless the best procedure in the SK with its more restricted AFCS.

In the scenario of a rapidly- and randomly-moving small (but possibly tall) vessel, especially at night, HT might indeed be the most suitable mode to use on a modern type, but it might be equally appropriate to use a pilot-controlled lateral mode - with accurate automatic heightkeeping without practical restriction - which the pilot is able to easily modify if the vessel's movement requires it. With a lot of cable out, this approach can also minimise the likelihood of a significant swing for the winchman.

As I said, different technologies can provide different 'best ways' of doing business. The trick, of course, is to continue those 'best ways' where appropriate while avoiding the assumption that all of those 'best ways' MUST transfer between types/technologies.

Anyway, Happy New Year to all, and best wishes in particular to all the military SAR operators who will be facing a pretty tough time over the next couple of years. Keep up the good work regardless; your customers will appreciate it.

[[email protected]]

Louis - I see where you are coming from but the weak link in your proposition is the pilot - no matter how good his autopilot and 'fly through' modes of operation are - he can't see what is happening beneath the aircraft and so any response of his is 'lagged' by the time the winch op recognises and verbalises the correction required.

The winchop's Hover Trim on the new aircraft will give him sufficient authority through the clever autopilot to move the aircraft precisely to assist the winchman.

There is often some manoeuvering required for a night wet (or day for that matter) as the winchop needs to keep the cable in such a position that it doesn't hinder or endanger the winchman or casualty whilst the casualty is prepared for lift.

The pilot can establish the aircraft in an autohover and then verbally give control to the winchop - I don't think this will be done any differently in the new aircraft, they just won't have to fret about doppler mislocks or spend ages trimming the aircraft to a relative hover.

All the new technology is in the aircraft, not where the winchman is working.

BTW the 3A Sea King, although still doppler based, has a more flexible, digital SN500 AFCS with few of the limitations of the mk31 FCS I think you are remembering.

Out of interest, on the Bristow roadshow the accuracy of the autohover was stated to be such that it could keep the aircraft in a 1-metre cube of space - that is impressive but still not accurate enough for precision winching and it is still only a datum from which you have to manoeuvre to compensate for wind, tide, downdraught, sea movement etc. I know you can give it vectors to compensate for steady state drift, for example, but responding to a messy sea with random waves breaking is beyond even that tech.

New technology is great but it isn't a panacea for SAR.

[jeepys]

"As I said, different technologies can provide different 'best ways' of doing business. The trick, of course, is to continue those 'best ways' where appropriate while avoiding the assumption that all of those 'best ways' MUST transfer between types/technologies."

LN, I agree with you entirely but there will be many old dogs who will argue (I think there may be a few on here) that why try and reinvent the RAF SAR wheel.

I can't remember the name of the yank who closed down a US patent office in 1899 or thereabouts saying "everything that can be invented has been".

Having used the old doppler system and the newer AFCS in the modern SAR a/c I disagree with crab that the w/op is best placed to conduct that type of job. In some cases he MAY be but the built in delay can make the job harder and with the presentation the pilot now has in front of him he can tell exactly where the a/c is going and what speed and has the ability to change that in an instant rather than waiting the few seconds it takes for the Winch/op system.

Maybe some of the older RAF SAR crews can tell us whether the procedures that were used on the Whirlwind, Wessex were different to the SK days.

Happy new year.

[[email protected]]

Jeepys - please explain the 'built-in delay' in the AFCS system.

[leopold bloom]

It would seem to me that the winch operator who has direct visual contact with the survivor is able to provide a better service to the winchman rather than the service provided via a pilot looking at instruments? However, I do agree that we should not be constrained by old habits/old technology. Anyway, good luck to all involved in SAR in the coming years.
Leo
PS not just AHT on Sea Kings;Super Puma and Cormorant too.

[The SAR RC]

It is worth pointing out that although the use of AHT/Crew Hover in UK civilian SAR is part of the training requirement, the majority of winch operators will achieve their currency on drums without exploring the system's capabilities on wets or decks.


Many aircraft commanders would not expect their winch operator to do any more than deliver the hi-line were the system to be used on decks with the evolution flown manually once the hi-line is established. Should AHT/Crew Hover be used on wets, a significant number of winch operators would ask their pilot to provide the winching inputs (on the winch operator's command) as they do on drums, rather than overloading themselves with both aircraft control and winch operation.


