SAR going out to contract.
vecvec etc....
err actually no. The operation exleckie talks about provides SAR to the civillain population as well, with a well extablished requirement to do so. As is the norm, 99% of actual SAR is in support of non mil incidents.
err actually no. The operation exleckie talks about provides SAR to the civillain population as well, with a well extablished requirement to do so. As is the norm, 99% of actual SAR is in support of non mil incidents.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the current state of play, but once the contract is let and accepted, Britows will take over the provision to cover SAR duties including overland SAR.
Military units will maintain an SAR role but will only provide cover during normal airfield operating hours.
Military units will maintain an SAR role but will only provide cover during normal airfield operating hours.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vec etc..
Not sure where you're coming from; having given SAR over to a civilian operator, what would be the point of maintaining a military capability "during normal airfield operating hours"? Wouldn't this negate the cost saving realised by going civilian?
Not sure where you're coming from; having given SAR over to a civilian operator, what would be the point of maintaining a military capability "during normal airfield operating hours"? Wouldn't this negate the cost saving realised by going civilian?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the gutter
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vec,
The particlar operation I refer to was contractorised well over two years ago. There will be no hand over to Bristows because, in essence, they are already running the show.
It is a military unit with aircraft provided by a civilian company. These aircraft are manned by military crews and maintained by civilian engineering staff.
It provides SAR to the military fraternity, SAR to the civilian community, support to civilian authorities.
As far as your presumption that cover is only provided during airfield opening hours, you are very much mistaken. Like most SAR outfits, this particular operation to which I refer has 24 hr 365 day commitment. Clearly this involves out of hours tasking and call outs.
Juan,
The whole point of civilianising SAR is to maintain, or even better the standard of SAR units, be that in or out of hours flying, whilst at the same time reducing costs by employing a more streamlined eng support structure to the unit. e.g. A civ engineer doesn't do guard, get deployed, need to go to PSF, nip out for a haircut, attend station briefs, fill sandbags etc etc. They are paid to look after the aircraft and the aircraft only.
Saving money all round without compromising operational effectiveness.
I know that civilianising uniformed jobs is a bitter pill to swallow but unfortunately, it's a reality that cannot be ignored. You won't be in uniform forever so think about life after you hand back your kit.
exleckie
The particlar operation I refer to was contractorised well over two years ago. There will be no hand over to Bristows because, in essence, they are already running the show.
It is a military unit with aircraft provided by a civilian company. These aircraft are manned by military crews and maintained by civilian engineering staff.
It provides SAR to the military fraternity, SAR to the civilian community, support to civilian authorities.
As far as your presumption that cover is only provided during airfield opening hours, you are very much mistaken. Like most SAR outfits, this particular operation to which I refer has 24 hr 365 day commitment. Clearly this involves out of hours tasking and call outs.
Juan,
The whole point of civilianising SAR is to maintain, or even better the standard of SAR units, be that in or out of hours flying, whilst at the same time reducing costs by employing a more streamlined eng support structure to the unit. e.g. A civ engineer doesn't do guard, get deployed, need to go to PSF, nip out for a haircut, attend station briefs, fill sandbags etc etc. They are paid to look after the aircraft and the aircraft only.
Saving money all round without compromising operational effectiveness.
I know that civilianising uniformed jobs is a bitter pill to swallow but unfortunately, it's a reality that cannot be ignored. You won't be in uniform forever so think about life after you hand back your kit.
exleckie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of civilianising SAR is to maintain, or even better the standard of SAR units
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the gutter
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vec,
You really should start thinking a little deeper as to why the Mil SAR/ civ eng mix works.
You seem to refuse to accept that SARops can be improved somewhat by employing a different stategy?
Put it this way, would you prefer to use a typewriter or a keyboard to input posts?
I guess you would say keyboard. Don't get caught up in the past because you deny progress. Don't get left behind.
Cheers,
exleckie
You really should start thinking a little deeper as to why the Mil SAR/ civ eng mix works.
You seem to refuse to accept that SARops can be improved somewhat by employing a different stategy?
Put it this way, would you prefer to use a typewriter or a keyboard to input posts?
I guess you would say keyboard. Don't get caught up in the past because you deny progress. Don't get left behind.
Cheers,
exleckie
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: not bristow thank god
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gentlemen
I think the constant referral to "BRISTOW" taking the contract for SAR off the military is a little presumptuous, there are many more willing companies out there that are far less militant, more dynamic and do not employ a bunch of dinosaurs to run their units on a shoe string with crappy old aircraft. they may be safe for the next couple of years with the interim contract, but I am sure the government will want a better company to run the big one. it is not in the bag yet !!!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree. There are plenty of companies that are far less militant, more dynamic and do not employ a bunch of dinosaurs to run their units on a shoe string with crappy old aircraft....but I'll bet that Bristows will undercut them.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vecvec etc
Are those "crappy old S61s" the ones with EHSIs, autohover, twin hoists, HUMS, FLIR etc, or something you read about in the Beano? Oh, and the aircraft are servicable and crews come into work to go flying not do groundruns and PLJs.
