UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread

[[email protected]]

Ou, peut etre, les autres ne sont pas les professeurs de vol comme nos deux crabes.

[MOSTAFA]

De toute évidence.

[jimf671]

Yesterday, without the aid of a safety net or stab vest, and with limited fire support, Clark Broad gave a presentation to the Scottish Mountain Rescue General Committee, prior to our AGM, on Bristow SAR implementation. Questions from the floor focussed on delays affecting Inverness.

As usual, the contractor is expected to take the blame for decades of DfT shortcomings and MoD aircraft and equipment inadequacies are overlooked.

A more informed approach from some could have advanced collaborative working and the service to the poor soul lying in the snow.

[Clever Richard]

In order to be more informed I thought I would get the information from the horse's mouth as it were. Can't get much better than this:
SAR Bases | Bristow Search and Rescue (http://bristowsar.com/index.php/uk-search-and-rescue/sar-bases/)
Inverness went live on 1st April 2015 so what is all this talk of delay?

[[email protected]]

Oh well that's OK then - there must be a completely different reason Wattisham is being extended by a month then.

Jim you appear to have changed your tune somewhat - are you now saying they can do no wrong and nothing is their fault because that is what it sounds like.

[jimf671]

Yes. D flight went out with a flourish and 951 arrived with a flourish in the form of a hot handover in Lochaber on the morning of the 1st April.

However, a combinations of AW's lateness with the 189, Balfour Beatty's roofing skills and surprises from the regulator, have particularly conspired against Inverness. This has had a significant impact on the training programme for their SAR partners. Some of us have started to catch up by applying a bit of innovation :ok: but some of us have not and would rather sound off about it. :ugh: The second significant impact is on achieving flight-wide NVG currency where, even more shocking than that impact, we are faced with Crab being right. :eek: Fortunately, it doesn't get dark here until August. :hmm:

In a few days, there will be four UK SAR Helicopter Service bases operational. The three nearest the equator will all have NVG capability. One might speculate that since St Athan is the only base working-up during the next quarter, the NVG training load now drops. The catch-up plan should accelerate.

[jimf671]

The two AW139, G-CIJW and G-CIJX, have been at Lydd for several days and JX has been out and about.


One AW189, G-MCGN, has been out and about around Norwich recently. G-MCGP is at Yeovil and not flying. It looks like G-MCGM is also there. Anyone know more? Final pre-deployment fettling? Modifications?

[jimf671]

Oh well that's OK then - there must be a completely different reason Wattisham is being extended by a month then. ...



That;s what people were saying around RAF Lossiemouth in March but on the morning of the 1st April, the champagne cork popped and it was all over.

[The SAR RC]

Wattisham is being extended by a month

In a few days, there will be four UK SAR Helicopter Service bases operational

Both of these statements can't be true.

However, a combinations of AW's lateness with the 189, Balfour Beatty's roofing skills and surprises from the regulator, have particularly conspired against Inverness

Perhaps the resources (human and otherwise) available to train incoming aircrew may be something to add to your list.

The three nearest the equator will all have NVG capability

Down to ground level?

[dangermouse]

sorry you have some duff gen, no 189s that have been delivered as SAR cabs are in Yeovil or have been returned, GM and GP certainly arent, only the next production ones, G-MCGR & GS.

DM

[jimf671]

sorry you have some duff gen, no 189s that have been delivered as SAR cabs are in Yeovil or have been returned, GM and GP certainly arent, only the next production ones, G-MCGR & GS.

DM


Tracked to Yeovil and not seen returning. No recent tracks.

[dangermouse]

100% guaranteed, maybe tracked FROM yeovil rather than to?

DM

[Bucaneer Bill]

I believe there has for some time been a transition period of three months for the new SAR bases to stand up, and when all is well the redundant RAF SAR base to cease operations. Perhaps folk should conserve energy until such time as the three month period has been exceeded.:8

[Jerry Can]

SAR RC yes down to ground level.

[The SAR RC]

All aircrew at all three flights? No fibbing now.

[jimf671]

... Jim you appear to have changed your tune somewhat - are you now saying they can do no wrong and nothing is their fault because that is what it sounds like.


It has to be faced that there are two flights out there doing it for real. In the case of Inverness, in spite of their problems, it looks like they will exceed the typical Q2 number of jobs for Lossiemouth. It is perfectly possible that the people of the north of Scotland are simply having more mishaps this year but there is certainly limited ammunition for us to suggest that they are held back by aircraft or aircrew capability.

Let's remember that nobody has done this before. Not the customer, not the contractor and not the regulator. This is helicopter SAR in hostile terrain with a full and challenging specification which as you well know is not simple, not cheap and not easy. Yet the last three months have been a success based on the ultimate measure: OUT THERE DOING IT. When Inverness NVG is complete, Managed Transition aircrew are in place and settled in, and AW189 is operational, it is reasonable to expect lots of really good work.

[Jerry Can]

All aircrew at all three flights? No fibbing now.

I can only speak for my flight RC.

[The SAR RC]

Well the original sweeping statement told us that the three flights nearest the equator were NVG capable. I've a feeling that was just rebroadcasting what was said at the MRT meeting that was being referred to.

Let's be clear. Being able to fix the goggles to one's helmet only above 500' does not equal an NVG capability. I have no doubt that in the fullness of time, considering the calibre of some of the people that have been recruited, that Bristow's UK SAR operation will have a full NVG capability down to ground level. But despite the contract requirements, that time is not now. So can we stop pretending that it is?

[[email protected]]

Let's remember that nobody has done this before. Not the customer, not the contractor and not the regulator. This is helicopter SAR in hostile terrain with a full and challenging specification which as you well know is not simple, not cheap and not easy.
Jim, let's check the veracity of that statement - the milsar HAS been doing this for many, many years and set the bar very high in terms of capability - this is what the process of contractorisation had to emulate or exceed, it was quite clear what needed to be achieved and when, all parties signed up to it and a lot of money is involved.

As to the service up North so far - as you have said several times - it doesn't really get dark in Scotland in summer so it is not really a fair comparison.

[Jerry Can]

Like I said before. The NVG training is and has been down to ground level, which as far as I know is below 500' and in the dark and everything ;)

[jimf671]

Jim, let's check the veracity of that statement - the milsar HAS been doing this for many, many years and set the bar very high in terms of capability - this is what the process of contractorisation had to emulate or exceed, it was quite clear what needed to be achieved and when, all parties signed up to it and a lot of money is involved.

... ...


It is true that milSAR have set the bar very high but that is 30% capability and 70% ethos. 'Per ardua ad astra' and 'Si vis pacem, para bellum' writ large and bright in a way that puts defence of the people of the UK into its widest possible context. :ok:

Let's remember that none of the flights that were operating up to 31st March 2015 from any of the four providers had the capability to comply with the demanding technical specification of this new contract. Any delays and temporary short-comings should be viewed in that context.

We should also remember that the DBIS, DfT, AW and the CAA have a share of the responsibility for where we are now.



La oss gå flyr. :cool:

[cyclic]

n the dark and everything

I don't want to get involved in the mud slinging but that can't be true in Inverness - there is no night this time of year. They will have to wait until the end of August to get any low level stuff done. I know, 'cos I wos there.

[Jerry Can]

I'm in Welsh Wales :)

I was at Lossie for 5 years too.

[jimf671]

Hopefully, nobody has a plan for summer NVG training when it is Sumburgh's turn. :ugh:

[cyclic]

Was always the way, we need you to be current for night jobs but there is no night so there won't be any night jobs...but you should remain current. That's SAR training statistics in a nutshell.

Took a lot of senior officers a long time to comprehend this.

[[email protected]]

Not really - we rejigged the quarterly periods to remove the need for a lot of summer night flying many years ago and a 90 day night currency was hardly demanding to maintain.

Just because the 'centre' doesn't get night for the summer doesn't mean the rest of the UK is the same.

Perhaps a little foresight and understanding of SAR training might have led to a southern base -Newquay for example- being used for NVD training instead of Stornoway or Inverness.

[Jerry Can]

The NVD training has been done at the individual flights. Good point though.

[[email protected]]

So is there someone suitably qualified and experienced at delivering NVD training, from basic through to advanced SAR, providing that training at each flight?

If so, where did all that experience come from?

[Jerry Can]

An NVD team doing the rounds.

[jimf671]

I hope you guys have a good week Jerry Can. :ok:

[Jerry Can]

Thanks Jim.

[Al-bert]

You mean - Bristow are doing the NVG training in exactly the same way as we did it in RAFSAR when we first got goggles? Oh that will never do :}

[[email protected]]

An NVD team doing the rounds. with recent front-line SAR NVD training experience and proven track record of basic and advanced NVD techniques???

[Jerry Can]

Yes, very experienced indeed. Fully qualified and very very good.

[P3 Bellows]

with recent front-line SAR NVD training experience and proven track record of basic and advanced NVD techniques???

Oh Crab; you old wind-bag. Give it a rest why don't you.

[Al-bert]

pity there isn't a like button on this forum :bored:

[Jerry Can]

A pity indeed.

[[email protected]]

Oh Crab; you old wind-bag. Give it a rest why don't you.
Imagine my surprise - we're back to personal insults when relevant questions are asked about the training.

There are a fixed number of people who have recent, relevant SAR NVD experience - not just teaching on an OCU , but operational front-line SAR tuition - and few of those have taught basic NVD as well.

Most of the ones I can think of are either still in the military or only just leaving to join Bristow and somehow I doubt that any homegrown civsar talent has any comparable level of experience.

I sincerely hope the training the new contract guys and girls get is top-notch because they aren't going to get anything like the amount of continuity training that RAFSAR was allowed.

It's a perishable skill and mixed white light and NVD takes practice, especially in crappy weather, blowing snow, recirculating spray etc.

Being an ex-Afghan warrior has little validity in the SAR environment and the hard won lessons from years of milsar should not be ignored - who would imagine that flying through a height bug without acknowledging it would be acceptable practice on NVD? Is that a Bristow SOP perchance?????

Try to do this sort of stuff on the cheap and it will bite someone on the ar*e - I don't care who does it, just that it is done properly.

[Jerry Can]

It has been done properly by credible and skilled trainers. I understand your concerns but it doesn't have to be crap because it is civilian. I'm not spouting off having only experienced one side of SAR. I have a good amount of mil SAR experience and I can reassure you that the training was delivered by people with the right experience and it was well delivered and comprehensive. We didn't have a dark stormy night tick in the RAF but we trained people well, highlighted benefits and pitfalls of NVG and trusted people to use their judgement on that night to end all nights and to know their limits. Some Captains/crews were more capable than others and could do jobs that other crews wouldn't attempt at all but we didn't knock them for it as that is good airmanship. It's no different now. The kit is excellent and the aircraft is very well setup for NVG ops too.

[llamaman]

At some stage Crab is going to have to get over the fact that Bristow didn't recruit him as their saviour to teach all things SAR. Of course Operational SAR experience is a relevant factor but it is not the be all and end all. The right people teaching a relevant package to capable crews and aircraft counts for a lot. Suggesting that 'ex-Afghan warriors' have little validity in the SAR environment demonstrates a lack of understanding of transferable (and relevant) aviation skills. Of course, having a winch fitted adds an extra dimension but operating in big mountains in very poor weather (and light levels) whilst managing a crew under sometimes extreme pressure is, I would argue, highly apposite.

And, believe it or not, many non-SAR types have demonstrated extremely good winching skills when required to do so (either through training or on Ops). In my opinion, part of the downfall of milSAR (specifically RAF SAR) is that an empire was built on the perpetuated belief that SAR is such a highly skilled discipline that nobody else can do it and you need to train day in day out to remain competent.

The Bristow approach is different (not necessarily better or worse) and many of us didn't want to see the end of MilSAR but that is where we are and the clock isn't going to be turned back. There will no doubt be some early 'blips' (the military has certainly never been 'blip-free') but maybe it's time to show the new guard a bit of support instead of a constant stream of negativity.

[jimf671]

... they aren't going to get anything like the amount of continuity training that RAFSAR was allowed. ... ... ...

Possibly because it is not relevant since amongst other things it is not designed for 26 year old newbies and not designed for the crew structure, posting policy and career structure that RAF SARF operates. :ugh:




[After midnight so I am back on the payroll. Better shut up. :oh:]

[jimf671]

Bristow out there doing across the Highlands and Islands today.

GG still out over the minch training now.
GD (R948) was at Raigmore and Bristow Inverness this afternoon. Minch earlier.
GF (R951) been on a job over the North Sea and probably still at ARI. Previously Skye in the afternoon and out in the north-west, possibly the Fannichs (?), in the morning.
GI out on trainings sorties in the Monadhliath.

Last day of the Quarter and no evidence that much has held them back during the last three months. It will be interesting to see the numbers.

Bristow out over Snowdonia and the Channel today.
GJ is just in from a night tour of the tops. :cool:

Tomorrow is more than just another day. :ok:

[[email protected]]

Possibly because it is not relevant since among other things it is not designed for 26 year old newbies and not designed for the crew structure, posting policy and career structure that RAF SARF operates. totally and utterly irrelevant to why and how NVD training was carried out - the experienced/more capable people had to do less training than the newbies but it was still a whole lot more than will be available in the brave new world.

In my opinion, part of the downfall of milSAR (specifically RAF SAR) is that an empire was built on the perpetuated belief that SAR is such a highly skilled discipline that nobody else can do it and you need to train day in day out to remain competent. hmmm - did we train too much? maybe a bit, but railing against that and trying to maintain competence on a wide skillset with 1.5 hours a day spread amongst your crews is just not the way to do it.

llamaman - perhaps you are of the RN belief that SAR is just a secondary duty and training for things like PLB homings and night wets is just irrelevant for modern SAR crews - if you had seen how much training exchange crews needed to bring them up to our standards you would know the difference and not be so dismissive.

I know there are capable ex-SH pilots in the mix but covert mil ops in the desert (mountains and crap weather included) are not really much like night mountain winching in cloud and rain and snow as I am sure many will find out.

I didn't notice that RAFSAR had a downfall - we (sorry they) are being civilianised due to perceived cost savings and a lack of understanding and support from MoD - just like Navy SAR.

Jerry - I hope for the sakes of all my friends who are with you in Bristow that the training is top drawer and well structured in these early stages - it needs to be. We will have to wait and see how the steady state works out.

I am well aware that I am considered a dinosaur who keeps banging on about how SAR should be done but, since I haven't been 'assimilated' into the 'new world', I am at least allowed to voice my opinion (not something the company or the MCA approve of).

And, for the umpteenth time, I really don't care that I didn't get a job with Bristow - I'm sure I interviewed badly, don't fit their demographic and have a history of saying things they don't like so it wasn't exactly a surprise.

It is interesting that the lead individual of the team decided to take a line pilot position instead of continuing in management though.............

[Spanish Waltzer]

'.....decided.....' Or was pushed that way? I guess depends who you talk to.

