Is it worth keeping military SAR?

[Droopystop]

Crab,

Like I said before, you can couple up the autopilot to fly search patterns in the 61.

Why do you come across as being so crabby about your civvy SAR colleagues? It seems that at some stage in your past either Bristows or the MCA have really disjointed your nose.

[[email protected]]

Droopystop - if I come across as crabby, it is not because I have any beef with the civvy SAR crews at all. The SAR related threads have all tried to compare the capability and cost of military SAR (especially RAF) with that of the existing Bristows S61 at the 4 MCA flights in UK.
In order to back up their opinions on how cheap civvy SAR is, various posters have claimed that the capability of mil and civvy is the same (this is not knocking the skills and commitmment of the MCA crews at all). The capability of the S61 with its equipment fit does not match the RAF Sea Kings in all areas and the crews get a third of the training hours - these facts are conveniently forgotten when the mud slinging starts.

[scottishbeefer]

Crab is right here. But I go back to a previous point. To what level can the bar be lowered to and still give Joe public et al an acceptable service?

FLIR is a fantastic search device (and the RN still haven't got it!) but check the stats, it's nice to have but not essential, compared to how many jobs need NVG (handy for recording those PR moments though!). Give me the latest gen gog's instead, CAPSAT, decent trauma kit. There's lots of stuff that sits above FLIR in real-world utility.

[[email protected]]

scottishbeefer - you are right that it is not essential but there are already people who have been rescued who we probably wouldn't have found had it not been for the FLIR - it is absolutely awesome overland and if my child was missing, this is the piece of kit I would want people using to find him.

What is the level of service you can accept compared to the level you want. We live in a society where competition is supposed to drive up standards and drive down prices but we all know that the truth is you get what you pay for and if the cost is low it is because some corners have been cut.

I have to grudgingly admit SB that your boys played well on Saturday.

[JKnife]

Crab:

Cyclic and J Knife - I was talking about the S61 v the Sea king not the L2 - as ever when a valid point is made (not exactly showing ignorance just stating facts) the other party moves the goalposts and then (jKnife) starts with the insults again.

Fair enough, however, you didn't make that clear in your answer and the original question was about "civvy SAR", hence the replies. Remember, as well as the Bristow/MCA contracts using the S-61, Bond Offshore have now started with their AS332L2s. Although contracted by an oil company, I fully expect they will be used where needed for non-oil related SAR work if they are the nearest asset.

With regard to FLIR, excellent kit and a great asset for searches. However, if the air is moist the capability of the kit reduces. Heat source against rocks should be OK, but looking for a body in the water becomes more difficult and sometimes impossible.

[scottishbeefer]

It'd be great to have everything on board, however...

Was talking to a man in the know a couple of months ago who reminded me that the (Mil) requirement is for a helicopter with a winch - period. Anything else is a (sensible) bonus, so all our EIEC trained crewies etc really hang by a budgetary thread. My answer to him was that there's not much point sending the expensive chopper if you merely bring back a body instead of a casualty. His reponse was they should count themselves lucky they get anything.

Merits in both arguments!

[JKnife]

The capability of the S61 with its equipment fit does not match the RAF Sea Kings in all areas and the crews get a third of the training hours - these facts are conveniently forgotten when the mud slinging starts.

I am still not quite sure what you are getting at here. There are differences to each because they are different types. The S61 has nose radar but not 360 degs. The Sea King doesn't truly have 360 either because of the blind arc (that's why the Norwegian Air Force stuck nose radar on their cabs). S-61s have had FLIR/TV for many years but the RAF has only just got them. S-61s have twin hoists (one electric and one hydraulic), the Sea King has one plus the heave-ho hoist as an emergency back up. The Sea King crews have helmet mounted NVG and NVG compatible cockpits, which is better than the S-61, although the crewmen can use hand held units in the latter. Whether the CAA and MCA will see fit to have NVG cockpits in the S-92 and AW139, I don't know, but let's hope so. Avionics and radio fits are similar with both having VHF/FM and HF, I assume the Sea King must have GPS now that Decca has gone (one or two?). Engine performance is better in the Sea King than in the S-61. Both aircraft have an AFCS system and the S-61's is more flexible than the Sea King 3 and similar to the 3A. Both aircraft have AHT (or AMC as it is known in the S-61). The S-61s winch is behind the pilot, not half way down the fuselage and therefore makes the cabin more spacious. As for medical kit, I would say that both aircraft have similar levels.

