SAR privatisation

[vecvechookattack]

I have to agree with Leopold. The MOD retaining a SAR force is too costly, inefficient and because of the immense and complex way the MOD does its business military SAR is untenable. For instance.

Lee on Solent operate a civilian SAR helicopter doing a very good job. They operate

1 aircraft
9 aircrew
6 engineers.


771 sqdn here in Culdrose also do a very good job..
They operate

5 Aircraft
30 pilots
18 aircrewmen
4 SAR divers
8 RNR pilots
5 RNR Observers
6 RNR aircrewmen
4 Engineering Officers (nearly 1 per aircraft)
136 engineers
6 RNR engineers

Try and justify that to the treasury.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Vec

Are you sure?

9 aircrew for a 24-hr service with a crew of 4 sounds a bit unlikely.

And don't 771 do other stuff besides SAR?

Sven

[vecvechookattack]

OK....maybe 12 Aircrew....15 at a push. But nowhere near the 71 that 771 have to pay.

I totally agree, 771 do other things other than SAR, BUT that isn't up for privatisation. (yet)

[6Z3]

I hope you are not seriously comparing the two units.

If you were to remove 771 Sqns SAR committment altogether, you would make no (or at least very little) difference to their Aircraft numbers and Scheme of Complement numbers.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Vec

The military SAR Flt I'm sat on right now has 18 aircrew on the books, of whom one is long-term sick and one is in the Falklands. That makes 16 equivalent to Lee (who don't do dets and would get rid of non-effectives). Out of that 16 is provided one crew 24/7 (as at Lee) and a second crew daylight hours (definitely not as at Lee). Fairly comparable with Lee's "15 at a push", don't you think?

Not that I don't agree that Mil SAR drags a huge and unwieldy tail around. Just that the argument should stand on its own merits - it doesn't need exaggeration.

Sven

[tucumseh]

Almost exactly 20 years ago I was packed off to a meeting in Empress State. The annual SAR policy beano. Rafts of RAF people, a token civvy representing the Senior Service (who had more SAR capable a/c, but we won’t go there).

Routine stuff – CSAR progress (excellent, first batch ready for conversion!!), role limited a/c, not enough kit, etc etc. Then Chair announces that he’s been told to allow a guest 5 minutes to present an idea. In walks a very youthful looking beancounter. Puts up a map that looks like it’s been nicked from Mr M. Fish of the BBC (same year – think about it) with all RAF SAR stations highlighted. States that Wessex can fly XX miles out and XX back on a full fuel load, and flips down an overlay with XX radius circles around each station. “Where there is overlap, we’re closing down one of the stations. Thank you for your time”.

To be fair, the RAF got in first, but most were simply silently aghast at the brain numbing stupidity. “Time on task” was the cry. A few shouts for “night capability”. Then someone mentioned a Sea King could fly further. Wrong thing to say. Compounded by, “What about the Navy stations?” Wrong again. He hadn’t the slightest clue that the RN did SAR, or that we had Sea Kings. His eyes lit up, and he went away to re-draw his little chart, count more beans and shut more stations. (Gannet made a big difference).

You know the rest. No CSAR to speak of. Decimated SAR capability. I happen to be on the retention side of the fence. I’m no expert, but I imagine CSAR requires more intensive training and experience than “normal” SAR, and that experience, training and general sustainability must come from somewhere. I may be wrong there, but I relate this to highlight none of these decisions are capability or duty of care based – purely financial. Dreamt up at a surprising low level with no appreciation whatsoever of the practical impact.

[SARowl]

Civilian SAR Numbers

As ever there is not a dissimilar thread running on the 'Rotorheads' section. I have put a more accurate break down of staff numbers on there.

