SAR going out to contract.

[[email protected]]

vecvecetc - as I said, anyone can hover over the water on a nice day but rescuing a lad from a lilo doesn't make you a SAR pilot. A 2 day course will not prepare you for night decks/ night mountains/IMC ops over the water etc etc.
What will happen is that the mil SAR will be replaced by civvy SAR who will have a very tightly controlled contract and look really good on paper. They won't have the hours to do the training (except bare minimum IF) and will probably be very creative with their serviceability stats eg it says serviceable on the ops screen right up until you want to launch it and then it mysteriously wont start (often cos it's got no engines or gearbox in). Cheaper is not better, it's just cheaper.

[freeride]

and will probably be very creative with their serviceability stats eg it says serviceable on the ops screen right up until you want to launch it and then it mysteriously wont start (often cos it's got no engines or gearbox in).

Crab, do you have documentary evidence of this or could this just be another of the legendary mil SAR stories that has been heard for years? Is this a slur on the professionalism of the civvie SAR crews? I think you will find that it is your own house that needs closer scrutiny when it comes to having any serviceable aircraft to declare - and yes, I do have documentary evidence of the amount of occasions that MOD SAR cannot produce the goods because it available to the public.

In terms of hours for training you are quite correct, there won't be as many as the military have now but I think that with modern aircraft and better reliability the hours will be better utilised.

[ORAC]

BBC: RAF answers coastal rescue doubts

The RAF Sea King helicopters will be withdrawn by 2012
The Ministry of Defence insists lives will not be at risk when it retires its Sea King helicopters in 2012.

RAF Leconfield, near Hull, currently sends a Sea King to help emergency services if people are in trouble in the North Sea, off the Lincs coast. But the fleet will be out of service within seven years - and among the options for the RAF is privatisation.

Officials say the review may allow them to use helicopters with a sole task of rescuing the public.

The MoD said the current system's primary task is to rescue military personnel, with civilian rescue coming second.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hello, I´ve just seen a helicopter crash"

"Civilian was it"

"Err, army I think"

"Ah, sorry, not in our contract mate, try the fire brigade"....

[vecvechookattack]

What a load of rot. Crab clearly knows bugger all about civilian helo operations and in particular the servicability rate.

To see the difference please ring Culdrose SAR and ask them what their servicability record is. Also ask them how many aircrew, maintainers and support personnel they have on watcgh at the moment. Then ring up Portland SAR and ask them the same. Think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I only have evidence of Portland and Lee SAR units as well as having served with 771 and I can asure you that the civvy guys are head and shoulders above their military comrades...why? because the Navy guys do the job for 2 years and then go and drive a desk in MOD or fly Merlin. I can point you to at least 6 guys at PO and LEE who have over 5000 hours SAR alone. One particular oppo of mine has been flying SAR operations since 1986....Thats why they are so good at it.

As for servicability....How do they manage to maintain such a high percentage of servicability with so few maintainers? In fact if you were to ring LEE you would find there is only 1 maybe 2 maintainers on watch. So, how do they do that? easy - they don't change components until they are broke. If it aint broke don't fix it. The military over maintain their aircraft.

[Hummingfrog]

vecvechookattack.

I don’t normally respond to posts from people who don't know what they are talking about but your comment:-

“I can asure(sp) you that the civvy guys are head and shoulders above their military comrades..."

It is both stupid and untrue. Having been a RAF SAR pilot (9yrs) and now flying as a civilian I would say that both sides are as professional and capable as each other in there respective roles.

The civilian SAR pilot however is much more specialized in what he does and is not as rounded in his abilities as a RAF SAR pilot who has been trained in all aspects of SAR be it night decks to night mountains on NVG.

They both do an excellent job in there own way and the comments you make are both uncalled for and unprofessional.

HF

(However if your comments only apply to RN SAR then I may agree with you. )

[[email protected]]

Vecvec and freeride - I have never said our serviceability is good - quite the opposite, it is appalling and part of it is that we overmaintain our aircraft. This poor performance is the main reason we will be civilianised as it just costs too much to keep our aging Sea Kings going.

The RN tend to use SAR as a rest tour and many pilots only do one tour on it - the RAF SAR force has a high proportion of SAR pilots with several thousands of hours on type and in role so maybe the RAF and civvy standards are closer and the RN lag behind?

As to the civilian serviceability - if you don't fly the aircraft, it needs no servicing and therefore it is always available. Can you put your hand on your heart and tell me a U/S aircraft has never been declared 'on state' just to keep the figures looking good and the contract running smoothly?

I know that Lee uses 2 engineers on shift when we have 10 at Chivenor but we have 2 aircraft to keep going (in an effort to produce a 2nd standby which we are required to do - not so at Portland or Lee) as well as military tasking and a Mk3A OCU to run.