Isn't a "militant dinosaur" an oxymoron? Compared to CHC, Bristow pilots are not at all militant, although better paid than their military counterparts. Also we don't do detachments to grotty places that Tony Blair sends us to.
Exleckie is right, wake up and smell the coffee. Recently a goverment minister arrived at a Scottish RAF airbase to see the "new" equipment the RAF SAR Sea Kings had just aquired. The "new" equipment, Ultraforce 2/Leo II QWIP FLIR had already been flying on an RAF Bell 412 supplied by FBH for 2 years! (I will give you a clue, the B in FBH stands for Bristow).
As for NVG, FBH now train the RAF on NVG at Shawbury! There are civilian standards for NVG Ops which are in fact higher than the military ones, if the customers wants it (and is prepared to pay) then the civil world can supply it, faster, cheaper and to a higher quality standard.
Vecvec..leave the mess bar and come out and see what the real world does!!!!!!!!!!!
Are those "crappy old S61s" the ones with EHSIs, autohover, twin hoists, HUMS, FLIR etc, or something you read about in the Beano? Oh, and the aircraft are servicable and crews come into work to go flying not do groundruns and PLJs.
Isn't a "militant dinosaur" an oxymoron? Compared to CHC, Bristow pilots are not at all militant, although better paid than their military counterparts. Also we don't do detachments to grotty places that Tony Blair sends us to.
Exleckie is right, wake up and smell the coffee. Recently a goverment minister arrived at a Scottish RAF airbase to see the "new" equipment the RAF SAR Sea Kings had just aquired. The "new" equipment, Ultraforce 2/Leo II QWIP FLIR had already been flying on an RAF Bell 412 supplied by FBH for 2 years! (I will give you a clue, the B in FBH stands for Bristow).
As for NVG, FBH now train the RAF on NVG at Shawbury! There are civilian standards for NVG Ops which are in fact higher than the military ones, if the customers wants it (and is prepared to pay) then the civil world can supply it, faster, cheaper and to a higher quality standard.
Vecvec..leave the mess bar and come out and see what the real world does!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running In. You are not quite correct. FBH do NOT train the RAF on the use of NVG. They form part of the team who train new crews in the RAF to use NVG - a 60/40 split with the larger portion being military instructors.
Vec,
My dear chap, what is your issue. You talk about NVG not being a requirement. It is if we put it in the Statement of Requirement. Your information on military doing SAR during airfiled opening hours might be a double bluff! By the time this comes in we will only have 3 bases left and they will all be 24hr opening. Seriously, no person in there right mind is going to sign a .................... damn!
Ex Leckie. There have been a lot of lessons learned from the contract you mention - for both sides of the PARTNERSHIP.
Folks, thats what we are talking about here a PARTNERSHIP if we cna afford it. IF not, it may be an all civilian op, what it is almost certainly not going to be is the current system with new ac.
The devil is in the detail of the contract. None of us, I suspect, have seen that IF it is even writen yet!
Vec,
My dear chap, what is your issue. You talk about NVG not being a requirement. It is if we put it in the Statement of Requirement. Your information on military doing SAR during airfiled opening hours might be a double bluff! By the time this comes in we will only have 3 bases left and they will all be 24hr opening. Seriously, no person in there right mind is going to sign a .................... damn!
Ex Leckie. There have been a lot of lessons learned from the contract you mention - for both sides of the PARTNERSHIP.
Folks, thats what we are talking about here a PARTNERSHIP if we cna afford it. IF not, it may be an all civilian op, what it is almost certainly not going to be is the current system with new ac.
The devil is in the detail of the contract. None of us, I suspect, have seen that IF it is even writen yet!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vecvechookattack, could you explain where your coming from as am a little confused from your posts. Would you like to see Mil Sar remaining as it is, the CG taking over the contract entirely, or a new contract which hands over SAR to a civilian company (Mil, and civilian) in toto? Can't ever imagine a situation where we have a Civilian SAR contract, but still keep a couple of military cabs for just whilst the jets are flying, which is what I think you might have suggested.
Apologies in full if have mis understood what you were getting at.
Apologies in full if have mis understood what you were getting at.
Exleckie - is the outfit and contract you are referring to 84 Sqn by any chance? Not UK based with about 1% of the jobs of a UK flight and no overwater night capability beyond that which the Wessex had. Not exactly a fair comparison. It is an SH sqn with a very limited SAR remit and as far as I am aware, the number of engineers has been increased to maintain the contracted serviceability levels.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the gutter
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab.
I am not at liberty to say where or what the operation to which I refer is, but you are dead centre on target.
Limited SAR remit? The primary function of the operation is SAR, be it overland, overwater, night and day, however, you are correct that there is a limited night time overwater capability.