Dear All,
Just to clear up a few points.
1. All present Bristow/MCA Helo Units (excepting 12 hour only Portland) have 24 staff, comprising:-
8 x pilots
8 x crewmen
7 x engineers
1 x secretary
1 x labourer/odd job man
Cleaning is by contractor.
2. There are four SAR/LN450 S61s (one each base) plus two 'standard' S61s as spares. One spare is at Lee, the other is in Sumburgh. Because of maintenance requirements the spare aircraft are regularly on line with little diminution of the proffered service. Crews regularly train - yes, even over decks on pitch black nights - on the spare aircraft to maintain proficiency.

[Sven Sixtoo]

SAROwl

Thanks for that.

That implies that Bristows run with 2 engineers on a shift + 1 on days.

This is the big difference - A mil SAR Flt has engineer shifts of 6 +/-, and has two SNCOs on days / on call for oversight, plus 3 x SE fitters, plus 3 x Ops staff, plus 2 x MT / Suppliers, plus fire crews at the non-airfield bases.

I can remember when a Mil SAR Flt ran with 4 crews (16 aircrew), 3 shifts of 7 engineers, 1 SNCO eng boss, and nobody else.

Still far more engineers than the civvies use.

There are some reasons for this - I will guess that Bristows contract out their SE support 100%, and lease their vehicle(s) off some company that does that stuff, and get Jeppesen or some such to provide their documentation, and take the risk on fire crews (there's probably a good quality extinguisher and the engineers know how to make it go).

Also the RAF take people off the street, put them through a course, then work them up under supervision in the job. I suspect Bristow's engineers arrive fully qualified and with considerable experience. That still doesn't explain the differing levels of supervision / oversight (Licensed engineers don't need oversight if I understand the priveliges of a civil licence correctly).

So do the mil over-engineer, the civvies under-engineer, the civvies have a simpler machine, or some combo? Plus, how do we get the military contractors to contract in a sensible way?

[[email protected]]

The engineering of the mil SARForce (with the exception of 771) is going civilian over the next year with 78 Sqn in the FI the first to change. Augusta Westlands in partnership with Vosper Thorneycroft will provide the same aircraft availability (if not better according to their team) as exists at the moment - ie a first standby aircraft 24/7 and a second standby for a minimum of 80% of the time. To provide this they will have 4 shifts of 5 engineers including a shift boss and one Flight Manager.

This highlights that the military aircraft are over-serviced since a civilian company requires almost as many engineers as the military have used and a lot more than a civilian SAR flight.

But the comparison is still of oranges and apples since the military aircraft fly far more hours, especially on training ( approximately a 4 to 1 ratio for RAF SAR flt to MCA SAR flt).

This is one reason a civvy SAR flt looks cheaper - they just don't fly as much - it's not rocket science. And they don't have to hold a second standby aircraft.

When all the engineering is civilianised will people still be trying to claim that mil SAR is expensive? Yes, but only because they don't understand SAR.

[NRDK]

CRAB

I guess I will give you your due and bow to your obvious skills, given that the Mil SAR units have a 4 to 1 ratio on training hours with which to keep your crews up to speed and the SK3's all worn out (hence all the engineers you have)
After all the MCA units only have 45 hours dedicated monthly training so about 1.5hrs per day, whereas you have 180 hours of monthly training so your 6 hours per day must keep you on the ball.

I only wished that we could have got those sort of hours on the RN SAR units when I was waiting around for the cabs to be serviceable, in between SAR taskings.

[leopold bloom]

4:1 Training Hours

Which begs the question, "Why so many training hours?"

[Hummingfrog]

LB - There is an old adage that:-

"The more you train the luckier you get when doing it for real"

The SAR flights also allow the copilot to train in the RHS so more hours are used to train the up and coming pilots.

HF

[leopold bloom]

4:1 Training Hours

Which brings us neatly back to the real reason for privatisation, it's cheaper.

[SARowl]

Civilian SAR

Civilian companies are able to keep their costs down in many ways. Use of commercial airfields, you only pay for what you use, you don't have to personally man it 24/7. Ditto transport, catering, cleaning etc. There is very little training requirement ie you buy your experience, you don't train it yourself. Staff have to be more flexible, we all wash and clean the cabs, the engineers marshall, re-fuel, ground handle, fix the aircraft and provide fire cover.

