SAR privatisation

[[email protected]]

SARCO - perhaps you would like to qualify your statement that I am talking nonsense with some facts and figures rather than conjecture. Training is extremely important but you (as a non SAR aviator) seem to know better!

I have stated what RAFSAR flights fly each month and SAROWL has stated what the MCA guys fly - do you doubt our figures?

I don't feel any tension here - we are exchanging views and information which is always good - once everyone has all the correct information instead of hearsay or faded meories of what used to be we will have a clear and balanced picture of what the new contract will have to provide.

[Bertie Thruster]

"Hello guys", Welcome to SARCO, a lurker, (self-confessed) who has signed up today (with a freudian moniker)just to give you all a mild bollicking.

Carry on!

Not you Crab......my office... pyjamas reversed.

[[email protected]]

Pencils up the nose and underpants on the head as well sir?

[SARREMF]

Crabb

Just to set the record straight. Got the T-shirt I am afraid, so your analysis is way off. I am ex military SAR. I am a QHI. I have spoken to you on many occasions using your really name face-to-face!

I have seen the other side and its not as bad as you think or make out. We ALL recognise that enduring training programmes have to be put in place for the future to grow people into Captains. We ALL recognise that there is a shortage. We ALL recognise that the new system will be different because it has to be because change is coming. We are ALL trying to put the best system in place to take over which includes the military so that BEST practice from both sides endures.

For the record,

I agree with your comments about NVG.

I also agree that how I phrased the point I was making about experience and less training sounded like Bo&**lcks.

But what about if I cut your training in half? You state that IF and Night are the perishable - I fully agree with you - so what about if you only train at night? If you can do every thing at night then the day will be easier? Over simplistic but think about it! Perhaps that is what harmonisation brings, difference? Different approaches and change!

SAROWL

I understand your point about the lack of money but I would hope that a harmonised service means exactly that and it will not matter what uniform your wear.

[[email protected]]

SARREMF - this is the problem with using 'noms de pprune' why didn't you just PM me and tell me However I thoroughly agree that best practice is the way forward not cheapest practice.

The problem with just training at night is the Summer - yes you could just train during the day for 4 months of the year but if we go down that route we will end up like the AAC who do their IF at night on Gaz and Lynx to save airframe hours, claiming both IF and night flying. It's a nice idea but you are only actually renewing one skill set not both.

But we could reduce our training bill by doing more at night when the nights are longer, I agree - at the moment we don't have to because the hours are there and we have underflown in the last year because of airframe availability. This surplus of hours wouldn't exist in a civilian contract so while we have have got it we will make the most of it

[HAL9000]

I Smell a Rat

At the risk of repeating myself, I have experience of Acquisition (Procurement in old money) but am in no way a SME when it comes to SAR-H or the current provision of UK SAR.

However, some of the posts on this thread, and my own research in the last few days, leads me to believe that some strange things are going on with respect to SAR-H.

Firstly, there have been some very informed posts recently and there was a brief outbreak of sensible debate. Unfortunately, there seemed to be a distinct change in mood when people started to equate training hours with the different roles and responsibilities of the civilian and military SAR units in the UK. That was what prompted my enquiry as to how to compare the civilians and the military in an objective manner, a reasonable question I thought.

At this point, SARCO comes out of the woodwork and decides that we should all shut up because SAR-H will deliver the best and most professional service and that anybody who disagrees is misguided (I am paraphrasing but you get my drift). The thing is SARCO, your comments have 'vested interest' written all over them. If, as you seem to imply, you are a SAR helo tasker, I would have thought that you would have, at the very least, a small amount of concern about such a radical change to UK SAR. I might be doing you a dis-service, for which I apologise, but you are amazingly confident about a PFI programme when PFIs do not have a marvellous track record for delivery. Hence my suspicion about your motives.

As a final point, I found this on the net from a conference held last year:

14:40 Understanding The Case For Civilmilitary Cooperation

• SAR-H case study: Examining the viability of military cooperation in the UK’s Search & Rescue Helicopter Project (SAR-H)
• Benefits of PFI for major projects
• Harmonisation of capability through civil-military cooperation
• Future directions in civil-military collaboration

John Astbury CBE
Chief Executive
Maritime and Coastguard Agency, UK

The full details of the conference can be found at:

http://www.iqpc.co.uk/cgi-bin/templates/document.html?topic=228&event=10810&document=78578

Having read this my questions are:

1. What qualifies John Astbury (a civilian with no military experience that I have been able to find) to decide what the military's viability in SAR-H is?