More milestones today. Best wishes to all involved.

SW

[jimf671]

Oh it had a downfall all right. AVM N***n's JHC.

Being left out of the big plan left it the unwanted orphan of the British military helicopter world. Without the protection of the big corporate blanket of JHC and separated from all the upgrade and replacement plans there was no competition for a privatised version of a first entirely planned unfied service.

A few slightly different decisions in the late 1990s and we could have been watching the military rolling out a new service at Stornoway and Lee-on-Solent.

That could have been a much more interesting version of managed transition! :E

[[email protected]]

'.....decided.....' Or was pushed that way? I guess depends who you talk to. a great shame really - he struck me as a top bloke blessed with intelligent vision tempered with integrity who did seem to care passionately about UKSAR.

[jimf671]

a great shame really - he struck me as a top bloke blessed with intelligent vision tempered with integrity who did seem to care passionately about UKSAR.

Happy to have him hovering over me.


Day or night.

[Al-bert]

OH DEAR CRAB

I am well aware that I am considered a dinosaur who keeps banging on about how SAR should be done

you are actually considered a newbie by the REAL dinosaurs of SAR - the ones who set the standards for you to aspire to; the ones who always maintained second standby, the ones who introduced NVG via PNG, ANVIS and Nightbird and who did mountain jobs at night without any goggles at all!

I don't know how we managed without you :ok:

[leopold bloom]

http://youtu.be/4-PIckHrZ0o

4-PIckHrZ0o

[mmitch]

Valley SAR finishes....
RAF Sea King Lands For The Last Time (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-sea-king-lands-for-the-last-time-01072015)


mmitch.

[[email protected]]

Oh Dear Al-Bert - although most of my SAR experience has been in the 21st century, unlike yours I would suggest, I started instructing SAR in 1989 and taught people night mountains without NVG then. Previous to that I was night flying in mountains in Cyprus, and doing jobs there with much higher DAs than good old blighty with goldfish bowl vis and dust landings - all without the aid of NVG. G04 and D12 anyone?

Thanks for the patronising attitude - I had thought you were beneath that sort of thing. Perhaps if you had been around on 22 Sqn when we were pioneering the use of a modern, capable FLIR system and developing SOPs, re-teaching the art of high hovering and persuading the old-guard that mixed white light and NVD was the way forward - you might have been able to teach me something.

Emergency Handbag reselected to standby:ok:

[P6 Driver]

Sorry for interrupting with a question about SAR.

Although Caernarfon is reported as going live today (1st July) does anyone know if the "Kent" base as Bristows refer to it, which I seem to think is Lydd, also went live today?

[Norfolk Inchance]

Sorry for interrupting with a question about SAR.

Although Caernarfon is reported as going live today (1st July) does anyone know if the "Kent" base as Bristows refer to it, which I seem to think is Lydd, also went live today?
Lydd(Kent) has a minimum one month delay; When did Sqdn Ldr Hurcomb change over from Nav to Pilot??

[Al-bert]

I'll see your Cyprus Mountains Crab - and raise you with the Alps! You are of course quite right in so far as I left early, at the very end of last century, I felt 22 years of SAR (after SH) was enough and too many young thrusters (you too perhaps?) preferred to spend time on promotions or licenses, rather than doing SAR. A pity your experiance wasn't valued by Bristow - you could have taught them a thing or two I'm sure. ps I don't have a handbag, could you lend me one of yours? :hmm: and btw we always used white light and NVG, you didn't invent it old chap.

[P6 Driver]

Norfolk Inchance - Thanks for the Lydd info.

(I assume the Sqn Ldr Hurcomb question wasn't for me as I've never heard of the chap - and vice-versa probably)

[[email protected]]

Norfolk - about 3 years ago.

Albert - no-one has ever described me as a thruster:ok:

P6 - I believe the Lydd delay is the reason Wattisham isn't closing on time.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

In my opinion, part of the downfall of milSAR (specifically RAF SAR) is that an empire was built on the perpetuated belief that SAR is such a highly skilled discipline that nobody else can do it...

Sad but true.


I didn't notice that RAFSAR had a downfall


Says it all really - and you're far from the most stove-piped individual in the SAR Force. One or two individuals with vision did try to broaden the SAR Force's portfolio, but their efforts achieved little thanks to the dead hand of the blinkered majority. And here we are now watching MilSAR in its death throes...

[airsound]

Thank you, mmitch, for posting that report.
Valley SAR finishes.…I was the commentator for the the RAF Cosford Air Show last month - interestingly, the RAF’s only air show this year, and that’s a downturn if ever there was one. Sorry, thread drift.

Anyway, I felt immensely privileged to be able to cover the last ever public appearance at a show of a Big Yellow Budgie from Valley.

The guys - Flt Lts Martin Jarvis & Rob Jones, and Sgts Martin Seward and Pete Wood - did their stuff with their usual aplomb and attention to detail. As they neared the end of their display (sorry, rôle demo), I found myself getting more and more emotional.

As they departed, to much applause and appreciation from the audience, I reflected on the 22 Sqn motto 'Preux et Audacieux'. As all you erudite PPRuNers will know, it translates roughly as 'Valiant and Brave'. I wondered
who could disagree with that expression of the daily work of the men and women of 22 Sqn? Let’s wish them all the very best for their now rather uncertain futures. I’d personally like to say how immensely proud I am of what 22 Sqn has done - and indeed of what their colleagues on 202 Sqn have also doneIt was a rather teary moment.

airsound
(who is slightly prone to the old ’beery tears coursing their way down the seamed old cheek’ syndrome)

[Clever Richard]

Military SAR was civilianised because it didn't have a deployable capability.


Shame to read different generations of military SAR slagging each other off. SAR evolved, that is all that happened. Night ops, particularly over the sea and in poor weather, went from being something done with a certain amount of trepidation to a regular and unremarkable event.


Show each other a bit more respect ladies.

[Al-bert]

Clever Richard - as one who spent roughly half his service doing night ops over the sea with a certain amount of trepidation and then finding it to be a regular and unremarkable event having converted to the Sea King I'm not sure to whom you are referring as a lady!

However, if Crab and I wish to trade insults and even pull hair it's none of your damn business! :E

Pob lwc to Civsar I say :ok:

[[email protected]]

Al-bert - :ok:

TOTD - the problem was that SAR and CSAR are two completely different animals (something not really understood by the upper management) and that the serviceability levels of the yellow Sea King force were just incompatible with deployed ops - just manning the Falklands was a massive drain on resources and manpower let alone attempting anything else.

You want to deploy a force that has just 23 aircraft (of which 6 are a different mark thanks to other crap decisions) and a commitment to 6 full time SAR bases, each required to provide 2 aircraft every day, plus an OCU with a 3 line program plus depth servicing and modification programs and 2 aircraft in the Falklands - where the f*** do the assets come from?

It's like so many military tasks - given the right resources anything is possible however, back-of-a-fag packet plans can work for limited periods but are unsustainable in anything but the short term.....something else our military and political masters have failed to learn:ugh:

BTW - i don't think pulling circuit breakers on a Mk 3 at night over the water ever became an unremarkable event!!

[Al-bert]

:ok:Crab

BTW - i don't think pulling circuit breakers on a Mk 3 at night over the water ever became an unremarkable event!!

only QHI's did that - some might have received broken fingers! :eek:

[tucumseh]

Crab

the problem was that SAR and CSAR are two completely different animals (something not really understood by the upper management) and that the serviceability levels of the yellow Sea King force were just incompatible with deployed ops - just manning the Falklands was a massive drain on resources and manpower let alone attempting anything else.

You want to deploy a force that has just 23 aircraft (of which 6 are a different mark thanks to other crap decisions) and a commitment to 6 full time SAR bases, each required to provide 2 aircraft every day, plus an OCU with a 3 line program plus depth servicing and modification programs and 2 aircraft in the Falklands - where the f*** do the assets come from?

I agree. Every single one of these points (bar the Mk3A comment obviously) was moaned and groaned about at the first SAR policy meeting I was sent to in Express State in 1985 to act for the RN. For whatever reason, Political interference and senior officer politics dogged SAR more than anything else. An Air Cdre chaired the meeting and was interrupted by a beancounter who just walked in, brushed him aside and spelled out cutbacks using an argument a 5 year old would laugh at. But funnily enough, the thrust of that particular meeting didn't change - the planning of the CSAR fleet conversion programme, which as Crab rightly says, required a very different aircraft fit. We were just told to do SAR with fewer bases. (I was just a junior CS and didn't say much as Culdrose and Prestwick weren't affected. My input was limited to CSAR planning as the RN tended to lead on engineering as the main user).

The Mk3A programme was a mess because, again, the senior bods didn't understand that Westland simply couldn't go and build (originally far more than 6) new Mk3s. Far too much of the avionics was obsolescent, or in some cases obsolete, and the different form, fit, function and use meant a re-designation. So a retro-fit programme had to be championed by MoD(PE), with very little RAF support above Sqn Ldr level. It didn't happen, so you had a split fleet; with the new Mk3A in many ways still way behind the original spec (radar primarily, one of the crap decisions Crab mentioned).

It may seem odd, but everyone knew in the early 90s that SAR was on its way out. When the brass want to wield the "long screwdriver" and influence every single decision on what is a routine production contract, you know something's up. After interview, I was selected as Mk3A programme manager in August 1993, but on the day I arrived to take up post was told the RAF had lobbied CDP (4 Star) and insisted an RAF officer do the job. I was given an RN job instead. A year later, precisely the same thing happened on (what became) Chinook Mk3, only that time I'd given a handover and made it to my new office. Both times an inexperienced officer was parachuted in. The SK guy ignored instructions and delivered, within the budget he'd been given, plus a few extras from offests. His annual report in 1994-5 called him "an Arthur Daley character", which of course is how you get things done in procurement, but wasn't seen that way by his RAF bosses. On Chinook, his counterpart rolled over and you know the rest.

Just a view from the other direction.

[Weasel Watcher]

Could I suggest to the Moderator of all Pruners that perhaps the time has come to rationalise this particular thread into `UKSAR - the way ahead` and `Whingeing Old Crabs- the older I get the better I was`.

I am sure that it will not have escaped people`s notice that the UKSAR contract is now under way and that no amount of whining and `you don`t want to do it like that` comments is going to change anything.

[CharlieOneSix]

Well said WW - some time ago this Harry Enfield's dinosaur of a character came to mind when I read one individual's posts on this thread and you obviously feel the same way....

http://i1123.photobucket.com/albums/l543/CharlieOneSix/harryenfieldshow_zps1obi4bqh.jpg

[leopold bloom]

LiveLeak.com - The original four Yorkshire men sketch (not a Monty Python sketch)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

TOTD - the problem was that SAR and CSAR are two completely different animals (something not really understood by the upper management) and that the serviceability levels of the yellow Sea King force were just incompatible with deployed ops - just manning the Falklands was a massive drain on resources and manpower let alone attempting anything else.

You want to deploy a force that has just 23 aircraft (of which 6 are a different mark thanks to other crap decisions) and a commitment to 6 full time SAR bases, each required to provide 2 aircraft every day, plus an OCU with a 3 line program plus depth servicing and modification programs and 2 aircraft in the Falklands - where the f*** do the assets come from?


I actually agree with most of this Crab (NB it was 25 airframes not 23!) but I feel that, while you offer valid reasons why deploying would have been tricky to achieve, the parochial attitude of certain individuals would have stymied progress even had the physical assets been available.

You are, of course, aware that various members of the SAR Force have deployed on ops in several guises in recent years, just without the aircraft - had this opportunity been taken sooner, the brass might have been more keen to keep Mil SAR. As it was, it was too little too late - and lack of people (not aircraft) limited how much could be done. And of course the thorn which was never properly grasped properly in recent times was OCU manning, which meant frequent delays training new crews - but that's a slightly different issue!

[Clever Richard]

Crab and Albert,


My interjection had the desired effect. Glad to see you two getting along; now go and get a room!

[[email protected]]

TOTD - I am sure you are right about numbers, couldn't remember if the Lossie 'drag damper' one was cat 5 or not!

The use of SAR paramedics in Afghan was driven by a massive lack of qualified personnel thanks to the Defence Medical Service not getting its act together - I don't think that would have saved the SARF if it had happened earlier.

However, the OCU's main issue was the upper management's constant error to rape them of aircraft to support the front line. It is all well and good protecting your operational capability, but without aircraft, the OCU fell further and further behind and that is what ultimately caused front-line manning problems.

True, OCU manning was an issue but there was one Sqn that provided the majority of QHIs and QHCIs while the other was happy to let people who were eminently suitable for training jobs stay forever at some flights rather than run the risk of upsetting them.

Add in the ridiculous decision to close St Mawgan (after moving the depth servicing to Fleetlands just to boost their order book and inflate the price they sold it off for) and you have a recipe for disaster since the SARF at Valley turned into an overmanned, under-performing behemoth with a SAR flt and an OCU sharing insufficient resources and a less than perfect engineering setup with so many long-handled screwdrivers from the HQ just making things worse.

Most of this was easy to foresee but senior officers always know best - NOT:ugh:

Clever Richard - I think Al-bert and myself were quite capable of having a difference of opinion and sorting it out without counselling;)

[torque137]

RESCUE 951 has just assisted Lochaber MRT on a job in the mountains in the Fort William area.They were on scene from approx 0000 to 0100.Just thought you learned gents would find the timing of this job a topic for discussion.Well done RESCUE 951 and Lochaber MRT as always.

[tucumseh]

Add in the ridiculous decision to close St Mawgan (after moving the depth servicing to Fleetlands......This was facilitated by a real oddity. Most here would regard Fleetlands as 3rd Line, but they were designated as 2nd/3rd Line, and depths A/B/C/D on a lot of kit, so they would be capable of providing deployed manpower to bolster air stations (or just do it at Gosport), if for whatever reason the latter couldn't cope. (Service sports days, jollies, guard duty, potato peeling, general layaboutedness.........) :ok: So to a beancounter closing depth servicing at St Mawgan would have been a no-brainer (given BCs only think of money, not value).

[oldbeefer]

Not sure I've ever been able to take SAR boys seriously since visiting a Whirlwind flight years ago. They were scattered around in bunny suits and carpet slippers moaning because the next (free) hot meal was a few minutes late!

[Thrust Augmentation]

RESCUE 951 has just assisted Lochaber MRT on a job in the mountains in the Fort William area.They were on scene from approx 0000 to 0100.Just thought you learned gents would find the timing of this job a topic for discussion.Well done RESCUE 951 and Lochaber MRT as always.


The SK from Gannet was doing some leaf blowing in my garden on Friday night & I heard more activity last night - were there two out as the one I heard was clattering about the joint much like an SK?


Since you seem to be up on these things in our area, what's the deal with the S-92 rarely / never using the LMR centre & always seeming to go to the fuel dump? I'm figuring it's a noise or weight thing as it's no bigger than the SK?.