AHT/Crew Hover is therefore not a well-used feature. The differences in approach between military and civilian SAR crews (detailed above), combined with the effectiveness of the AHRS-based autohovers, a lack of user confidence and some ergonomic challenges may go some way to explaining why the pilot retaining control appears to be the preferred method in the civilian world.

[[email protected]]

rather than overloading themselves with both aircraft control and winch operation.really?????? overloading themselves???? an LCR winchman can do hover trim wets in secondary role in the RAF.....no wonder the payscales in UKSAR are set low for rearcrew:{

[SkyStalker]

Hi guys,

Happy New Year all!

Crab - having done ejectee jobs from RAF Sea Kings, and S-92s (as a WinchMan) I can say from experience, the service provided from an AHRS based 'V-HOLD' with Pilot flying in a 200' hover is as good, if not better than than doing the same thing on AHT in a SeaKing. I've also operated both sytems as a WinchOp. The lag that you talk about by having the Pilot make the inputs is insignificant in practice. What kind of target are you talking about that is moving so rapidly that these fractions of a second are going to make such a difference to the service provided? Don't forget WinchOps can anticipate and give directions early if they feel the required inputs are being made too slowly by the Pilot. But as I said, this is insignificant in practise, and never enough to make crew hov a better option.

Also, in response to 'I have grave concerns about their motivation to go that extra mile beyond the minimum spec in the contract'

- Don't be concerned. I will alway go the extra mile and risk my arse as much as is required on a job (as I'm sure any of my fellow civvy rearcrew will also). But during training and with only the same amount of sick pay as an office worker, I won't take any risks.:)

[Robbo Jock]

Thinking about those HD cameras pointing down below the aircraft. I'm sure it would be possible using current image processing and electo-optical direction technology (to say nothing of reversing cameras on cars or Hawk Eye at Wimbledon!) to provide information/direction during a rescue? Set it to track casualty/boat/winchman and the crew could set 'avoid' areas or 'capture' areas and let the system provide cues one way or another, or even send direct inputs into the flight control system (I know, a _lot_ of work would be required before the latter would be a goer).

Dunno if it would be a help (less things to worry about) or a hindrance (more to monitor or go wrong) but it could be explored.

[angelonawire]

Having experienced military SAR, HMCG SAR and O/G SAR. I find that having a browse of this thread now and again makes me giggle, a great deal of "willy swinging" and an entire new class of "sciolists" (a term that I was introduced to by an ex RAF colleague), very befitting of a great many posters on here.

Extract below taken from an Internet site well versed on the subject:

A sciolist is a person with a “smattering” knowledge who pretends to be an expert on some subject. Sciolists can be easily identified by their vociferous use of dazzling buzz words coupled with an ability to speak authoritatively and with conviction while at the same time not actually saying anything or providing information not already obvious.

Sciolism is a form of deceit which automatically engenders a level of paranoia and I suspect sciolists are natively insecure and therefore especially defensive/offensive lest they be found out. The attitude displays an enormous hubris in that sciolists presuppose their own life experiences are somehow more valuable to the discussion than the rest of the public. In fact, sciolists by intruding and inserting their shallow “expertise” into deeply complex issues have been and are potentially very damaging.

I wish you all well for 2015, please continue the "willy swinging" and re-inventing the SAR wheel......very entertaining :}:}:}

[[email protected]]

Skystalker - I bow to your experience and expertise - it is really of no concern to me as I have and will not have any further input to UKSAR.

As an ageing parent, I completely understand how irrelevant past experience is to the brave new generation so, please be my guest, re-invent the wheel and let the new UKSAR be judged by its own merits and performance.

Good luck.

[SkyStalker]

Crab......Dude!, I wasn't trying to start another crab@ beating session. I happen to agree with a lot of your comments on here. I just felt that some of your comments on the current topic, whilst authoritative, isn't the full picture either.

Past lessons and experience play a very important part in the way we do business. We're not trying to reinvent the wheel. But with a different machine, some techniques have evolved or just need to be done differently.


Angel - If you re-read your post, I think you'll find you're guilty of the very thing you're trying to accuse others of.

You've told us about your 'experience', (although, abit of Navy SAR, a few months in Sumburgh then Jigsaw means you've probably done a handful of jobs at the most)

You vociferously have used the buzz word 'Sciolist' and have cut and paste someone else's work and are holding it up as if it's in someway your thoughts

You also have'nt actually added anything to the subject being discussed. You have just posted to have a dig at others.