[toddbabe]

Sar Owl you said "Staff have to be more flexible, we all wash and clean the cabs, the engineers marshall, re-fuel, ground handle, fix the aircraft and provide fire cover".
Are you referring to Civi SAR? Be cause mil SAR do all that already and have been for years.

[HAL9000]

The discrepancy in training hours reflects the different roles in that, to give just one example, the mil SAR chaps conduct low-level, overland NVG ops. If civvi-SAR took on that particular specialization their training bill would rise accordingly.

The whole problem with the civvi vs mil SAR debate is that you cannot just directly compare what the current units offer. Most people are completely ignorant of this but wade in with their ill-considered, and usually incorrect, opinions anyway. Unfortunately, the result is the usual slanging match that ensues.

Hopefully, both the mil and civvi boys and girls at the coal face know enough about each other to be able to ignore the tripe and get on with the valuable job they all do.

[vecvechookattack]

Thats very true but you have to justify that to the bean counters. Why do Mil SAR have to practice Low flying when the Civ SAR don't. Why do MIL SAR have to practice NVG when the Civ SAR don't? those are the questions the treasury are asking.

Toddbabe. The point the previous poster was trying to make was that in the civvy world they Cleaning, refuelling, ground handling, fixing, marshalling etc is done by one bloke. Whereas at Culdrose those jobs are done by lots of blokes.

[3D CAM]

Now for my threepunce worth.
Civvy SAR units, at the moment anyway, operate with two engineers per shift, and one on days plus a labourer, on a weekday that is. At weekends there are just two. They are usually, what used to be known in the mob as self supervising for component replacement and aircraft checks, namely Licensed Engineers. If a flying or engine control is disturbed then another Licensed Engineer, or two depending on which flying control it is, has to carry out what is known as a duplicate inspection. They also carry out all the tasks mentioned by SARowl, and a few more come to that.
That is were your cost saving comes in! Two compared to how many on a Mil. SAR unit? That is not a dig!! In the dim and distant, I was on a MIL. unit so have seen both sides.
You cannot cut down a four man crew so the aircrew are pretty safe unless the beancounters decide that the front seats can be filled by lower ranks. ie. Less pay.
The military also has to train more, as previous posts have pointed out, for what ever reason, right or wrong!

[Mr Point]

Why do MIL SAR have to practice NVG when the Civ SAR don't?

...because the civvies do not fly on NVGs. Mil SAR helos conduct around 50% of jobs overland and away from coastal areas, compared with the MCA helos who conduct exceptionally few rescues inland. Stornoway is the only MCA flight that carries out mountain flying training and this only happens during the day.

A rescue or search in the hills at night will only be carried out by military crews and, funnily enough, these skills require training!

This is the side of SAR that the treasury fails to comprehend. The civvies could do a very good job of taking over UK SAR BUT they would need a massive amount of training in skills they do not currently possess. They would also require continuation training to maintain these skills. Current MCA SAR helo costs cannot be used to project future SAR-H budgeting because their tasking is significantly different from that of the RAF and RN.

[NRDK]

Mr Point & Meat

The MCA unit at Stornoway does fly night mountain taskings has always done so, just like the pre NVG days of 819SAR @ Prestwick and Lossie etc. (On a dark Sh1tty night how do the useless NVG's get you there? Back to the good ole days eh!) Almost all of the MCA crews have been there done that in the Military, so you can not claim that ONLY the Military crews can do it.

The MCA units also use a safe, common sense training limit based on A/C performance when 'practising' with emergency services i.e MRT members and so yes they will often explain this and decline to 'play' on some occassions. That said, for 'real'; I know that they have also had some well deserved praise for turning up and getting the job done under extreme conditions. Inland taskings are secondary work and sourced via ARCC. When it becomes all part of their remit under SAR(H) then they will do the job just like Crab and his mates.