[torque137]

Im told its a downwash issue,it will never land at the LMRT Base for fear of smashing the windows in the building next door.

It will therefore always be seen at the refuel site,or,the field in Glen Nevis.

Hope this helps.

[Thrust Augmentation]

Hope this helps.


Cheers GB - makes sense.

[MKO72]

Both SK and S92 should not be using the LMRT base for landings. Its mostly to do with noise and the high number of complaints the police received from local residents, plus adjacent buildings were not getting occupied or leased out because of noise, so the Police duly notified Bristow/Navy/Raf about this. Bristow took this on board but the Navy have seemed to be forgetting this more and more as time goes on. The West End Car Park is still a designated landing site for both aircraft (along with carrs corner and Glen Nevis) but sadly police have so few Officers spare they cant man the West End, something Bristow have totally forgotten about in the hand over (Local HM Coastguard teams did man all Helicopter Landing sites for CG Aircraft) Hope this helps :ok:

torque137 - I think it was Navy 177 that did that job in the wee hours the other night, coming to think about it I have not yet seen the Inverness S92 down here in the dark or even low light.

[jimf671]

... ... torque137 - I think it was Navy 177 that did that job in the wee hours the other night, coming to think about it I have not yet seen the Inverness S92 down here in the dark or even low light.


The ADS-B track shows G-MCGI departed INV and headed down the Great Glen to Lochaber at 2228h UTC on the 4th and returned by a similar route to land at INV 0023h UTC on the 5th.


(The same aircraft was in the north-west the previous night during a similar time slot but it is not known if that was ops or trg.)

[MKO72]

Jim, the rescue on Friday was done by Navy R177, as stated by Lochaber MRT on their facebook page. In the same post they say that the S92's cant do night jobs yet.
I'm not sure what CG951 was doing on Saturday night in this area but there was no jobs on with MRT, Coastguards or Medevac.
Have you been told differently by Bristow about night jobs?

[jimf671]

- I referred to a publicly available (incomplete) ADS-B track that put a Bristow Inverness aircraft in the area during that time period. So the aircraft could have been sighted and led to the original confusion.
- I do not know what Golf India was doing there. If it was a NVG training flight, how frustrating would that have been!
- R177 not known to be on ADS-B.

- Not doing NVG is not the same thing as not doing night jobs.
- It doesn't get dark until August (https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/q81/s720x720/11705138_849730645076140_7419743449130221915_n.jpg?oh=816092 061ce8fc3f9c9dd5b39700de8e&oe=5630BB08).

- Aircraft get assigned to tasks by ARCC for a variety of reasons including night vision capability but also being already in the air and closer or the nearest base being already assigned.

- Well done R177.


(No pissing contests please.)

[[email protected]]

Not doing NVG is not the same thing as not doing night jobs
True and in fact the 'not quite day/not quite night' scenario is much more dangerous as it is too bright for NVG but not dark enough for white light.

It is that time when a pilot can be suckered into using daytime techniques without appreciating there are actually insufficient visual cues to do so.

I always did day into night Cat check sorties to highlight the problems.

I hear there is a great deal of NVD training going on with Bristow in an attempt to get the pilots with lots of S92/139 time but no NVD time up to speed - tricky at this time of the year with such short nights. I wonder how many extra training hours they will need, beyond the 1.5 hrs per day allocation, to get them up to full operational SAR standard rather than basic NVD operators - and who will be paying for all that training???

[jimf671]

None of this flying is a secret. All the aircraft involved are on ADS-B and the tracks are there in publicly available internet databases with a full record of times and day-twilight-night conditions. One of them may still be out over the Channel in the dark as I type this.

They are contracted to provide crews who operate in all light conditions down to 2 mlux, so what would make us think that a training and certification delay specific to NVG also has a bearing on operations in 1 lux?

As for who is paying for what, I am sure that a few complicated sums have recently been done by various bean counters. And fourteen shillings and sixpence ha'penny here, and two guineas there (trying to make it easy for Albert to follow :)). You know what? It probably adds up to the square root of the cube of bu99er all in the big picture. Nobody is going to be left lying in the snow or floating in the water because of those calculations so unless it's part of the course work for their OU degree in contract law it's not a burning issue for most folk. :ugh:

Maybe get on the blower to Inverness or Humberside or Caernarfon Crab and remind your former colleagues that without their favourite QHI around their skill fade will catch up with them. Or is it that it's difficult to stay on-the-ball without the smell of leaking AVTUR and burning wiring in the background to keep you alert?

One day it will have to be faced that modern powerful and well-equipped civilian aircraft are doing UK SAR and the sky has not fallen in.

There are a few wrinkles in the plan and searching questions have been asked of principal players. Frank answers have been forthcoming. Those who refuse to recognise the commercial landscape do not get to hear the frank answers because they do not provide room for the contractor to obey Rule 1 and Rule 2. Rule 1: Do not p155 off the regulator. Rule 2: Do not p155 off the customer. (Or is it the other way round?) Maneouvring toward the frank answers is no more or less difficult overall than with the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm (NVG, paramedics, FLIR, ...).


In the Highlands, we are expecting the full contracted capability for aeronautical support to mountain rescue from Inverness with a Sikorsky S-92A during winter 2015/16. We are expecting the full contracted capability for aeronautical support to mountain rescue from Inverness with an AgustaWestland AW189 during winter 2016/17. We are hopeful of low-light capability being added to the capability of GAP SAR aircraft operating from Sumburgh and Stornoway soon after the extra training loads are lifted from the MAIN contract.


Recent article in Casbag ends as follows.
"Importantly, we have a role in providing opportunities, in both training and operations, for this service to develop to its full capability and maturity."


One day soon Crab the press and public will be cutting Bristow as much slack as they once cut you. I expect to be still asking searching questions and maneouvring for frank answers.

(Still more questions about the rear than up the front.)

[Vie sans frontieres]

Nobody is going to be left lying in the snow or floating in the water

So night wets is a currency requirement now is it?

One day it will have to be faced that modern powerful and well-equipped civilian aircraft are doing UK SAR and the sky has not fallen in

Progress is undoubtedly being made in some areas but not training for night wets will result in a major drop in capability as those aircrew that have left the military suffer skill fade in that discipline. Unfortunately, as has been said before, this deficiency will only rear its head at the most inconvenient of moments.

[[email protected]]

In your self-appointed role as expert in aircrew training Jim, you don't know as much as you believe - I am very well aware that the aircraft is extremely capable.

But - and it is a big but - this service was supposed to be at least as good as what it replaced, )which it probably will be in a year or so's time when the ex-mil have got comfortable with the new aircraft and the civ guys used to the NVD) = but is it going to be as good right from the start? Very unlikely and anyone who believes so is kidding themselves.

There has been much made about how this service is cheaper than what it replaced and when the questions were asked it seemed that training was the area the company felt could be trimmed down without impact. When that proves not to be the case and more training hours are needed, who will absorb the cost? The company, who are in this for financial game and to prove a model works for future contracts, or the taxpayer who will be held over a barrel when there is no alternative service provider?

Night training in all disciplines is essential for safe and efficient SARops - that is the bottom line and all the clever technology doesn't take that away.

[P6 Driver]

One day soon Crab the press and public will be cutting Bristow as much slack as they once cut you.

Not unless it's in a parallel universe though.

[jimf671]

CONCERNS

My principal ongoing concerns relate to rear crew.

Managed Transition is bringing 42 military rearcrew to the new service who are overwhelmingly RAF. In spite of the pay cut in relation to PA Scales, these include Sqn Leader, MAC and RN WO as well as greater numbers of PO and Sergeant. That has to rank as a success.

Other rearcrew are from a variety of provenance that includes a former life in British military SAR, CivSAR or air ambulance.

There appears to be a trend for Managed Transition winchmen to select a seat inside nearer the heater. That leaves a smaller proportion of highly experienced personnel on the end of the wire. We have discussed rearcrew and airmanship previously.

At the same time, the regulator, who "has never regulated operations like these before", chooses not to license SAR rearcrew but regulates these tasks in a manner similar to air transport cabin crew.

Overall, this leaves the impression that rearcrew are regulated and paid as though they were 'trolley dollies in dry-suits' as I posted previously.

Understanding helicopter airmanship of this particularly challenging variety, the working practices of mariners and the working practices of climbers and mountain rescuers can be important for those in the back at both ends of the wire. In the weeks just prior to award of this contract even the attendance of one of the craft's most experienced practitioners could not prevent a tragedy.

As things currently stand, there is some remaining talent to be harvested from the military but we will soon move toward majority 'ab initio' CivSAR rearcrew training. Elsewhere in Europe, and the wider world, Human External Cargo (HEC) accounts for a worrying accident toll. In the UK, close attention to high standards led by military operators has kept accident rates very low. If the regulator is not there forcing the correct standard then risks can easily multiply.

Fortunately, there are small hints of growing awareness for some in Bristow management of the risk to which this exposes them. Hopefully that seed will continue to grow. Appropriate reform at the regulator may be a challenge.



HEC
(EASA PCDS memo 2014)
HEC is transport of individuals external to the rotorcraft with simple and / or complex PCDS connected to the cargo hook / hoist.

[[email protected]]

And the cracks are starting to show - some very high quality ex-mil rear crew have chosen to move to different contracts and I believe they are struggling massively to find a rearcrew leader for Inverness.

Just pay them properly Bristow!

[jimf671]

I think their pay scale should be higher too but regulation and training have to be at the root of any changes.

[Older and Wiser]

That the regulator may not have the experience of regulating Technical Crew (EASA Definition for SAR rearcrew) does not absolve the individual Responsible Manager and AOC Holder from ensuring the correct standards and training schedule.
Until such time that the Regulators both in the UK and EU employ suitable staff with experience of AW SAR in both maritime and Mountainous environments we should be wary of any regulation.

With regard to pay levels it is a matter of supply and demand but I dont see pay rates increasing soon. Once the contracts are up and running and the supply of qualified ex military guys dwindles to nothing opportunities will open for those with paramedic and/or MR experience to enter SAR training programs as abinitio Technical Crew at lower starting pay levels.

[[email protected]]

That sounds like a race to the bottom as far as quality is concerned - these guys are fully participating members of the crew, not trolley dollies, with great responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft.

[Older and Wiser]

Crab, you are very correct however pay is not an indicator of quality. It is an indicator of supply and demand. There was a time when Trolley Dollies were relatively well paid but the advent of the low cost carriers has changed that. The Trolley Dollies on Sleazy Jet and Lying Air have exactly the same responsibilities for passenger safety as those flying for BA, Quantas etc etc, they just get paid less and work longer but it is a stepping stone to the bigger airlines or a step down for those who want less route work or don't fit the image/age criteria any more.

It is a step forward that EASA have designated SAR Rearcrew as 'Technical Aircrew' but in the future there needs to be a route into SAR for those Technical Aircrew. There are many qualified (non SAR) Military Rearcrew who might make the transition (some not as we know from Mil Experience) however the AT pay rates for 'Loadmaster Crewmen' are even lower. The DfT has insisted on a Paramedic qualification - there are many Ambulance Paramedics with Airmanship experience who may cross over, the pay rates for NHS Ambulance staff is much lower.

The DfT service in the UK can have quality rearcrew going forward but the mark of that quality will be the training programs put in place by the existing and future contractor not the pay rates.

[Al-bert]

And fourteen shillings and sixpence ha'penny here, and two guineas there (trying to make it easy for Albert to follow )

thank you Jim, but like you Jocks we still trade in sheep down ere bye! Now Rudolph! :E

[[email protected]]

Older and Wiser - I think the company took advantage (and the p*ss) offering such low pay rates because they knew that the mil guys had little alternative since SAR was folding within the mil and saw the job as a vocation rather than just employment.

It doesn't say much for the value they place on well trained and experienced SAR rearcrew who are essential to the success of the service especially when compared to the pop-star wages paid to the front-enders.

I have yet to be convinced that taking ambulance crews and turning them into SAR rearcrew is viable or cost effective - ISTR that CHC tried it and it didn't work - paramedic skills are one thing but delivering them on the side of a mountain or on a pitching trawler in the dark is something completely different and the success of the military SAR rearcrewman is due to their robustness and ethos. Can those qualities be identified during a selection process? Yes, of course, but it will always be easier (and cheaper) to teach a competent helicopter crewman paramedic skills in a classroom than it will be to create a competence in operating a helicopter and being a critical part of the crew whcih can only really be done in the air.

It all comes down to the new SAR service being built down to a price rather than up to a standard.

[Norfolk Inchance]

And the cracks are starting to show - some very high quality ex-mil rear crew have chosen to move to different contracts and I believe they are struggling massively to find a rearcrew leader for Inverness.

Just pay them properly Bristow!

WTF is a Rearcrew leader? There are three 'management' jobs on each base, Chief pilot, Chief Crewman and Chief Engineer. In an ideal world these would be filled with personnel who had previous experience of civ aviation preferably with mil aviation before that. If you take someone straight from from the mil there is a great tendency for them to adopt the 'we used to do it this way in the RAF/RN etc', a most undesirable outcome.

I agree that the rear crew should be better remunerated, but I also think that some of the very senior crewman types were being way above the going rate due to PAS etc. The need for a paramedic is also questionable; the amount of ground training dedicated to maintaining these skills versus the benefit to the punters in the back of an a/c is debatable. An enhanced medical qualification for sure, but paramedic?, especially with the proliferation of Air Ambulance with their massively qualified trauma doctors. I understand they may not pitch up on the side of a hill in the Cuillins, but how often do our rear crew 'stay and play' in that environment?

[P3 Bellows]

ethos

Good to see Royal Air Force brain washing still works.

Are you saying that unless you are military you can't possibly be up to the job?

Really .........

I'm guessing in your well washed mind that goes for every profession in the land.

[Older and Wiser]

The need for a paramedic is also questionable; the amount of ground training dedicated to maintaining these skills versus the benefit to the punters in the back of an a/c is debatable. An enhanced medical qualification for sure, but paramedic?

Agree 100% Norfolk before HCPC registration we had a high level of Paramedical Training for RAF & RN Winchmen but it was focused on the role and not on how to be an Ambulance Paramedic. With the advent of HCPC registration no body in the Military stood up against being driven down a pointless and burdensome route; neither did the Rig Medic fraternity.

It seems that it is only the UK that is insisting on this level because the requirements authors copied what the military were doing without looking at broader aspects of the job and how it is done worldwide.

[[email protected]]

Are you saying that unless you are military you can't possibly be up to the job?
Not at all but you must acknowledge that the training and experience gained from military service would cost a small fortune to replicate in the civilian environment - therefore any civilian training establishment would either cost a great deal to run or have to accept a far lower ability and experience level onto the front line than the military did.

Most winchmen/women and winchops I know keep themselves very physically fit - including a lot of gym work - because they understand how demanding the role can be, especially dealing with casualties in the water. How many ambulance paramedics do the same? Not many judging by the ones I have seen in the last 15 years - that is the suggested pool from which to select future winchmen............