PPRuNe rocks!:)

[angelonawire]

Bait cast.......first "SAR expert" takes a bite :E

I must humbly apologise for my lack of experience and slither back to the rock from under which I crawled.

I must also sincerely apologise for cutting and pasting the humouros description of a "sciolist" that I found on the Internet, which does appear to hit a raw nerve :E

Sky stalker, You obviously know who I am; as I never mentioned that I was in the "senior service":}

I shall leave you all to it and await further torrents of abuse from the other connoisseurs of SAR.....please don't wait around for a further retort, you won't get one as I tend to get into trouble for posting my opinions of civSAR on prune:*

Let's get back to how to re-invent SAR........:ok:

[HAL9000]

SkyStalker,


I was unaware that an S-92 had been used in rescuing an RAF ejectee. When and where was this?
Please don't think I am questioning your integrity; I am genuinely interested.


Subsequently edited this as I believe the S92 was used in the Moray rescue in 2012. Have there been others?

[Hilife]

Was this not the one?

BBC News - Tornado jet crew eject before aircraft crashes (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12301802)

[SkyStalker]

That was the one I was referring to hilife

[[email protected]]

Skystalker - I haven't operated the S92 so I can only accept your findings but tell me, do you use 'crew hover' for night wets - as you know that was SOP for the Sea King. As for quick response, drums or wets in a big or confused sea usually meant you were behind the drag curve up front and AHT/HT was often the best method. By the time the winchop had said "Forward 1" it was time for "Back 5" as the wave broke.

BTW, particularly amused you have 'outed' Angel for his lack of SAR experience - he is indeed the sciolist in the room:ok:

[SkyStalker]

Crabbage - Let me just say, I am not an expert on the 92, nor am I particularly experienced at SAR.

It's not a hard and fast SOP that we will default to 'crew hov' to do Night wets/drums. The option is there if you feel it will provide a better service to the w/man in the prevailing conditions. However, we are required to train with it as part of our ongoing currency requirements.

[[email protected]]

Thanks - it will be interesting to see what the very experienced guys make of it later in the year when they come across on managed transition.

[cyclic]

Surely the two very experienced ex-RAF SAR standards chaps will be able to look at it before then.

[JerryG]

Hullo happy SARers. After a long lay-off from prune it's great to see that the arguments (both sensible and otherwise) continue to flourish on this subject in such a significant year.
Can anybody please point me towards a definitive list of when military squadrons and bases are handing over to their civvy replacements?

[jimf671]

MoD bases

Inverness (replaces Lossiemouth), 3 x Agusta Westland AW189, 1April 2015
Humberside (replaces Leconfield), 2 x Sikorsky S-92, 1 April 2015
Caernarfon (replaces Valley), 2 x Sikorsky S-92, 1 July 2015
Manston (replaces Wattisham), 2 x Agusta Westland AW189, 1 July 2015
Boulmer - MOD service discontinued 30 Sept 2015
St Athan (replaces Chivenor), 2 x Agusta Westland AW189, 1 Oct 2015
Prestwick, 2 x Agusta Westland AW189, 1 Jan 2016
Newquay (replaces Culdrose), 2 x Sikorsky S-92, 1 Jan 2016


MCA bases

Sumburgh, 2 x Sikorsky S-92, 1 April 2017
Lee-on-Solent, 2 x Agusta Westland AW189, 1 April 2017
Portland - MCA service discontinued 30 June 2017
Stornoway, 3 x Sikorsky S-92, 1 July 2017


(Note that this means that although Sumburgh and Stornoway may appear to be part of the same fleet and using the same kit they are actually not on the same contract and not under the same technical requirements until 2017.)


[A new plan for Manston/Wattisham is awaited.]

[Thomas coupling]

And the Falklands Jim?

[jimf671]

Do you really think that is anything to do with Bristow, TC?

We'll all know in a week or two.

[[email protected]]

I don't think Ladbrokes are giving odds of Inverness being up to speed with 189s by 1 April;) Well not this year anyway>

Manston might move to Lydd which would therefore make the case for moving Lee on Solent to Portland:E If that happens, don't get into trouble on the East coast as you will have only Humberside between Inverness and Lydd - oh, I forgot, the new helicopters are so fast it will make that all work!

10-base solution my @rse!