The playing field is not level in this game of privatisation and the military always looks more expensive until you look at all the other stuff you get from the mil operation (all the other Sea King jobs at Culdrose for example)

[engineer(retard)]

Crab - "part of it is that we overmaintain our aircraft"

VecVec - "The military over maintain their aircraft"

I thought we were back on page 6 and 7 again, how are they being overmaintained? Military aircrew fly more training sorties for the same task and you are surprised that you have less availability. How about we change the argument to military aircrew fly too much to ensure operational availability of the airframes. Of course, we could take the easy path and blame someone else.

Regards

Retard

[Spurlash2]

Re: crab@'s comments on manning; Another reason for extra RAF engineers is that they also deploy out of area for 4 months at a time. There is also the extra ****** (fill in your own PLJ's that the military do as a matter of course)

[[email protected]]

engretard - yes you are right, we do fly a lot more hours but I guess if you look at the age of some of the S61s (30,000 hrs) they must do something substantially different in terms of engineering since all ours a dead at 10,000. They also don't fetter their engineers with crap like LITS which needs more time to complete than the job itself. We get given the hours so we fly them, cos if you don't, some bean counter takes them away from you the next year.

[engineer(retard)]

Crab

If you can ignore fatigue, then age is not the issue.

Take the car example - one car 30 years old, the other 10 years, with both requiring a service every 10k miles. If the old car is only doing 5k miles a year and the newer one 20k miles, the newer car will not be available to drive on demand as often as the old one.

If you do factor in fatigue, then its down to usage. If your old car is used for Grannys Sunday shopping, whilst the newer one is used for serious off-roading (gripped). The newer one is going to fall apart first.

LITS was supposed to streamline the system but never saw it in action. ISTR it was derived by IBM from a South African system but this is the government trying to buy IT, and that has yet to work efficiently in any department.

Regards

Retard

[pr00ne]

So, if SAR 1st line is going contractorised, are there going to be ANY non deployment jobs left for the gingers?

[niknak]

Mil SAR do an excellent job and I could never fault them, however, the MOD way of life is infinately more expensive to the Treasury (ie the TAXPAYER), than contracting the job out to Civilian SAR operators, who are equal in EVERY department to the Mil SAR, but cost less.

I know, I've worked very very closely with both, on a regular basis.

So who, do you realistically, think is going to get the job???

[[email protected]]

Nik Nak - they do not have the same night capability (especially overland) nor do they hold a second standby so how can you compare like with like and say we cost too much. I don't know if the S61 has the same over-water IMC capability as the Sea King (operating below safety altitude and carying out letdowns to vessels IMC) but I suspect this would require exemptions from the ANO.

[Crabette]

CV's wanted

Firstly we all seem to acknowledge that the SAR crews Mil or Civ do a fine job for those in need in this Country. The facts are the ‘Cost’ to the taxpayer are less with the Civilian option. Go on spit into wind

As for the doing the business, well…. the civilian aircraft are in a better state of repair and maintenance than those of the Military, this looks good on paper and in the air too, with less incident reports to write.

For No:1 crustacean: Civvies do all that the Mil boys do training wise (except goggles…heck they could do that too if the MCA said they wanted it, enough ex NVG instructors on every base already) each pilot/crewman averages the minimum 15 hours per month that the Navy SAR crews use to have for training. Perhaps it’s higher in both mil camps now with the NVG requirements. Hey all those real SAR flight hours are a bonus every year. For the Civvie with only about an average 8/9 shifts per month, nearly 2 hours a duty period. There is no need for ‘standby’ crews, that is what a serviceable aircraft state, a UK SAR overlap system and effective tasking is for. This leaves plenty of time to read pprune, family life and spending what’s left of the £££ salary after most of it has been taken away in tax to pay for expensive MOD bills. Before you whinge about the pay packet, remember that the numbers required to run a base effectively in the civil world is markedly less than it’s military counterpart, besides most civvies did a mil SAR job and then 10-15 years on top. The civil aircraft have no problem doing absolutely everything IMC thanks to Mr Louis Newmark as well. For those bases that have hills in their patch well I’m sure the requirement to ‘low mountain’ fly will be met.

Fancy someone saying that without the SAR squadron gods that all those other Navy Pilots who are expected to fly at night to and from ships and hover for hours over the sea can’t cover the small hole left by removing a second line role like SAR. That’s like saying the RAF SH crews couldn't do a mil SAR mission if asked, unless they had driven a yellow one for years and years…Shame on you.

Most importantly since I don’t see too much Civvie bashing from the RN crews I shall keep their CV’s in my ‘In Tray’.

[night dipper]

Following this thread with interest from the beginning I must say that Crabette could not have said it better.

Having quite some experience in SAR on the continent, I can see some similairity's. In the MOD I know, SAR is mainly a PR tool to keep the taxpayers on their hands. Not much wrong with that if you do a good job. But like many things, SAR is dynamic and operators and aircraft need to keep in pace with the latest technologie, procedures and demands. It is exactly this where the MOD seems the be out of budget and lagging behind. The civies on the other hand, DO stay focused and invest to keep in pace!

Please spread the word to the continent, the Goverment(s) can learn/save a lot!