Norfolk If you take someone straight from from the mil there is a great tendency for them to adopt the 'we used to do it this way in the RAF/RN etc', a most undesirable outcome yet that is exactly what has happened in civsar for so many years except that it was dominated by the RN who couldn't see the difference in training and skills the RAF brought to the party. Strangely enough, there were two very good guys who joined civsar straight from the mil (RAF) and quickly ended up as training officers.

PAS was all about retention of good quality and experienced people and that is where the low pay rates from Bristow will have an effect - if there are any better offers or contracts then people will vote with their feet and it will just accelerate the need to train in-house with an inevitable reduction in capability/experience on the SAR flights

[Older and Wiser]

Highest PAS rate for a FS NCA is £58k and for MAcr £63k; are BHL paying significantly lower than this to Winchman Paramedics?

I understand that the base rate is probably significantly lower but when additional pay for Paramedic, instructor Q's, remote locations etc are added & Pension contributions?

[P6 Driver]

This might well be a silly question but as there are people making points about training, pay and competency, e.t.c. on this thread, have any of you written to Bristows, HM Coastguard or other authorities who actually make the decisions about all of this or is it a case of bumping gums on an anonymous internet forum in true Daily Mail letters page fashion? (i.e. It makes you feel better but can't make a scrap of difference in the real world).

If anyone has written to them, I apologise, but bearing in mind what the last few pages are like, there's no way I'm going to trawl through over a hundred more page of that!

[Wander00]

Just seen the pay rate offered for the MCA National Aeronautical Commander - seems pretty meagre for the level and breadth of responsibility, and I am not a "rotorhead" - just for comparison allowing for inflation it is broadly similar to what I got when I finished as Secretary of a large "Royal" yacht club. The rate offered seems to assume a military pension to top it up.

[[email protected]]

Highest PAS rate for a FS NCA is £58k and for MAcr £63k; are BHL paying significantly lower than this to Winchman Paramedics?
Yes! ISTR the starting pay was between £30K and £35K with an allowance of £7K for paramedic quals but I stand to be corrected on the finer details. I think the best paid will still see a good bit less than £50K.

The rearcrew leader - sorry, Chief Crewman - job is a measly £3K extra.

P6 - all that has been discussed on these pages is to do with a contract for service provision which was approved, after competition, by the DfT so writing to complain will have no effect. Those within the system have their union to assist with pay negotiations but as far has the training is concerned, that is simply up to the contractor.

[dieseldo]

Wander00.

So if this is the case then the situation is just the same as Mil SAR which has paid it's maintenance staff peanuts in comparison with it's civil counterparts for years. One of the benefits of the new SAR regime is that the maintenance staff are finally getting a fair deal that does not require their military pension to top up their wages. I can't remember seeing anything previously about the plight of the maintenance staff working on Mil SAR.

[jimf671]

This might well be a silly question but as there are people making points about training, pay and competency, e.t.c. on this thread, have any of you written to Bristows, HM Coastguard or other authorities who actually make the decisions about all of this or is it a case of bumping gums on an anonymous internet forum in true Daily Mail letters page fashion? (i.e. It makes you feel better but can't make a scrap of difference in the real world).

If anyone has written to them, I apologise, but bearing in mind what the last few pages are like, there's no way I'm going to trawl through over a hundred more page of that!


Well, on first meeting with the Bristow SAR Director, I asked her if she thought she was paying her rear crew enough. Is that up front enough for you?


It is worth considering that many of the individuals involved will be perfectly happy being able to transition over at the existing rates and conditions with an exit possible not far ahead anyway and getting to continue in the job they love at a respectable though not stunning pay while probably having a decent pension in the bag already.

[[email protected]]

Dieseldo - it was only when the engineering was contractorised that the maintenance staff were not well remunerated, before that they were all in the military and paid according to rank just like everyone else.

Somehow it seems acceptable for employers to take a military pension into account when calculating pay rates - this wouldn't happen anywhere else in the private sector, the pension has been earned in its own right and should not be used to pay below-market wages. Imagine if you were means-tested every time you applied for a job and there was a sliding scale of pay depending on how much you had earned previously - it is a disgrace!

Most of the rearcrew will now have to rely on their pension to keep themselves at their previous pay levels simply because a big company decided they could either like it or lump it and that SAR rearcrew couldn't possibly be worth anything like the frontcrew.

Jim - I don't think any of them are perfectly happy with the low pay on transition though they will have to accept it; I think it is a lack of respect for the role they play in SAR and I think it not only petty and small-minded but also divisive and potentially a safety issue as SAR stops being a vocation and becomes just another job.

[llamaman]

Bristow is a very savvy commercial aviation operator and will set (and amend where necessary) the salary scales to fulfil the requirements of their contract. Simple as that. If rearcrew want to take a cut in salary for the love of the job that is their choice. There are other careers out there that pay more, including the military!

[jimf671]

... Somehow it seems acceptable for employers to take a military pension into account when calculating pay rates ... ...


The story of north Morayshire: the most dismal economy in Britain.

[Bucaneer Bill]

Have any of the complaints about a percieved lack of remuneration taken into account the extra military reward of the 14.5% x factor in the previous salaries? Also - work life balance issues should also be borne in mind i.e not deploying to war zones for protracted periods, getting home each time you finish shift, maybe seeing your kids grow up instead of packing them off to boarding school - (a larger list is available on request)

[Norfolk Inchance]

Have any of the complaints about a percieved lack of remuneration taken into account the extra military reward of the 14.5% x factor in the previous salaries? Also - work life balance issues should also be borne in mind i.e not deploying to war zones for protracted periods, getting home each time you finish shift, maybe seeing your kids grow up instead of packing them off to boarding school - (a larger list is available on request)

BB; I take it you are not referring to the RAF SARF here. With the exception of a few, SARF individuals haven't deployed to war zones, and do get home each time they finish shift. If they choose to keep their families elsewhere, then that is their choice, but something we as (ex)military have had to confront and deal with is where to locate our NOK.
I think this issue has probably been discussed before, but the lack of rotation to the 'front-line' has imo helped bring about the demise of Mil SAR

[[email protected]]

Buccaneer Bill - you clearly have a rather simplistic view of life on a mil SAR flight - the RAF rearcrew have been systematically undermanned for years meaning that 12 shifts a month (rather than the new contractors planned 8 shifts) was the norm along with short notice detachments to cover shifts at other flights and short notice Falklands detachments. Plus all that other military stuff that is what the x factor is supposed to make up for.

Additionally, paramedic rearcrew also went to Afghanistan for MERT duties - is that front-line enough for you?

So, while the deployed SH crews got all their leave, courses and AT when they came home and knew exactly where and when they would be, the SAR rearcrews couldn't plan even a weekend off with confidence, were constantly having leave cancelled (always good for the families) and spending their seconds days (supposed to be there for recovery) travelling to fill holes in the shift plots of other flights. Try that after a run of shifts with night jobs and see how fit to fly you are.

Apologies to the SH guys as I know I have oversimplified your working routine but it makes a useful comparison.

Norfolk - the lack of rotation is because the SH force simply would not release their people for SAR selection let alone a full SAR tour - ask the Chinny crews how many made it across compared to how many wanted to come.

On a different note (and more on topic) I am led to believe that the Humberside crew took 3 attempts to successfully perform a wet winching demo at the Armed Forces day at Cleethorpes.............

[Bucaneer Bill]

Norfolk - I was generalising on the ex-mil theme, but if indeed most RAF SARF personnel do not rotate to the front line then I would agree that would have some bearing with respect to HMG looking elsewhere for the SAR resource. As you say - where you keep your family was a choice, and with that choice comes financial and work/life balance decisions. I believe that with Bristows the lads have to live within 30 miles of place of work so no one needs to make a big location decision. I guess the only decision you really need to make is if you are happy or not with the new order of things. If you are not - then don't apply.

[Norfolk Inchance]

Norfolk - I was generalising on the ex-mil theme, but if indeed most RAF SARF personnel do not rotate to the front line then I would agree that would have some bearing with respect to HMG looking elsewhere for the SAR resource. As you say - where you keep your family was a choice, and with that choice comes financial and work/life balance decisions. I believe that with Bristows the lads have to live within 30 miles of place of work so no one needs to make a big location decision. I guess the only decision you really need to make is if you are happy or not with the new order of things. If you are not - then don't apply.

Exactly. These guys aren't being forced to apply to Bristow. If you don't like what is being offered then look elsewhere. As for living within 30 miles of base. At the interview of course you will re-locate, ...... but difficult to see that one being enforced. There are plenty of existing personnel working in CivSar who live >30miles from their base, and that won't change.

[jimf671]

Sometimes guys, you do need to listen to your Uncle Crab.

Typically, here is the gist of a conversation betwen two rear crew in a SARF crew room a few years ago.
"I wish I was back in Agfhan on the ramp of a Chinook with a gimpy."
<<But when you're out there you just wish you were back here doing this.>>
"Yeah, your right."

And the other kind of detachment mentioned.
RAF Search and Rescue crew honoured in 2015 military awards (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-search-and-rescue-crew-honoured-in-2015-military-awards-26022015)

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

What interests me most about the last part of this discussion is that it seems to be OK for rear crew to be screwed over and for their task to ineffectively regulated but it's clear nobody is suggesting that the pilots should be paid in washers and do it for the love of the job.

Bucaneer Bill has clearly made a case for reducing pilot pay by 40%.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

And the cracks are starting to show - some very high quality ex-mil rear crew have chosen to move to different contracts


Another desperate attempt to snipe at Bristow! In a large outfit with various operations in various countries, is it uncommon for some people to move to different contracts? I don't know (and nor do you Crab) but I would guess it happens a lot.

Until Bristow have to cease operations for lack of rearcrew, there is no proof that what you are saying is accurate or fair. And if they do hit any manning issues, they might well choose to cover it up in the manner of a previous outfit who might have operated a UK SAR contract a few years back (off state for 'crew sickness' when in fact the engineers were on strike? RS15 declared when the aircraft had only one engine fitted?).

And even if Bristow do run out of rearcrew and admit it openly, that is hardly a worse situation than the RAF SAR Force found itself in on numerous occasions in recent years. As you yourself have stated, RAF manning of all trades - but particularly rearcrew - has been very tight for years, due to repeated failures by those in charge to recognize and address the issue, and those brave and loyal rearcrew we did have had to work even harder to make the stats look better for the hierarchy.

For the record, I whole-heartedly agree that SAR rearcrew should (in the ideal world, not the commercial one!) be remunerated much more generously than is currently the case. Preferably not at the expense of the Drivers Airframe, mind!

[[email protected]]

Another desperate attempt to snipe at Bristow! not desperate just a factual observation. Yes, people are free to move on whenever they wish but p*ss poor pay that does not reflect the responsibilities of the role is certainly not a loyalty or retention incentive is it?

Never mind, at least the bean counters will be happy when the back of a SAR helo is crewed by ex-ambulance paramedics happy to work for £20K;)

No riposte on the Cleethorpes comment from P3 - I am surprised:)

[P3 Bellows]

No riposte on the Cleethorpes comment from P3 - I am surprised

Well here you are then......... I don't have the foggiest idea about Cleethorpes. However, I gather it's a great holiday venue and the ice cream is fantastic :ok:

P3

[jimf671]

... I gather it's a great holiday venue and the ice cream is fantastic :ok:

P3


Space to land a Dauphin?

[[email protected]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIo-d58CIpM

Hmmm - certainly not the slickest role demo......interesting to know what they were actually trying to achieve - normally you would winch a simulated casualty out of the RIB.

A fine demonstration of downwash vs winching height though:ok:

It looks like the aircraft was formating on the RIB which is not the practical way (nor the RNLI SOP I believe) and certainly not as easy as having the RIB formate on the winchhook/winchman at head height.

Apparently it's all about training:)

[Older and Wiser]

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Agreed it did not look the slickest.

To my eye it did appear that on the empty hook run the irb was trying to formate on the helicopter and failing. Good enough reason to switch to an alternate procedure.

Quite why the winchman was yoyo'd in and out of the irb only the crew on the day will know.

I am sure the punters at Cleethorpes enjoyed it. Apparently there is not SAR demo at the Harwich Sea Festival because, according to the press, "the Wattisham Aircraft has been bought by a private company"

[cessnapete]

Passed through Lydd at weekend and walked around new SAR facility. All looked very impressive. Two brand new SAR equipped helos in temporary hanger, each attached to large, equally shiny new tractors. Maintenance guy said these smaller helos temporary as contracted type not certificated yet. When they are eventually delivered a brand new hanger to be built on another part of airfield. Seems no lack of finance available for the job.

[snaggletooth]

Just the small matter that Lydd should have gone live on 1 Jul 15.

[jimf671]

As pointed out by Crab over three weeks ago, there is a one month delay.

Lydd is expected to start one month later than planned with the AW139 as the stand-in aircraft but otherwise with the contracted capabilities.

I think we may see a few further hiccups in the plan at the AW189 bases where AW139 or S-92 are the temporary fix.

So far the S-92 bases have started on time with full capability and the training plan up-to-date. :ok:

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

Reports emerged a few weeks ago of AW189 being ready in October. Well, is that 1st October at St Athan? With a late start at St Athan? Change over to AW189 at Lydd in October? (If so then what starts at St Athan?) If AW189 is in the south first (otherwise it would be in Aberdeen rather than Norwich wouldn't it), then how do these changeovers happen and still be able to do Prestwick (with what) on 1st January? More aircraft? One aircraft per base as per the original plan for the contract?

1st October is when it starts to get really interesting.

11 x S-92, 5 x AW189 and 2 x AW139 all expected to be complete and delivered shortly.

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

AW's programme and the customer's (Government's) desire for that British (/Italian/Polish) solution are the main factors behind the AW189 delay. However, what were Bristow thinking when they took 4 months to get ink on an order after contract award? With a new type and a tight programme, if you had any chance of getting Lot 2/3 surely by the 26 March 2013 you would have had all the copies printed and a new knib for the MD's pen all ready to go? :ugh:

[BTC8183]

With bases going live[or not] it seems a fascinating time for the new CIVSAR. 3 types being juggled around and bases becoming active.
No doubt the AW189 will eventually mature into something of a sucess,but it may require a lot of patience.
The handling person i met yesterday at NWI said bristows have 3 SAR 189 based [and 2 crew change too] ,but SAR evaluation flying has slowed.
There was a St Athan bound 139 there too, somewhere, plus its partner which was last seen 'heading south'.
The 'kent question' makes for interesting reading, with the manston/lydd permanent base dithering. Maybe just build it at wattisham.....well done btw to 'B' flt for quietly plodding on.:D

[jimf671]

Presumably, that's the second pair (G-CILN and G-CILP) out and about?

Looking like three a/c at Lydd the last few days then.