My money for the FI would go on BIH TC not Bristow (who have enough problems in this country!)

[vfr440]

I heard pre-Christmas that BIH have the FI contract, FWIW - VFR

[jonnyloove]

My understanding was bristow was proving one aircraft for oil and Gas support and a SAR asset as well to support Premier Oils exploration plans down there.

[satsuma]

Premier Oil might want to sit on their hands. The Sea Lion prospect is pretty deep and pretty distant. That make it pretty expensive to extract and I'm not convinced $50 a barrel will cover it. (Not that this has anything to do with the proper SAR contract.)

[jimf671]

I don't think Ladbrokes are giving odds of Inverness being up to speed with 189s by 1 April;) Well not this year anyway>

Manston might move to Lydd which would therefore make the case for moving Lee on Solent to Portland:E If that happens, don't get into trouble on the East coast as you will have only Humberside between Inverness and Lydd - oh, I forgot, the new helicopters are so fast it will make that all work!

10-base solution my @rse!

My money for the FI would go on BIH TC not Bristow (who have enough problems in this country!)


With you on most of that Crab.

Expecting S-92 at Inverness and that will probably be confirmed in a couple of weeks.

Moving the 'vicinity of Wattisham' base even further south would not be clever. The Manston situation should be taken as an opportunity to move north and close the gap between there and Humberside.

I don't see too much wrong with the basic concept of the 10 Base Solution. The Bristow version however has the shortcomings to which you allude.

[llamaman]

Unfortunately the amended basing solution will be driven primarily by commercial factors. Don't be surprised if that already uncomfortably large gap on the east coast becomes even larger. Faster cabs will be an improvement but they can only be in one place at one time!

[[email protected]]

The Manston situation should be taken as an opportunity to move north and close the gap between there and Humberside. I get the impression that Kent will be the answer.

Faster cabs will be an improvement but they can only be in one place at one time! an argument that no-one wanted to hear when the divvying up of the UK was going on:{

[Same again]

Thought I could hear whining from somewhere so guessed it might be here :O

[HAL9000]

What some call whining others would call valid criticism of the basing solution for a very important contract.
The original basing solution was supposed to have been driven by an in depth study of the required helicopter coverage. This begs the question; in moving the base from Manston to Lydd has the necessary re-evaluation been done?
Obviously, as the taxpayer is both funding the contract and the customer then this information will be freely available ... won't it?

[jimf671]

What some call whining others would call valid criticism of the basing solution for a very important contract.
The original basing solution was supposed to have been driven by an in depth study of the required helicopter coverage. This begs the question; in moving the base from Manston to Lydd has the necessary re-evaluation been done?
Obviously, as the taxpayer is both funding the contract and the customer then this information will be freely available ... won't it?


Yes, any whining in the background is an APU.

The UK Gov't is due to pay over £1.6bn for this across the next 11 years, so it better be good.

However, redacted is a bit of a theme throughout the available paperwork.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Caernarfon and Manston have the same start date (Jul 15). There has been much publicity regarding the infrastructure work starting at each of the new bases and I believe the new build at caernarfon is well underway to meet the timeline. I guess wherever the Manston solution is relocated to will need a local supplier of temporary hangars and porta-cabins......assuming there will be crews and aircraft to fill them?!

[jimf671]

WATCH: Work on new £7m Search and Rescue helicopter base is flying ahead - Daily Post (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/watch-work-new-7m-search-8387648)

[[email protected]]

supplier of temporary hangars and porta-cabins. now we are talking proper old-fashioned military SAR:ok: Maybe that was what they meant by no-lesser service (than we had 30 years ago;))

[3D CAM]

now we are talking proper old-fashioned military SAR:ok:

Crab, not just the military! Civvy Portland operated out of a condemned, by the Navy, hangar, and portacabins for getting on ten years. With a two/three month spell with the aircraft getting its TLC from the Engineers out of doors:ok:. Great days.:ok::ok: Pretty much like the early days of BHL in the Falklands.
Off at a tangent... With a purpose built faciilty at Portland only ten years old! Why build another at Lydd? Surely with these new super fast, warp speed, two places at once helicopters, then Lee could stay in place as could Portland??:E Money saving for everyone!!!!!

3D

[shetlander]

Quote from a recent Bristow document...

UK SAR Estates: Seven new builds, 2 refurbishments and one temporary facility are delivered to contracted timelines.