While the RAF may get more training hours, I suspect they have a bigger turnover of crews. I do not know what the present manning levels are on a military SAR flight these days, but they were bigger than MCA units. Perhaps another reason for more training hours (more people to keep current).
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I seem to remember that training hours per pilot (apologies to the crewmen here) for the RAF was 10 hours, two hours of which was IF and GH, so 8 hours for SAR training. That is a similar level to MCA units (about an hour difference max probably) given that they have less personnel. Civil units don't have dedicated hours for GH and IF, and IF flying is either part of the low level IF when doing FPC work, or approaches are carried out on return from SAR training sorties. Saying that the MCA units have 6-monthly base checks for aircraft and IF, plus annual winch competency and FPC (AFCS) checks. It doesn't matter what standard you are, you do the same checks at the same intervals, unlike the Cat system in the RAF.

Having lots of hours to train is great, but you also have the possiblilty of over-training where it becomes tedious and boring. That can be as dangerous as not having enough training.

There isn't any mud slinging here, just trying to make sure that there is a balanced argument. Unfortunately, those who have not had the benefit of seeing both sides of the equation tend to only see one side. I remember that view from my time in the military where there were all sorts of stories going around about civilian SAR. I have now seen how biased and unfounded they were. IMHO the civilian crews for CIVILIAN SAR are as good as the military, despite the incorrectly perceived lack of training. However, if you were to bring CSAR in to the argument, then the military have that laid down good and proper, where it should be.

[Tourist]

SAR and CSAR have nothing to do with each other, except utilise some of the same letters.
There are no Red and grey or yellow helicopters involved.

[scottishbeefer]

That blind arc is really not a significant problem. Just makes for a few more clearing turns running in to the target - need a decent Nav/Obs!

The mil (especially RN) probably overtrain on the IF side of life - no bad thing for handling but it's a legacy from bluewater ASW days when we spent long-tedious hours getting in/out of the dip. Things are changing here, and the directives will be become more relevant.

Agree that overtraining with no focus leads to complacency & boredom. Those hours don't always have to utilised though.

What %age of the MCA SAR crews (Captains especially) are pure-bred civvies, vs ex-mil? What is their background?

[JKnife]

SB

Not sure of the exact figures, but I would say that probably still more ex-mil than civil (just). That is changing rapidly, though. There are several new SAR commanders within the MCA with no military experience and they are very good.

[SASless]

JKnife,

Shame on you! How dare you inject reason, logic, and facts into this pig wrestle? How can that be productive?

[scottishbeefer]

Yes, it's easy to get self absorbed in the relatively small and parochial military world, for sure.

Good to know the standard outwith us mil types is good or better (I know a fair few of 'em - they were mainly solid mil types anyway). There's plenty of barely average mil pilots driving rescue choppers as well, so we can't throw too many stones else we shatter the panes!

Have we all agreed that we agree?! The mil/civ relationship is complementary as it stands. The mil like what they've got and don't want to lose it, the civ's would like some more well paid jobs? Both sides of the fence do their respective role well.

Why would you want to mess with that????????????????????

[scottishbeefer]

Now, now - where's that Jungly sense of humour!

It'll be awhile but you'll get your Merlins idc. Once the crabs have discarded theirs. Then you'll have a pukka chopper.

A debate on taxpayers' value for money/military necessity could spawn a thread as long as your list of anti-SAR gripes old chap!

But seriously, as has been said before, if it's going to come down to nothing more than a metric test of value for money, then it's probably time to hang up our spurs isn't it? I think there's a balance to be struck between mil SAR/COMR/MCA and still leave a couple of quid to let the SH mates buy some toys.

Restructure fine, but a bit narrow minded to up-board yet I think.

[snakepit]

Originally Posted by junglyAEO

To get the taxpayer (me) better value for money?
To spend the MoD budget on military necessetities, most of which are currently chronically underfunded (see other threads) particularly SH?
jungly

Is anybody really naive enough to believe for even one second that the MOD will be allowed to keep any of the money saved by civilianising SAR! If it does go civi it will only be to cut the MOD budget by the amount that mil SAR cost, spend some of the saving on the civi replacement and spend the spare on the new 11 plus or some other new labour scheme