[Norfolk Inchance]

Had a look around the 189 at Yeovilton Air day; quite impressive actually. Bigger than I thought, although it was internally clean with no SAR Eqpt. Still the poor rear crew can't stand up, but I think it may have potential. Just need to get the bloody things off the production line......

[[email protected]]

It's a Bristow plan to save cash - only PORGs can stand up in the back and they will probably work for less money;);)

[jimf671]

The 189 rear cabin is the same volume as the S-70 Hawk's (without those Pavehawk auxiliary tanks!!) but a wee bit wider and wee bit shorter. There will be bags of room compared to what was required in the spec.


Does anyone know if the Bristow layout is
- still roof-mounted displays at rear corner seats?
- using any equipment mounted on the port door?

[47godnelg]

On a different note (and more on topic) I am led to believe that the Humberside crew took 3 attempts to successfully perform a wet winching demo at the Armed Forces day at Cleethorpes.............

Not quite:

3 pre-planned runs to conduct basic winch man 'touch and goes' with the Cleethorpes ILB - something that unfortunately had yet to be practiced with this particular crew/boat prior to the event despite Humberside SAR's intensive training work-up period prior to going live back in April. Wets were certainly not intended or indeed planned.

1st run was simply a dummy to facilitate boat positioning training using weighted bag; 2nd and 3rd being live runs. All runs had to be curtailed earlier than planned due to the ILB running out of water depth below her keel due to tide conditions.

The ILB crew had never exercised with an S92 helo before and were training two new boat drivers on the day which was far from ideal hence they for-mated on the winch hook/winchman rather than remaining below the aircraft door as expected. They also did not follow the approach/departure SoP that is expected...

There is only so much you can do in a 'role demo' versus full on SAR demonstration. I'm sure the crowds were pleased to see their local SAR helicopter put in an appearance after all... :ok:

[500e]

So a pre planned exercise went TU, now for the real thing:{

[snaggletooth]

For "the real thing" if there was any question about the ILB crew's competency the helo crew would ask them to stop engines, deploy their sea anchor and treat it like a dinghy. Simples.

[Al-bert]

For "the real thing" if there was any question about the ILB crew's competency the helo crew would ask them to stop engines, deploy their sea anchor and treat it like a dinghy.

sometimes, don't you just wish there was a 'like' button on this miserable forum? :D

[[email protected]]

For "the real thing" if there was any question about the ILB crew's competency the helo crew would ask them to stop engines, deploy their sea anchor and treat it like a dinghy. Simples.Except, as I'm sure you know, that is far from simples as the downwash causes all sorts of problems and the run-in has to be quite fast and precise.

As for the role demo - RNLI crew inexperience doesn't answer why the winchman was 'bounced' horizontally into and out of the IRB - looks like a good way to pick up a back injury to me.

If they sit beneath the aircraft door, how will you get the winchman to the IRB since he will be behind the 'underhead' due to wind drag?

[snaggletooth]

Except, as I'm sure you know, that is far from simples as the downwash causes all sorts of problems and the run-in has to be quite fast and precise.

Yes Crab, I know. :)

Sometimes, as I'm sure you know, it's not as easy as I make it look. :ok:

[Al-bert]

how will you get the winchman to the IRB since he will be behind the 'underhead' due to wind drag?

modern winchpersons - bunch of lightweights then? ;)

[[email protected]]

Sometimes, as I'm sure you know, it's not as easy as I make it look. Yes, I understand - I've been doing the same for many years:ok:

[[email protected]]

I gather things are still progressing well...... apparently the RCS this week had Caernafon, Inverness and Humberside all declared as No NVG and No Paramedic!

Brave new world...........

[Bucaneer Bill]

..........apparently things have changed for the better this week wrt RCS status of the MCA aircraft. All three sites now declaring a PM and only Inverness without NVG.

[jimf671]

Once we've seen one aircraft serviceable in a fleet of twelve, a true equivalent service will have been achieved. Not likely to happen fortunately.


Let's not forget that the NVG status has not always been available or thoroughly expressed on RCS. More progress.

[[email protected]]

Let's not forget that the NVG status has not always been available or thoroughly expressed on RCS. More progress. it never needed to be, it was a given.

As for serviceability - we'll have to wait 20 years or so to see how the modern helicopters stand up to the test of time:ok:

[jimf671]

I know that you have a sound knowledge of the history of UK helo SAR and the development of role eqpt across the years Crab so I am disappointed not to see that reflected in your recent post. The progress made by each of the four providers has been different in the absence of a single guiding authority or requirement.

As for waiting 20 yrs, I think we can easily see where this is going when a major takes about a week instead of three months.

[[email protected]]

Jim - not sure how development of role equipment over the years is even slightly pertinent to not having NVG capability or enough paramedics in one of the busiest times of the year.

I know it will get sorted - because it has to - but it is disgraceful that the new service is being stood up without being as capable as the old one - all very forseeable.

As for the aircraft - the 139 was supposed to be the all singing and dancing SAR aircraft with low down-time - right up to the point it was introduced to the maritime environment and flying hours at SARTU and promptly started breaking and corroding.

When the number of S92 hours flown in UK SAR is up to the same as the Sea King flew on an 'almost' constant basis, you can start crowing about the new aircraft.

[jimf671]

Jim - not sure how development of role equipment over the years is even slightly pertinent to not having NVG capability or enough paramedics in one of the busiest times of the year.


For instance, flying on NVG was introduced in half the UK SAR fleet in 1993 and will be introduced for the entire UK SAR fleet by July 2017 (with the base that probably needs it most being last). British efficiency shining through again. :ugh:

On paramedics, it has been discussed at some length previously on this site whether this is the one of the essentials of SAR, since SAR is not Big HEMS. As with NVG, the previous developments in this area have not been either uniform or subject to fleet-wide planning.

I suggest that once a complete fleet is rolled out there will be a sufficient pool of trained aircrew available that such events will be very rare indeed during most of this contract. That situation does not yet exist.


I know it will get sorted - because it has to - but it is disgraceful that the new service is being stood up without being as capable as the old one - all very forseeable.

Disgraceful? :rolleyes:

Unfortunate.



As for the aircraft - the 139 was supposed to be the all singing and dancing SAR aircraft with low down-time - right up to the point it was introduced to the maritime environment and flying hours at SARTU and promptly started breaking and corroding.

I hear you. Not AW's finest hour and there are repeat performances of a few of the problems currently in progress. However, AW189 arrives as we reach one million AW139 hours and examples breaking the ten thousand mark with the 700 examples flying around the world, including a significant SAR population, showing what an unproven aircraft it is. :ugh:



When the number of S92 hours flown in UK SAR is up to the same as the Sea King flew on an 'almost' constant basis, you can start crowing about the new aircraft.

I don't like everything about the S-92 but it is a sound aircraft that has been in successful SAR service in the UK since 2007. There are no indications that anyone blinked when the customer asked for 98% availability on this contract. As far as I am aware all the main players intended to operate with one or two spare aircraft of each type until the DfT changed their spec to two aircraft per base in late 2012.

[[email protected]]

You really have swallowed the big loyalty tablet Jim:ugh:

[jimf671]

Nobody has done anything like this before. Not government, not contractor, not regulator. There are other situations around the world where there are comparable situations in one respect or another but not with all these pieces in place.

Could the contractor have done things differently? Well, one could debate the late ordering of the AW189 and it might or might not have changed where we are now. Maybe some dithering here or there but no show-stoppers.
If, but, maybe.

Could the customer (DfT/MCA Aviation) have done things differently? I have suggested previously that principles of Open Government are wasted on parts of the MCA. And then there is the clear and undeniable fact that it took them 30+ years to even think about writing a full and comprehensive spec for a SAR helicopter contract and 40+ years to get it signed up and start implementing it. This magnitude of step-change shouldn't have been necessary.
So that's a YES.

And their political masters, could they have done anything differently? Well many think that the AW189 is a necessary choice for a successful SAR contractor so that AW at Yeovil can be weaned off their fattening diet of MoD cash. But it's probably the only show in town anyway. EC175 anyone?
So that's another if, but, maybe.

Could the regulator have done things differently? If in doubt, reorganise. And so they did. And in spite of having an extra few years to prepare for what was obviously coming, they were still dithering with a few months to go.
So that's a YES.

Could one of the aircraft manufacturers have done things differently? One might expect that AW wanted to sell aircraft for SAR from the beginning. AW knew that the AW189 would be part of this at an early stage in the process. The programme for SAR role fit should not have been an after-thought. It looks very much like an after-thought now. The closer you look at this the easier it is to understand why Alan Bristow punched somebody at Westland.
So that's another YES.


"No plan survives contact."

[[email protected]]

And so, with all those elements not fit for purpose, we allowed the lowest bidder to win the contract...............

[P3 Bellows]

And so, with all those elements not fit for purpose, we allowed the lowest bidder to win the contract...............

I'm sure it would have been so much better had CHC won the contract..:rolleyes:

[jimf671]

Nice one P3.

Going for a Lot 3 bid may not have been the best idea though.

A Lot 1 + Lot 2 bid was expected by some. There are indications that the two Bs thought so themselves. So it might cost a penny or two more but you get redundancy in more than just aircraft number and type, diversity of implementation ideas, less pressure on a single contractor, less commercial risk, and slightly different and potentially more successful forces upon the regulator (and customer?).

So that is the only option with the potential to have equal or greater value to what we have now. Anything else, with a smaller contractor or one in processes of change or chaos, potentially brings us toward the Swedish situation, where nationalisation was necessary for continuation of service.

[jimf671]

Oh and another thing Crab: do tell us about Stn 290 cracking. Early 1980s through to VERY recently with 3A and other upgrades not solving the problems and other nations seeing similar problems including the Belgians.

[[email protected]]

Rather a pathetic argument Jim - we all know the history and serviceability problems with the Sea King, it is a 1950s design that has passed the test of time with flying colours albeit with the odd problem here and there.

Why should we accept similar issues with a 21st century helicopter that is supposed to be so advanced?

The whole point is that a contract was let to provide a service no less capable - not in 6 months or 2 years but right now!

As for CHC - at least they had a realistic attitude to SAR training.

[lowfat]

Crab will you be popping in for Coffee at Newquay in the near future?

The clocks ticking.

[[email protected]]

Why?.....................

[lowfat]

doesnt the base start working up soon? I thought you were from that neck of the woods.

[P3 Bellows]

As for CHC - at least they had a realistic attitude to SAR training.

.........and a company that is probably about to go Tango Uniform any time now due to its dire financial situation. Where would your realistic attitude be then? I'm guessing the emphasis would be on "at least".

Crab.......do you ever bore your self sometimes?

[[email protected]]

I didn't say they were financially sound, just that their attitude to training was far better - clearly you don't think that is important and just love to bump your gums about anything I say.

Lowfat - I don't think Newquay stands up until Culdrose stand down from SAR which is Jan 16 if memory serves. I still live in the SW but don't work there any more.

[jeepys]

Crab,

Can you enlighten us all please about CHC's realistic attitude to training and once answered then go on to tell us how it differs to the Bristow approach please.

Thanks.

[[email protected]]

Simples - Bristow has stated their training allowance for each flight and it works out to 1.5 hours per day.

That is not enough to keep SAR crews competent across the wide skill-set they are required to perform.

CHC didn't have such a limit and their training ethos was based on RAF practice not RN.

[snaggletooth]

I've not experienced a cap on trg Crab, if people need stats we go flying and get them. That's in addition to trg front and back seaters for other bases, so we're regularly going over the notional 1.5 hours. :ok:

[jimf671]

Over-simplification Crab. I do not know the details of this part of the contract but I suggest that there is likely to be chargeable training and non-chargeable training. One affects the other of course (just as training a SAR Force guy for a captaincy that at another provider you wouldn't need produces training hours for 3 other guys.)

The block charge forms roughly 80% of costs and the contractor will provide trained crews. Contractor's problem. No charges. Not in the "1.5hrs"?

Upkeep is a different issue and there could well be different flavours and different charges.

Is that how it is?

Somebody in here must have experience of recent contracts with similar issues. How do these things normally work?

[[email protected]]

Bristow briefed on their roadshows that each flight had an allocation for training of 600 hrs under the new contract. That's 50 hours per month or a little over 1.6 hours per day, I didn't just make the figure up.

They then said, when questioned, that additional trg would be achieved on Ops - what they meant is that a rescue could be counted towards stats chasing.

However, anyone from a SAR backgorund will know that the training value of most SAROPs is negligible and using it as a currency requirement is just disingenuous. It means that they can look like their crews are current and offset some of the training against operational hours that the Govt pays for rather than dedicated training hours that are included in the contract.

The result - quality of training reduces, currency looks good so KPIs are met, yet operational capability is gradually eroded since no-one practices anything but the basics.

I have no doubt that there are no obvious training caps at the moment because steady state hasn't been reached on the contract.

I do know that some conversion courses have included precious little SAR training compared to what the military would have done.

The UK is going to get what it pays for................

PS let me know when they start doing night wets and beacon homing.............

[jeepys]

Crab,

And how many hours does CHC Lee on Solent and CHC Portland get per month then?

[snaggletooth]

Did a beacon homing 2 weeks ago. Dim snaggio. :ok:

[jeepys]

Directed to the RAF contingent out there. In response to Crabs quote of Bristows not giving enough training hours, how many training hours then does a RAF SAR unit get per month for a unit that has fully qualified SAR crew ie nobody in training and how many crew exactly is that?

[[email protected]]

jeepys - I can tell you that an RAF SAR flt is allowed up to 4 hrs per shift training - every single day and that is for, on average, 5 x 4-man crews.

More often than not, but not at this time of year, that will be used up in 2 sorties - one day and one night but that can be adjusted as required.

You will doubtless find those that thought we overtrained and in some areas they might have a point but the moaners were usually the ones who never used their imagination to make their training more interesting and were often not exactly stars on their cat checks or Opevals.

Don't have any idea what CHC do at Lee or Portland - that wasn't relevant to the last (original) SAR H contract.

Snaggletooth - day/night/VMC/IMC/land or water/ single or multiple beacons???Did you use 121.5 or just go to the 406 datum?

[snaggletooth]

Day, IMC, overwater, single 121.5 beacon.

I've also done a few Radar-FLIR approaches in anger in proper punk weather and it works as advertised. Very impressive.

[jeepys]

Crab,

when you said that CHC had a realistic attitude to SAR training what was that opinion/fact based on? Hours?

4 hours per day is certainly generous and of course very costly and before you say SAR should not be based on cost saving unfortunately it is whether we like it or not. I am sure the ambulance service would argue the same point but the world (in general) is struggling at the moment.

Another question for the RAF folk. How many hours training does a fully qualified Typhoon or Tornado jockey get per month?

[jimf671]

Mil SAR flights always had a constant turnover, a significant portion of whom were SAR virgins. It has to be said though that some of those SAR virgins, front or rear, were highly experience airmen. On top of that, every pilot trained to captain. There are other differences in relation to CivSAR training objectives and career structure, and of course Fleet Air Arm and RAF had differences too.