Night Dipper

[WIGYCIWYT]

I am ex RN pilot of 22 years (cards on the table from the start!) who completed SAR tours at Prestwick, which included rescues in the mountains at night, in snow, before the introduction of NVG's (hence my everlasting admiration, respect and thanks to Observers), Culdrose and a SAR exchange tour to Miami (bang goes the anonymity). I can, perhaps immodestly, claim to have completed some very demanding SAR missions in the most difficult of conditions BUT never really understood the RAF need make the role seem so 'difficult' and 'specialised' typified by the posts of Crab@... All RN pilots were trained in it and certainly in ASW cabs, were required to conduct SCT in it on a monthly basis - enabling SAR duties to be undertaken pretty much at the drop of a hat. There are numerous examples of this from the Fastnet race to 810 Squadrons epic of a few years ago which resulted in medals all round (a rare occurrence indeed in the FAA, well done all). I have been more frightened sitting in a 40ft hover at night for hours on end with bits dangling in the water just praying everything stays working.
I was never really convinced SAR was a real 'full time occupation' for a military pilot, always an adqual - 771/772 were essentially to provide 'rest' tours from the front line and some time at home! This is not in any way to belittle the skill and professionalism of those involved - but I know it can be done just as well by a civvie outfit, (usually using the same bits of whatever flying guide), most of whom are/would be ex-mil and glad of the better equipment. I could rant on forever but will stop mid stream for breath.

[extpwron]

35 years in SH/SAR. Still flying within Mil SAR.

The point crab@ is making is that whilst “SAR” can be done more cheaply by civilian contractors the taxpayer will not be getting the same product.

Remember - the Yellow Birds have BOTH P1 and P2 fully trained for NVG operations for that rescue of an injured climber half way up a mountain one stormy night.

They also have a dedicated Radar Operator sat in front of his FLIR and 360 degree radar screens for those occasions when the oil rig is enveloped in fog.

To match that would require training – which isn’t cheap.

[[email protected]]

Crabette, not ex 84 are you perchance?

We are required to maintain a second standby throughout daylight hours - most of us disagree with it but it is there and requires people and airframes to do it with - COST number 1 not borne by the civvy SAR.

We are required to train more than the civvies such that for a pilots on 8/9 shifts per month, 4 hours per shift will usually be flown - COST number 2 not borne by civvy SAR.

We are required to keep 2 full crews in the Falklands all year round - COST number 3 not borne by the civvy SAR.

We currently hold the UK standby - previously done by SH - Cost number 4 not borne by civvy SAR.

We are required for umpteen other tasks (SCSR and station wets, NARO etc) COST number 5 not borne by civvy SAR.

Do you see where I am coming from now? The playing field is not level and all those bean counters can see is yellow helicopter replaced with red white and blue helicopter = money saving without understanding the bigger picture. All of the other tasks would have to be picked up by the overstretched SH force/jungly force.

PS you need more than an autopilot to carry out IMC ops over the water.


WYGetc - don't start banging on about medals after 771 got AFCs for hovering over someones house at Boscastle.

[ShyTorque]

Another case of accountants knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing?

[mallardpi]

Chookattack

"Whats the difference between a pilot and a SAR pilot? A 2 day course."

Well, I cannot believe how naive you are in saying what you did above. I don't know what SAR course you did, but I hope that if I'm on a sinking deck in a Force 9 at night, you're not on shift to get me. Do you really believe you can turn a helicopter pilot into a SAR pilot in 2 days? Well, perhaps teach him/her to hover over calmish water, yes, but not everything else involved too. Decks, coastal approaches in fog and at night, NVG, mountain flying, search patterns, winching are all involved let alone the coordination side, liaison with other agencies, crew cooperation (most important) etc etc the list goes on.

What you say is just like suggesting a helicopter pilot could learn tactical flying and go to war in two days in support of our boys on the ground - no I dont think so. Your comments are obviously biased, I dont know why.

Military SAR crews do, without doubt have a greater capability than the civilian crews. Nobody should say one does a better job than the other. Remember the Coastguard SAR crews are only contracted to work to the high tide mark, so how can they be so good at overland SAR if they never train in that role. The Mil crews provide complete SAR, anywhere and everywhere. There are differences with the RN and RAF but these are being addressed.

As to the question of privatisation? Well, my view is this. Should an emergency service provider be allowed to make profit out of the rescue and assistance given to those in need? I say No. Its like saying lets privitise the Fire Brigade and let somebody make money out of fighting fires. Helicopter SAR should be a government run operation. No, it doesn't have to military, but lets say for instance a Govt Flying Service. Funded by the public purse, and not for profitable means, they could be at the call of the CG, Police Fire etc etc. Flown by civil crews with dispensation for NVG and night overland from the CAA they could be just as good as the servies now provided.

The CAA I believe would grant such certificates if the units could prove the training was adequate and robust. Ah here we are again, more training that the mil crews do, not currently undertaken by the civvies. Well, perhaps thats where the difference in price comes from. If you want a complete service, you'll have to pay for it.