Yes I agree that the compared to a UK SAR flight, The number of call outs will be lower per annum. This does not make the SAR operation any less valid than any other.
True, the operation does have an SH role, but it is not an SH sqn.
Lastly though, you are way off mark with the the assumption that the engineering staff have been increased to maintain servicability levels. The establishment of engineers has remained the same from the start of the contract to the present day. The "additional engineers" (all 2 of them) you may be paying reference to, were brought on board to bring the engineering contingency up to full strength iaw CAA requirements, so, essentially, the operation was 2 men down whilst still providing serviceable cabs.
In over two years of operation, it has been a very rare occasion that a sortie has been missed due to aircraft unserviceability.
As I have previously stated 4 aircraft, 10 engineers, 95% seviceability, 24 hrs a day,7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Which means
Happy crews who fly till their hearts are content because the level of service given to them is over and above the contract itself.
Which means,
Value for money without any erosion of operational capability.
Exleckie
I am not at liberty to say where or what the operation to which I refer is, but you are dead centre on target.
Limited SAR remit? The primary function of the operation is SAR, be it overland, overwater, night and day, however, you are correct that there is a limited night time overwater capability.
Yes I agree that the compared to a UK SAR flight, The number of call outs will be lower per annum. This does not make the SAR operation any less valid than any other.
True, the operation does have an SH role, but it is not an SH sqn.
Lastly though, you are way off mark with the the assumption that the engineering staff have been increased to maintain servicability levels. The establishment of engineers has remained the same from the start of the contract to the present day. The "additional engineers" (all 2 of them) you may be paying reference to, were brought on board to bring the engineering contingency up to full strength iaw CAA requirements, so, essentially, the operation was 2 men down whilst still providing serviceable cabs.
In over two years of operation, it has been a very rare occasion that a sortie has been missed due to aircraft unserviceability.
As I have previously stated 4 aircraft, 10 engineers, 95% seviceability, 24 hrs a day,7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Which means
Happy crews who fly till their hearts are content because the level of service given to them is over and above the contract itself.
Which means,
Value for money without any erosion of operational capability.
Exleckie
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exleckie
I think you have missed the point of the thread, yes civilian owned military run contracts can work well as you say, and though I cannot speak for your outfit, it does work well at Shawbury.
However, the point (I think) of the thread is about contractorising the whole shebang Aircrew an all.
2 extra engineers to bring in line with CAA regulations, what other corners have been cut in the name of profit over the last two years?
I will balance that as the military are no different when it comes to cutting corners to save money , just as long as they get that next glossy magazine out!!
R1a
PS Doesn’t all the flying stop at lunch time where you are? Hardly apples is it.
I think you have missed the point of the thread, yes civilian owned military run contracts can work well as you say, and though I cannot speak for your outfit, it does work well at Shawbury.
However, the point (I think) of the thread is about contractorising the whole shebang Aircrew an all.
2 extra engineers to bring in line with CAA regulations, what other corners have been cut in the name of profit over the last two years?
I will balance that as the military are no different when it comes to cutting corners to save money , just as long as they get that next glossy magazine out!!
R1a
PS Doesn’t all the flying stop at lunch time where you are? Hardly apples is it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the gutter
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R1a
I haven't missed the point of this thread (considering that I started it!). What you may have missed is that over the course of the last few weeks, a lively debate about the possibilities of the future of SAR from different standings and viewpoints has ensued.
Engineering wise, no corners have been cut. The two engineers employed were brought on board eons ago. This was in reply to Crabs comment that he believed the establishment had been upped to maintain serviceability levels.
As far as saving money is concerned, read previous posts, plus, because of the initial investments made on said contract by the civ company, costs are kept down whilst allowing customer driven development programmes to run alongside at minimum cost.
As for flying / working after lunch time is concerned, well, it simply is not true. Maybe it's true for all the daisies out there but not for the operation and other shifties on station.
SARREMF.
You are correct and I agree wholeheartedly that the word PARTNERSHIP should be understood more.
Exleckie
PS Sorry if I sounded too corporate there, I am beginning to disgust myself
I haven't missed the point of this thread (considering that I started it!). What you may have missed is that over the course of the last few weeks, a lively debate about the possibilities of the future of SAR from different standings and viewpoints has ensued.
Engineering wise, no corners have been cut. The two engineers employed were brought on board eons ago. This was in reply to Crabs comment that he believed the establishment had been upped to maintain serviceability levels.
As far as saving money is concerned, read previous posts, plus, because of the initial investments made on said contract by the civ company, costs are kept down whilst allowing customer driven development programmes to run alongside at minimum cost.
As for flying / working after lunch time is concerned, well, it simply is not true. Maybe it's true for all the daisies out there but not for the operation and other shifties on station.
SARREMF.
You are correct and I agree wholeheartedly that the word PARTNERSHIP should be understood more.
Exleckie
PS Sorry if I sounded too corporate there, I am beginning to disgust myself
Last edited by exleckie; 27th Jun 2005 at 19:37.