Let's just be careful when comparing 1.6 apples with 4 oranges.

[snaggletooth]

Jim, how have the MRT fraternity found the S-92 so far? Does it do what you need it to? Better/worse than the venerable old Sea King?

[satsuma]

Jim, how have the MRT fraternity found the S-92 so far?

Very f***ing windy.

[Ray Stawynch]

Crab,

You are an UTTER bore. You're constant incitement to put BHL and its crews down, regardless of the good work they do, smacks of jealousy and bitterness.
Why can't a duty crew claim currency whilst doing a SAROP? Surely, to goodness, the mere fact that these Crews have gone out to safely and successfully achieve their mission is proof that the men and women doing the job are doing it well?
Have you substantive evidence to the contrary?
(Actually, that's a loaded question. I'm sure, given your track record of everything negative towards CIVSAR, you will be able to rattle off many things...)
Agreed, RAFSAR had a greater budget of training hours; but that was then. And this is now.
You know, in the old days Crab, you carried a lot of clout on this forum with some structured arguments and reasoned posts.
Now, in my opinion, all you do is belittle everything and everyone that successfully transitioned, or currently works in, UKSAR.
Ray

[[email protected]]

Ray - I know the majority of the crews in the new SAR service are well trained, well motivated and extremely professional - many of them I have worked with in the past.
However, there are a number who don't have the level of expertise (front or rear crew) who are going to struggle because the training hours to bring them up to the level of the good guys (and girls) are just not there.

What are you going to do about them? Assume that if they(and presumably the casualty) survive the rescue that it was performed to a high standard and the best possible outcome was achieved???

Or are you going to test them on training, check rides and opevals to make sure that what they are delivering isn't the bottom end requirement to meet the government targets but the best that can be achieved in UKSAR?

Frankly I don't give a shi* what you think of my contributions - the fact is that I was privileged to be, for 14 excellent years, part of the finest SAR force and, during that time, many people considered my contribution to the training of that force extremely valuable.

[Ray Stawynch]

Crab - why is it, then, that we have to get into a slagging match, with you at the helm, steering every negative attitude towards CIVSAR!?

Are they doing everything wrong? It appears from every post you make they are??!!!!

If you didn't give a Shi*about your posts, why post them?!


Ray

[Bucaneer Bill]

Unfortunately you will never get an answer to how much things like training cost from folks that have worked most of their lives in a burgers is free fiscal environment

[[email protected]]

If you didn't give a Shi*about your posts, why post them?!

I guess you just don't read very well - that is clearly not what I wrote - perhaps that is why slanging matches occur, because people revert to Daily Mail mode of shock and outrage rather than reading what is actually written.

My criticisms of CIVSAR are because it was the wrong move for the wrong reasons to privatise it. Now that it is a done deal - I expect, as a taxpayer, for the service to be as good as possible and at the moment it is not. I am sure it will improve - based on the quality of many of the people involved - but limiting training isn't the way to do it.

BB - so I can't have an opinion on training because I was in the military and didn't pay the bills??? Well constructed argument, well done:ugh:

Snaggletooth - I should hope it does work as advertised but how many times are you required to practice these disciplines on a monthly or quarterly basis?

[Ray Stawynch]

Crab,

Tell you what - here's a challenge for you; do you reckon you could post something positive about CIVSAR?
Why not see whether you can swallow that pride and self righteous attitude and post something constructive, positive and supportive towards the boys and girls that are digging out blind to make this project work!!

[snaggletooth]

I could answer that sensibly Crab, but that would involve effort on my part. I prefer the old adage, "Fly what you want, claim what you need!". Served us well on the SAR Farce for many years, n'ect ce que pas?

[steve_para]

With regards to talk on this forum around Ambulance Paramedic to Winchman, I just thought I would add my two pennies worth....


I am a Paramedic, employed with a UK ambulance service. I volunteer with my local MRT and I have a small amount of SAR shadowing experience with the old RN flights and new Bristow / HMCG flights. And dare I say it, yes, I intend to pursue a career in UK SAR.


I appreciate some of the comments on this forum around the flying hours required and lack of experience (compared to WSOp crewman) for ab inito reacrew. I would however just like to remind people that not all ambulance paramedics are lazy, overweight and unintelligent. I work in a very rural location, routinely treat multiple patients (critical care) in mentally and physically demanding scenarios.


The world of an ambulance paramedic is not simply turning up in an oversized ice-cream 'van', applying a bandage and taking the person to hospital. Many paramedics (including myself) now have masters level education. Whilst I appreciate the ability to Harvard reference does not make a person suitable for UK SAR I would like to dispel any myth of a lack of intelligence.


Are there ambulance paramedics who would not be suitable for ab inito SAR crewman training? - Absolutely yes - the majority I would argue.


Are there ambulance paramedics who would be suitable for ab inito SAR crewman training? - Absolutely yes. Bristow in the near future will look to address this with the depletion of qualified SAR reacrew. A system like the OASC will be developed I would assume to test for aptitude. I am aware of a number of ab inito crewman have done well without the military background.


In know way am I dismissing the experience or capability of the outgoing military flights - I just wanted to point out that civilians without the military background have gone on to become very capable reacrew.


From my point of view (and from a selfish one :)) I am guessing ambulance paramedics will have to be the next resource pool with proper, extensive training systems put in place to ensure the correct 'end product'.


With regards to the pay side of things, I have read all the comments of 'trolley dolly' wages. From what I can gather the pay on offer for reacrew is less than the RAF/RN. Not sure about this but to suggest an ambulance paramedic will be willing to work for £25k a year is completely wrong. Many paramedics are employed on band 6/7 with unsocial hours many clear £50k+.


Another point to consider - from 2016/2017 the HCPC who regulate Paramedics have now insisted on a full BSc degree to register. If Bristow intend to put ex- WSOp crewman (who aren't registered as a Paramedic) through a SAR course they may have some time to wait (3 years..)




Steve

[xenolith]

Crab,

Shouldn't you be on this thread in the Military section? Don't tell me that you're not qualified :rolleyes:.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/565746-invulnerable-drone.html

[[email protected]]

Xenolith - Ray wonders why slanging matches occur on this thread.....perhaps it is because people either don't have the intelligence or the knowledge to counter any of my arguments in a structured way - they prefer to just try to insult me.

Sticks and stones etc........yawn....


RAY - something positive.......well the RCS now highlights that some of the civSAR flights do have a paramedic on board and an NVG capability....some of the time - so that is positive progress isn't it??

Shame the poor NVG instructors (of which I gather there aren't actually enough) are firefighting round the country trying to get the training in!

Genius organisation to wait until summertime to do your NVG training!!! That couldn't possibly have been forseen could it?

I do want them to succeed because it is a service the UK needs but they are very good at making it hard for themselves.

Perhaps if they had bothered to talk to people with a track record of SAR training delivery it might not be so haphazard now.

[jimf671]

Jim, how have the MRT fraternity found the S-92 so far? Does it do what you need it to? Better/worse than the venerable old Sea King?

Very f***ing windy.

Yes, satsuma, that sums it up for many people who have never worked with S-92 before. Since, like a couple of hundred MR folks across the NW Highlands, I have worked with S-92 since 2007, a lot of this is not new to me.

Staying with the windy theme for a moment, at Kintail, I introduced the 'train hard, fight easy' approach to the downwash issue and have since recommended it to others across the UK. You secure your gear, get your helmet, gloves and goggles on. The aircraft hovers over a bowl and then work through all your winching and highline combinations in a downwash that is constantly blowing you over and you may be crawling along grabbing the heather to stay half upright. Once you have done that until everyone is weary then everyone is getting the idea and there will not be problem during operations. The same sort of approach was used when we did Stage Ones at Inverness a few weeks back. The aircraft was hovering at 20 feet over the pan and the hurricane was blowing! I also encourage briefing of casualties about noise and downwash when a helicopter is expected (regardless of level of consciousness).

There has never been any doubt in my mind that though increased downwash could be troublesome, or even dangerous, we just had get used to it and get on with it. That is how modern aircraft are and that is how we are safer in the air. A few years ago, Tom Taylor, ARCC/MCC, ex-Kinloss MRT, summed it up. "They complained about downwash when the Sea King replaced the Wessex and when the Wessex replaced the Whirlwind. If you stood under a Westland Whirlwind, it wouldn't even part your hair." Spare a thought for the Norwegian alpine rescue teams when 330 skvn get Merlins! :rolleyes:

The Bristow S-92A has the long range tank and so, like the Stornoway aircraft in the past, may arrive fuel-heavy. Restrictions on human payload may result but, compared to Sea Kings that can often only take three upon arrival when we have a massive search to organise, the S-92 lives up to the name Helibus.

Across the UK, Bristow's S-92A has been pretty well received. Double winch, decent seating and a good heater are welcome. Personally, I miss the water boiler and at least one pilot is wondering where he is going to warm his helmet in the winter. :) In Scotland, we have had S-92 since 2007 in the NW Highlands and articles about CivSAR have been appearing in the movement's magazine Casbag for many years, including early 2015. However, SMR could have more effectively harvested the CivSAR experience of the NW teams during their preparatory discussions with Bristow. John Hulse of Ogwen Valley MRT and a team of regional co-ordinators have done a great job of managing the MR side of the changeover in England and Wales. :ok: Different MRT in different areas with different workloads have different opinions in detail. Most of us were ready for change though sceptics were never hard to find. :rolleyes:

One major problem for the sceptics is that the Sea King was pretty rubbish. Decades of just getting away with it. :eek: Three things have conspired to make the Sea King a viable aircraft for SAR in British mountains.
- It is windy, and helicopters love a wee bit of wind. It provides translational lift.
- It is cold, and helicopters love a wee bit of cold. It provides dense air to push against.
- The floppy, carbon-based, ape-descended life-forms in the green onesies. :ok:

Problems at Inverness have prevented the Scottish situation being the success it should have been. The first instalment of a pattern we will see repeated saw Inverness start without the correct aircraft. Last minute regulatory changes were already threatening timescales. To that combination add the roof blowing off the new building and now important parts of the work-up programme are dead in the water. The nights are getting brighter and shorter by the week and aircrew NVG training is suffering. Into that mix comes triggered lightning that cancels training with busy influential MRT and then it's a PR nightmare. :{ Meanwhile, at Humberside, several of those problems do not occur so the Lego blocks all hang together and everybody is happy. Again at Caernarfon, everything falls into place and the new provider is well-received. :ok:

In spite of all that has been stacked against them, Inverness did a large number of jobs during 2015 Q2 that compares very favourably with the average numbers for Lossie. That sort of workload appears to be continuing. Out there doing: not a failing system.

There is much concern about the NVG capability and the result that Gannet looks like night nurse to both Inverness and Stornoway. Certainly, it would be better if all Inverness crews had been NVG current at the commencement of service. Bristow have stated that no other base will start up without this capability (could be the issue at Lydd but I don't know). Since it is barely dark at all here in the summer this is not yet a major issue and a S-92 with all the new toys is only slightly less use in the dark than a Navy SK with NVG anyway. A fix is just weeks away and I am also pleased that Bristow have expressed their intention to introduce NVG at Stornoway and Sumburgh before the contract change in 2017 (though it will not surprise me if the magnitude of the AW189 workload later derails that intention).

In the past there have been comments in some quarters about CivSAR flying standards not being the same as the military providers. I have witnessed a wide range of circumstances in the mountain environment across 27 years, as well as having paid close attention to the contractual situation. I believe that the following may be relevant.

No two pilots are the same. No pilot finds the same flying conditions on the same mountain twice. There are no old bold pilots? There are no old bold thick lazy SAR pilots! :cool:


The principal organisational influence is that until April, no CivSAR contractor operated under a contract and regulatory regime that fully reflected the needs of UK maritime and land SAR flying. :ugh:


Military restrictions in training had become ingrained in MRT culture across decades and were no longer noticed, whereas CivSAR restrictions in training were newer and unjustifiably somehow became a stick to beat them with. :=


Recent influences of the MAA upon military SAR flying and administration appeared slowly and almost unnoticed.


Although MoD-DASA/DefEcon stats and the RAF and RN media effort can give the impression of openness, lots of mistakes and short-comings remained under wraps during the reign of MilSAR and they have never been exposed to the scrutiny currently experienced by Bristow. :ugh:


S-92A is big. "If the S-92 is ‘Helibus’ then the AW189 is expected to be heli-sports-estate: fast and manoeuvrable, with plenty of room in the back for hill stuff." :)


Sea King SAR knowledge base: 37+ years. S-92 SAR knowledge base: 8 years. AW189 SAR knowledge base: New. Every day is a school day. :8 The work-up period never ends.


Bealach na Sgairne is a long way from Gatwick. :E


I believe that the AW189 situation drives a lot of the current problems. The blame rests chiefly with AW and the Government. Although there may be aspects that Bristow could have handled better, we should be careful not to blame the contractor for things that are beyond their control.


La oss gå flyr.


Team Area : Kintail Mountain Rescue Team in Wester Ross, Scotland (http://www.kintailmrt.org.uk/area.htm)
Scottish Mountain Rescue, Volunteering to save lives (http://www.mountainrescuescotland.org)
ICAR - International Commission for Alpine Rescue (http://www.alpine-rescue.org/xCMS5/WebObjects/nexus5.woa/wa/icar?menuid=1076)
Police Scotland (http://www.scotland.police.uk)
Scot Gov: Public Safety and Emergencies (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Justice/policies/emergencies)

[jimf671]

... ...
Shame the poor NVG instructors (of which I gather there aren't actually enough) are firefighting round the country trying to get the training in!

Maybe somebody with a good knowledge of how the regulatory framework has developed can help Crab out with this one?


Genius organisation to wait until summertime to do your NVG training!!! That couldn't possibly have been forseen could it?

Well, clearly that was not the plan.



I do want them to succeed ...

Obviously. :)

[CharlieOneSix]

I’ve just been reading of the organ grinders of years gone by. They moved from place to place to avoid being chased by persons who would not appreciate hearing their single tune over and over again. The poor devils dragged their instruments around from ten in the morning till eight or nine at night and the public only tolerated them grudgingly.

The unwelcome droning on of the organ grinder’s single tune has similarities to one contributor’s ‘half empty glass’ negative contributions to this thread. Wait for the riposte about the organ grinder's monkey........

[[email protected]]

Organ grinder? Hmmmm better than being the monkey I suppose;)


I could be a hopelessly optimistic 'glass half full' type who doesn't understand that a contract to provide a service means exactly that - not struggling to produce and then blaming everyone else for their woes.... Oh it was the nasty weather,,, oh it was the nasty CAA,,,,, oh it was the nasty aircraft manufacturer...... and especially oh it's all nasty crab's fault - if he had just been more positive in his ppruning everything would have worked out all right.

If you bid for the work and take the money, you are expected to produce the right goods on time - or is it just different this time because many people here have vested interests???

[CharlieOneSix]

So you think I meant you, Crab!! Predictable though - highlight the invisible text at the end of my post.

[xenolith]

Crab,

There you go retreating behind your shell scarred wall of self righteous indignation. Hardly an insult more a comment made from observing this thread (I used the drone thread as there wasn’t one about Don Quixote).

It’s a done deal get over it. No matter how much you carp on about the minutia of the transition to the new operators, they will get there and they will do it because they have operators who are every bit as professional and dedicated to the task, if not as experienced, as you were. You have done your bit, thank you for that, you could still been part of it but you’re not. You should stop sniping from the cheap seats, given your background, the alternative is too sad to contemplate...... (with apologies to Wikapedia)

The Ingenious Gentleman Don Crab of La Mancha

It follows the adventures of a nameless QHI who reads so many of his own ACRs that he loses his sanity and decides to set out to revive the SARF, undo wrongs, and bring justice to the world, under the name Don Crab.

Don Crab, in the first part of the book, does not see the world for what it is and prefers to imagine that he is continuing to live out his own legend.

[[email protected]]

When I see all the civsar flights stood up with all the capabilities required from the contract then I will happily accept that the job is complete - until then........

[jimf671]

No you won't Don Crab.

(Ah, Rescue 948 overhead as I type!) :ok:

Here is what is happening to reporting. :sad:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/military-search-and-rescue-monthly-statistics-index

The contents of that document is clearly total b0110ck5, :E since the DfT/MCA don't tell anybody anything and they have been criticised for their appalling reporting of DfT SAR aircraft activity even in their own reports since at least 2001. :ugh:

We're not going to know when it is all working because nobody will be reporting what is happening. :rolleyes: There is something real to get your teeth into. Don't say I never give you anything. :)

[[email protected]]

Jim, it comes as no surprise - with the military system, the RCS was monitored constantly and military flights completed a form R for every callout which was collated and distributed by the ARCCK.

We used it as a method for improving our operational capability.

The MCA flights were often disingenuous with their reporting on RCS (ROA for S92 for example) until challenged and no Forms R were required of them.

A transparent and accurate reporting system is the least the British public should expect from the new contract.

Perhaps I will have to rely on those within the system who have been ordered to keep such information under wraps..

Why on earth should we worry about such a secretive approach to fulfilling a major government contract.......

MCA = not fit for purpose.

[edwardspannerhands]

:D :D. :D

Nail, head, hammer.

"MCA = Not fit for purpose"

Spot on Crab.

And not just in the aviation sphere either I might add.

[2papabravo]

When I see all the civsar flights stood up with all the capabilities required from the contract then I will happily accept that the job is complete - until then........

Would it be at all possible if you could maybe just stop talking until we reach that point?

Your incessant whining is quite nauseating and makes me all edgy on a nice, relaxing Sunday morning.

[[email protected]]

Trouble is, my incessant whining seems to reflect the poor introduction of this contract so when they get it right I might stop........

If you went to your doctor and were told that due to government cutbacks you would only be seen by a 3rd year medical student but it should be OK in a while once he has finished his training - you might be a bit disappointed to say the least if you had a problem that needed the expert care you have come to rely on.

[dieseldo]

I note the MODS have locked the Search and Rescue at Lydd thread.
Any chance of doing the same to this one because the reason for locking the Lydd thread can be multiplied by a hundred here.

[[email protected]]

Deiseldo - you're not another one who works in the new service that doesn't like awkward questions about contract delivery are you?

[snaggletooth]

dieseldo I note the MODS have locked the Search and Rescue at Lydd thread.
Any chance of doing the same to this one because the reason for locking the Lydd thread can be multiplied by a hundred here.

Seconded.

[dieseldo]

No, just 40+ years in the industry man and boy, military and civil.
Not working for Bristow and never have.

[[email protected]]

So you don't think that the poor implementation of a govt contract should be challenged or commented on at all?

[Geoffersincornwall]

..... please don't lock this thread. It is a constant source of amusement and helps to lighten my day when I am looking for the latest rock to be thrown by Crab and the riposte from his victims who just don't seem to get it.

No one can deny that Crab's comments are justified and the correct way to deal with them is to either:

a. ignore them
b. fix the shortcomings he draws attention to and be open and frank about this important public service contract.

In the end we may have to admit that the military did it better but it wouldn't be difficult to show that they were subsidised one way or another by a very 'fat' military machine. That will not diminish one iota the excellent service the current lads and lasses will deliver.

Nit-picking aside the nation will have the service it can afford. There may be some shortcomings when measured against the detail of the contract but this is early days and I am sure that the situation over the next 50 years will improve as lessons are learnt. Per Ardua etc......

G.

[jimf671]

I note the MODS have locked the Search and Rescue at Lydd thread.

Any chance of doing the same to this one because the reason for locking the Lydd thread can be multiplied by a hundred here.


And with closing in on half a million views it is obviously not popular. :rolleyes:

The earliest closing date should be 1 July 2017 when Portland will have closed and Stornoway will have changed over. :)

[jimf671]

ADS-B history showing JW and JX out night flying from Lydd during the last few days. So what's the issue? NVG currency, the building, what else?

[Senior Pilot]

I note the MODS have locked the Search and Rescue at Lydd thread.

If you read the thread, the OP made a valid case for the closing.


Any chance of doing the same to this one because the reason for locking the Lydd thread can be multiplied by a hundred here.

No.

[P6 Driver]

Just a quick word on the closure of the Lydd thread if you guys don’t mind.

I was the originator, and I became very saddened at the way certain people were starting to hi-jack it and use it to their own repetitively argumentative ends. I asked if closure could be considered and it was – thank you very much to the Mods for doing that.

What I objected to is well illustrated in this current thread. A small group go round in circles, none wanting to give way to the opinions of others. Some of the points raised could possibly be better dealt with by PM and then it wouldn’t let those contributors come over as bores in their posts.

Manchester United can fill their stadium with 58,000 people for a wendyball match and every one of those people know more about the game and can see every incident better than the referee on the pitch. Here, we have a clique who grind away and it appears, are doing much the same.

The end result is that with this Lydd thread hi-jack as one recent example and what I perceive as a decline in language (swearing) standards on the site, that’s me and PPRuNe done. I’m interested in the SAR side of our coastal life, but have no interest in reading about it on a forum where frankly, a couple of people need to get a room for the night and sort things out between themselves.

Not to worry, I won’t be missed!
(Sniff…)

[dieseldo]

Thanks P6. Obviously the Mod can't see the similarity.


"So you don't think that the poor implementation of a govt contract should be challenged or commented on at all?"

Didn't say that or even think it.

As one thread closes another thread opens.

[[email protected]]

P6 - actually you will be missed, personally I think all contributions are valuable, even those that use me as a duty target (not that you did)

I think criticism of the contract is valid in the context of Lydd - the base is late standing up (Wattisham have been extended twice to cover) and the NVG capability is still in question as they work hard to get crews qualified.

Notice that I didn't get an answer regarding UKSAR standby readiness being compromised - that is very pertinent and we should be having the debate in public and not behind closed doors - no-one HAS to read this thread, they can always ignore it if they don't like what is written.

If I come across as a stuck record it is because the issues haven't gone away.

[jimf671]

.. ... Notice that I didn't get an answer regarding UKSAR standby readiness being compromised - that is very pertinent and we should be having the debate in public and not behind closed doors - no-one HAS to read this thread, they can always ignore it if they don't like what is written.

If I come across as a stuck record it is because the issues haven't gone away.


Not only have some issues not gone away but they may be about to amplify. In less than a year, tasking will pass to MCA Aviation.

Since the beginning, MCA Aviation, and their Coastguard predecessors, have been poor reporters of SAR helicopter activity. In 2001, 'quoting the NAO findings [from 1998(?)], a UK SAR working group wrote the UK SAR helicopter Provision and Coverage Report and noted the lack of DETR/CG data for inland incidents.' Further comment was recorded in a report of 2006. No change has been observed. :ugh:

[[email protected]]

Thanks Jim - as you have said before, a less transparent organisation than MCA would be difficult to find.

The contract will look perfect because they are marking their own homework.

[jimf671]

Thanks Jim - as you have said before, a less transparent organisation than MCA would be difficult to find.

The contract will look perfect because they are marking their own homework.


When the defence ministry looks open and thorough in their publicly accessible reporting and another looks secretive and barely competent then there is definitely something that needs fixing.

There is some excellent work that has been done by the DfT/MCA Aviation to get us to where we are now but to achieve the equivalent service that they say they are committed to they must report in a thorough and open manner that properly demonstrates contract compliance and value for money.

[lowfat]

can you not do a request for information, as it is public body?

[jimf671]

can you not do a request for information, as it is public body?

Today I received copies of the NAO report back in 1998 that is said to have kicked off several of the early questions about how the Coastguard deals with helicopter SAR.

When I get the time, I plan is to go through it carefully and identify the points that link to the subsequent provision and coverage reports.

Skimming through it this afternoon it is interesting to observe how far we have come, or not, in these 17 years. Most notable, is the slow pace at which not only the Coastguard-branded aircraft but also the Fleet Air Arm aircraft were integrated fully into the previous system (19 years after Fastnet!).

[[email protected]]

What is worrying is that no-one in authority thinks it is wrong to wait for a Non-NVG capable flight (whether that be temporary or permanent) to turn a job down before tasking an NVG-capable flight instead.

Or deliberately tasking a milsar flight instead of a civsar one to avoid getting in the way of NVG training or affecting the early RS15.

Very disappointing since this smacks of collusion from the military hierarchy.

This is supposed to be all about the casualty, not face-saving or politics.

[Geoffersincornwall]

After all that's gone before that's a touch naive methinks

G.

[jimf671]

Although I appreciate the point you are trying to make Crab, I don't think it is as clear cut as that. Remember, there is no HAR3/HAR3A in Scotland apart from a museum exhibit.

[[email protected]]

No, but there are at Chivenor, Wattisham and Boulmer - look at the flights near to them.

[edwardspannerhands]

Have just seen on another forum that 'B' Flt at Wattisham(e) stand down tomorrow at 13.00

[satsuma]

A round of applause for Wattisham for continuing six weeks past your original close date.

And a round of applause for Bristow for getting a fourth base on line. Shame only one of them is compliant with the contract, what with two not being fully NVG capable and one not having an aircraft big enough to carry the required amount of survivors.

Perhaps if they hadn't been sending their UK SAR trained and contracted aircrew to fulfil a lucrative commercial SAR contract in the Falklands for the past few months they'd have a few more fully trained aircrew in the UK.

[jeepys]

We are not there just yet but we'll done to Bristows for getting up and running for Lydd in a very short time. I know there will be plenty of crytisics our there but not bad for such a large contract with high demands. Before anyone tries to disagree please only comment with eqaully as good results, therefore military contracts do not apply.

[[email protected]]

we'll done to Bristows

plenty of crytisics

eqaully as good

Hmmm - hope the standard of your spelling and grammar isn't representative of what you judge to be good;)

[jeepys]

Okay, so I had a few beers down me when I wrote.
I should have known there will be some .... person who would correct me should I make a mistake. In my merry state it looked fine to me but then again so did my thoughts about Crab.
Don't drink kids, it make you think of stupid things!

Crab, why don't you become a lover rather than a fighter!

[nowherespecial]

Satsuma,

It's likely BRS were using the 'lucrative commercial SAR contract' as a training base for their people for UKSAR. It's normal to do after all. Why would you spend a fortune training people in the UK (or elsewhere) when you can send them on contract and have someone else pay for it?

[[email protected]]

Crab, why don't you become a lover rather than a fighter! because my love was for the Military SAR Force of which I was proud to be a part rather than what appears to be becoming a tacky commercial enterprise where cost-cutting (as nowherespecial has correctly identified) and contract politics is the name of the game.

I quite fancy a pint or two of what you were on jeepys:ok:

[satsuma]

Nowherespecial

So from what you're saying, one of two things could have been happening.

1. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by trainees

Or 2. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by fully qualified SAR crews.

My guess would be the latter in which case they have been depleting their UK resources to man a commercial hydrocarbons SAR support contract. Shouldn't those aircrew have been in the UK doing what the UK taxpayer expects them to do, namely train for and man what is widely recognised as an undermanned UK SAR project that is behind on its training?

[[email protected]]

Or 3. They were qualified on type and gaining experience in role (on type) and fulfilling the FI contract when there wasn't space or capacity for them to fly in UK.

It would have been an excellent place to conduct NVG training but they clearly didn't have the resources or foresight for that.

[jimf671]

I think we need to consider that a contract thousands of miles away in the southern hemisphere with part-time maritime LIMSAR really cannot provide any kind of support mechanism for a contract of the size and complexity of the UK SAR contract. And it is only S-92.

I don't think that on 26th March 2013 either party to the UK SAR contract thought that there would be three types involved for up to a year at the beginning. OK, so with common systems on two types it is almost like 2.5 types (2.673 types anyone? :E) but it is still a much increased training load at a difficult time in the contract when they are already trying to ramp up a wide range of capabilities.

I remain slightly concerned about NVG at Inverness though I am confident that they will be sorted for the winter. I am not going to get all excited about other bases going down on NVG capability or paramedic strength for a few days at a time. With the obvious extra training load and the size and complexity of this contract, a few glitches will happen as staff arrive from Managed Transition and Transition Teams get moved around to fill the gaps. Let's have a rested and properly trained pilot and paramedic on base tomorrow instead of an accident today. :ok:



And a big round of applause for all those who were doing this before there were any goggles or paramedics. :ok:

[llamaman]

Nowherespecial

So from what you're saying, one of two things could have been happening.

1. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by trainees

Or 2. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by fully qualified SAR crews.

My guess would be the latter in which case they have been depleting their UK resources to man a commercial hydrocarbons SAR support contract. Shouldn't those aircrew have been in the UK doing what the UK taxpayer expects them to do, namely train for and man what is widely recognised as an undermanned UK SAR project that is behind on its training?

Option 2. Money talks (and is obeyed), the taxpayer has a little moan in forums such as this and is, essentially, irrelevant.

[Sevarg]

Llama, I think you'll find crab has it right.
Crab, the time it would take, yes and the money, to get a NVG compatable 92 for the FI contract would not have been possible. It all takes time. Also unless things have changed in FI civ aircraft can't fly at night so no NVG training. Nice idea though.

[llamaman]

Llama, I think you'll find crab has it right.
Crab, the time it would take, yes and the money, to get a NVG compatable 92 for the FI contract would not have been possible. It all takes time. Also unless things have changed in FI civ aircraft can't fly at night so no NVG training. Nice idea though.

Seems a waste to drag one of their key NVG trainers down there to provide a bum on a seat. Oh, my mistake, that will be the option that incurs less of a financial penalty. It's simple really - commercial pressures trump operational effectiveness. Like the opposite of the military (in simple terms).

[[email protected]]

Sevarg - what I find rather laughable, and somewhat sad, is that a 'SAR' contract is fulfilled to provide cover for the O and G cover in the FI but only during daylight hours. If a last light rig transport aircraft goes down, who will they call to perform the SAR? Oh yes the military. How is that fulfilling a contract? Talk about minimum capability.

It's simple really - commercial pressures trump operational effectiveness. Like the opposite of the military (in simple terms). absolutely and the whole reason the privatisation is a bad thing.

[jimf671]

... If a last light rig transport aircraft goes down, who will they call to perform the SAR? ....


Remind me Crab, for how long?


And the people you know who will be doing it after that: are they any good? Are they Crab-trained? Or maybe they trained Crab?

[satsuma]

Seems a waste to drag one of their key NVG trainers down there to provide a bum on a seat. Oh, my mistake, that will be the option that incurs less of a financial penalty.

Shocking if that's true. Absolutely shocking, considering the non-NVG debacle going on in the UK.

[Sevarg]

Crab, Sats and Llama,
It's the the British Military, also still running the SAR in FI that doesn't permit flying after dark. Something to do with the type of transponder the Mil require. NOT BHL or the oil company. So no amount of NVG gear is going to get the training done down there.
One could say that the RAF are deliberately not helping to get things up and running, if an NGV compatible aircraft was available, which it is not as they are all on contract to the CG. Now what would you all say if you found a GC 92 on an oil SAR contract in the FI's??

[Hot_LZ]

I'm pretty sure that there have been both CAT and SAR(trg) flight in the FI at night. Are a few people stuck in the past?

[Sevarg]

Hot lz. Check 2224 where I said unless things have changed. As no one from the Milsar supporters club had said otherwise I guessed the rule was still in force.

[[email protected]]

Sevarg - I haven't been there since Jan 14 but I think the SSR thing is a red herring - it wouldn't take much liaison to get a conspicuity code for local training in a specific area on specific dates.

If the mil say no to that then it is not an anti-Bristow thing, it will be purely down to threat assessment regarding potential foreign aggressors (you know who I mean):ok:

[llamaman]

I remain slightly concerned about NVG at Inverness though I am confident that they will be sorted for the winter. I am not going to get all excited about other bases going down on NVG capability or paramedic strength for a few days at a time.

Why should non-NVG capability be more of an issue at Inverness than anywhere else? If a rescue needs to be effected at night, overland in poor weather then surely such a reduction in capability would be of equal concern no matter which was the relevant base?

[Vespel92]

You're absolutely right. All rescues will be "AFFECTED" with non-NVG capability :ok:

[llamaman]

Vespel,

Post edited, thank you grammar-police!

Llama

[mmitch]

The SAR AW139 based at Lydd lifted a crewman taken ill off the MV Kent, a preserved tug in the Medway estuary on August 17th. He has since been released from hospital.
mmitch.

HqPHHE_CO70

[[email protected]]

Good to ease themselves in gently with a nice, daylight, flat calm medrescue:ok:

[detgnome]

To be fair, I think they eased themselves in with an NVG assisted search on the Friday night.

[jimf671]

Why should non-NVG capability be more of an issue at Inverness than anywhere else? If a rescue needs to be effected at night, overland in poor weather then surely such a reduction in capability would be of equal concern no matter which was the relevant base?

Perhaps because it's not about one crew member not being NVG current for a couple of days.

[llamaman]

Perhaps because it's not about one crew member not being NVG current for a couple of days.

I suspect the pour soul(s) who are denied a rescue, or face a significant delay, don't really care why a particular callsign is unable to attend. The fact remains that bases are routinely declaring non-NVG capability despite the new service being sold to the public as "better" than the one it was replacing. It may well be in time but that doesn't excuse the less than ideal situation in which the UK SAR service finds itself. And before I inevitably get accused of whinging for the sake of it I'm not, just stating the facts. Senior people who hold gravitas within the SAR community (both civilian and military) read this forum. If we all toed the party line and harped on about how great everything was then they would be getting a skewed picture of the reality.

[[email protected]]

Trouble is, that is exactly what they want - there is no way anyone from Bristow or the MCA (or even the military for that matter) will openly criticise the new service as they have all been given the 'Gypsy's Warning' and, quite sensibly, want to keep their jobs.

[jimf671]

I suspect the pour soul(s) who are denied a rescue, or face a significant delay, don't really care why a particular callsign is unable to attend. The fact remains that bases are routinely declaring non-NVG capability despite the new service being sold to the public as "better" than the one it was replacing. It may well be in time but that doesn't excuse the less than ideal situation in which the UK SAR service finds itself. And before I inevitably get accused of whinging for the sake of it I'm not, just stating the facts.


Let's get real here.

The service that has existed pre-2015 has had up to 4 providers and all of them had major short-comings. There were reduced numbers of aircraft in some flights, poor aircraft availability, poor contract specification, absence or late introduction of critical role equipment, resources diverted to war-fighting, poor and unco-ordinated reporting, no de-icing, poor communications, and late introduction of a unified tasking regime.

Add to that the 60 year public love affair with the pretty yellow helicopter and the recent 'support our troops' ethos on the milSAR side and the contractors being constantly held back and tripped up by 40 years of rubbish contract specifications from the Coastguard on the civSAR side and a less level playing field would be difficult to find (so long as we discount the pitch at Kinlochshiel Shinty Club: but at least there you get to change ends at half time :E).

The UK's first entirely planned SAR helicopter service is under way and is out there doing dozens of jobs every month.

There are several things that could have gone a bit better.

- The Coastguard contract technical specs could have been sorted out 30+ years ago.

- The 24 year introduction phase for NVG could have been shorter.

- CAP 999 could have been sorted out 20 years earlier.

- SAR rear-crew licensing could have been part of that.

- Unified and co-ordinated standards of public reporting of SAR activity as identified 14 years ago.

- The AW189 could have been on time.

- Manston could have stayed open.

- The roof could have stayed on the Inverness base.


... ... Senior people who hold gravitas within the SAR community (both civilian and military) read this forum. If we all toed the party line and harped on about how great everything was then they would be getting a skewed picture of the reality.

Toeing the party line is exactly what we have all been doing through decades of milSAR. :ugh:

.

[llamaman]

Jim,

Thanks very much for the (thorough) lecture, you've kind of missed my point though. I make no claim that the service that has gone before was perfect and I also do not wish to take anything away from the excellent work that is being undertaken on a daily basis by the new bases as they stand-up. A forum such as Pprune is an avenue that facilitates the likes of myself airing frustration at a situation that is less than ideal. Nothing more. The issues of the new service will, in time, be resolved and UK SAR will continue to evolve (and improve). In the meantime, if we all keep our little mouths shut, nothing will be heard.

[[email protected]]

The service that has existed pre-2015 has had up to 4 providers and all of them had major short-comings. There were reduced numbers of aircraft in some flights, poor aircraft availability, poor contract specification, absence or late introduction of critical role equipment, resources diverted to war-fighting, poor and unco-ordinated reporting, no de-icing, poor communications, and late introduction of a unified tasking regime Well that is certainly a set of sweeping generalisations Jim.

Granted the Sea King had its problems with serviceability on occasions during the last 30 years but lets see what the new shiny aircraft do when all their flights are up and running and coping with 2 - 300 jobs a year.

You conveniently forget that until a few years ago, the Mil SAR Flights held a full second standby, aircraft and crew, at RS 60 - will we ever see that capability in this contract? Not a chance. Yes, sometimes its availability was limited by aircraft serviceability but the stats will show a very high percentage in its favour.

I don't know which resources you think were 'diverted' to war-fighting but it wasn't aircraft or crews since any deployments of personnel were managed without compromising UKSAR.

If by poor comms you mean HF - that is valid but we seem to have got the job done with it and it is unlikely that the new contract would have Airwave had it not been used and proven extensively on milsar.

Presumably by poor contract specification you are talking purely about civsar - perhaps the introduction of the 139 when it had inadequate lighting and no cleared overwater SAR modes, yet was declared ready for 24-hour ops.

As for absence or late introduction of critical role equipment - do please clarify.

[Hedski]

Hang on Crab,

Couple of issues with what you've asserted there.

How will civ flights manage serviceability with 2-300 jobs a year? Well given half are S92 flights and since that types introduction in 2007 the average rate was above 98%, which no mil SAR flight was managing despite often there being more than one spare airframe per asset. Civ SAR managed with only a single spare per base and will continue to do so, also only 2 engineers per duty, the norm for many many years.

UKSAR was definitely compromised in the latter years, flights having only a single rear crew member on board and unavailable for winching due to staff shortage to support the front line. Yes, it happened.

Not having a go, you raise many valid points but those mentioned required clarification.

[[email protected]]

Fair points Hedski, especially on the short-lived 3 man crew situation which was a result of the OCU being underresourced for a while.

As for the aircraft availability rate - I think 98% is what is in the contract but none of the civsar flights (up to now) have had to deal with the flying rate of Prestwick, Valley or Chivenor, all of which regularly top 300 jobs per year.

Out of interest, I believe the 3A fleet were managing 98%, but maybe that was just Chivenor (the best SAR flight in the UK, but only until the end of next month):ok:

However, as has been highlighted, we won't know how it is going on the front line in the new service because the MCA just don't publish that sort of info and, once the ARRCK closes, I will be surprised if there is a version of the RCS from the new MOCC.

[Sevarg]

Crab, I think you'll find Lee On Sea gets more than 300. Stornoway about 200 but more hrs due to longer flights.
I must say I would be worry as to how the 189 does, anything with Westland in its name worrys me. They should have stayed with garage doors where they can do little harm.;)

[jimf671]

Thanks very much for the (thorough) lecture, ...

Not meant to be a lecture.

I wanted to list a number of major influences from those of the distant past through to recent problems that take us to where we are now (without writing 3000 words about technical detail).

Meanwhile ...
... ... The issues of the new service will, in time, be resolved and UK SAR will continue to evolve (and improve). ...

... but that continued evolution may be where we can have the greatest influence rather than the minutiae of implementation glitches. For instance, I am keen that we leave the DfT and MCA Aviation in no doubt about the effectiveness of existing and previous incarnations of ARCC so that the new ARCC becomes a highly effective tool in the SAR toolbox. Also, the work of DASA/DefenceEconomics in recording the work of milSAR over the years has been outstanding in many ways. There is no equivalent service without equivalent reporting: and anyway, how else would we know whether it is equivalent?


Well that is certainly a set of sweeping generalisations Jim.

As above: I wanted to list a number of major influences from those of the distant past through to recent problems that take us to where we are now ...


... clarify.

Availability. Covered by others.

Not forgotten about second standby. Flew in 135 and 138 often enough. See "reduced numbers of aircraft in some flights". Rather than some great plan for surge coverage (although it may have served that purpose on some occasions), I expect that second standby was an anachronism with its roots in a time before your day or mine when aircraft fell out of the air quite routinely.

"resources diverted to war-fighting". I have no comment at this time.

Poor comms refers almost entirely to previous incarnations of civSAR: now fixed. (HF, though not what the playstation generation would think of as reliable, has a kind of resilience that other options cannot emulate. Airwave's usefulness varies across the country and is linked to population, infrastructure and topography. Some flights might only use it for ordering a takeaway during the flight home. :oh:)

Poor contract specification refers to the decades of shabby Coastguard/DETR/DfT SAR helicopter contracts with no competent technical specification.

"absence or late introduction of critical role equipment" Where SAR Force led, others sometimes followed, sometimes ridiculously slowly and sometimes not at all.


... once the ARRCK closes, I will be surprised if there is a version of the RCS from the new MOCC.

What has been described to me is as follows. The Coastguard have a computer command and control system called Vision. A new computer command and control system has been in development specially for ARCC Fareham called AeroVision. It takes the essential elements of Vision and adds aviation elements including the essential elements of RCS.

.

[llamaman]

Originally posted by Jimf671
For instance, I am keen that we leave the DfT and MCA Aviation in no doubt about the effectiveness of existing and previous incarnations of ARCC so that the new ARCC becomes a highly effective tool in the SAR toolbox

Don't hold your breath. It's one thing replacing aviation specialists (the military) with aviation specialists (Bristow). Transferring the ARCC to the MCA is the forgotten last piece of the puzzle, attempting to embed the niche specialisation of the ARCC within the maritime-heavy environs of the MCA is not without it's challenges. You pay peanuts etc....

[[email protected]]

Let's hope Aerovision is a better system than their search box program which often gives ridiculous results in coastal waters since it is only designed for open water.

Does that stop them rigidly applying what the computer says and wasting valuable assets in pointless areas? No, of course not - we are back to that 'pay peanuts' thing again.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Granted the Sea King had its problems with serviceability on occasions during the last 30 years but lets see what the new shiny aircraft do when all their flights are up and running and coping with 2 - 300 jobs a year.



How will civ flights manage serviceability with 2-300 jobs a year? Well given half are S92 flights and since that types introduction in 2007 the average rate was above 98%, which no mil SAR flight was managing despite often there being more than one spare airframe per asset. Civ SAR managed with only a single spare per base and will continue to do so,



Crab, I think you'll find Lee On Sea gets more than 300. Stornoway about 200 but more hrs due to longer flights.


...but what the civ flts haven't been doing is 4 hours' training a day as well as all these jobs. Given that Bristow will also be doing less training flying than the mil units, it will not be possible to make a valid comparison of how the new aircraft serviceability compares to the Sea King, even once the Bristow SAR empire is in steady state.

But does any of this really matter? Probably not...

[Al-bert]

Crab says Does that stop them rigidly applying what the computer says and wasting valuable assets in pointless areas?

I had the pleasure of 'liaising with and advising' our CG brethren on far too many occasions, after computers had replaced that misguided and redundant 'local knowledge' from the sector stations.

One case that stands out above all others in my mind was the occasion a 12ft speedboat ran out of fuel 2 miles off Borth (mid Wales) at last light. Because the numerous search assets (Brawdy 1st standby SK, Nimrod, three Lifeboats and a fast fishing boat failed to find it during the night, by dawn the Nimrod (second or even third sortie) was searching off the Isle of Man - a good 90+ miles away. My crew was called in early to replace our 1st S'by (who'd been tasked with a coastal search from St Davids to Anglesey throughout the hours of darkness) and we found the missing craft within the hour, with its three cold but unharmed teenage occupants (no light, no radio, no flares) in the early dawn, 20 miles or so downwind from where it had launched. I had decided to ignore the ridiculously expanded search area that the computer said we should search and which was passed to us by Milford Haven CG. The response from the three ringer in charge at MHCG when I called in to explain the next day was "but surely, how was it missed, Nimrods can find a needle in a haystack"!

Anyone remember that advert? :ugh:

[jimf671]

G-CILN and G-CILP (AW139) arrived at St Athan last night just as the sun went down.

One month work-up.

Only one base to start up in this round. Catch-up time?



A thought for Boulmer.