2. Surely, as a civilian, his presentation should have been entitled,
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: 18pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt">SAR-H case study: Examining the viability of civilian cooperation in the UK’s Search & Rescue Helicopter Project (SAR-H) ?
3. Given that the MCA have a representative in the SAR-H IPT, should their Chief Executive be allowed to conduct such an obvious 'land grab' on their behalf given that he will have access to commercially in confidence information?

Thank you all for reading this far. I will post more as I uncover it because this is turning out to be far more interesting than first thought!

HAL

[[email protected]]

HAL - I think said individual is a very political and ambitious person who perhaps looked at the US Coastguard and thought the MCA should have similar powers and capability. To be fair, there are not many countries around the world where the military provide what is essentially civilian SAR since about 98% of our jobs are rescuing civilians. There are even fewer where the role is split between 3 different service providers (RAF,RN and MCA).

Although he talked of partnerships at first it soon became apparent that his intention was for MCA to become the sole providers. Quite shrewd really since he involved the military (SAR H) in constructing the argument to (possibly) bring about the loss of military SAR.

As for informed debate - that's what happens when you use facts instead of rumour and hearsay.

[HAL9000]

Hmmmmmm

Well, well, well, look what I have found. Follow this link http://www.aerosociety.com/conference/PDFs/553.pdf

if you want to know about the future of Public Service Helicopters. Here is an extract from the first day's programme:


The Future for
Public Service Helicopters:
2007 TO 2016
Tuesday 26th - Wednesday 27th June 2007
No.4 Hamilton Place, London W1J 7BQ, UK

Day One: Tuesday 26th June 2007

09.40 Keynote Address:

Today and Tomorrow - Helicopters in Civil Resilience

John Astbury CBE, Recently Retired Chief Executive, Maritime & Coastguard Agency

SESSION 1: SEARCH AND RESCUE

10.10 The Way Forward for UK SAR

Peter Dymond, Chief Coastguard, Maritime & Coastguard Agency

11.10 The Introduction of New Technology Helicopters & Equipment to UK Civil Search & Rescue

Capt Steve Duffy, Operations Manager, CHC/Thales Search & Rescue Helicopter Bid Team, CHC

11.40 The UK SAR Force: Managing the operational interface between Military & civil operations

Gp Capt Steve Garden, Station Commander, Royal Air Force St Mawgan

There is our old friend, giving the Keynote Address no less, and there is another senior MCA man telling us what the way forward is going to be. Slightly more concerning is the next speaker up, how convenient that he just happens to want a slice of the SAR-H pie and is rubbing shoulders with those able to influence the SAR-H programme. As a token gesture, the commander of 50% of the UK's total SAR effort gets to talk just before lunch to an audience that will already have been given the hard sell.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to suggest for a moment that anything untoward is going on here.

It just gets even more interesting.

Regards,

HAL

[tucumseh]

Good post HAL. I admit unease over a serving officer speaking alongside the Thales bid team, with others bidders not mentioned. It gives the impression that Thales is the preferred bidder. Are they?

Even so, a good commercial officer (in practice the DE&S Commercial Director, a 3*, or one of his staff) would jump on this and demand (as is his right and duty) the good Gp Capt does not attend; in the interests of fair competition.

[Droopystop]

I think you are not reading enough in to the conferences. It strikes me that whatever those at the sharp end think, our illustrious civil service seniors and the politicians have made their decision about the future of SAR. As far as they are concerned, it is not negotiable. What they are doing now is the marketing of the idea - trying to sell it to those at the front line and more importantly to the public. Mr Astbury is the messenger and as such his qualifications (or rather lack of aviation ones) don't matter.

The success or otherwise of Harmonised SAR lies almost entirely with how the contract is set up and more importantly how it is written. It will be very different to the current one. There has been much said about the capability of the future SAR system. To compare the future with the current MCA contracts is folly since the current situation requires Maritime SAR only.

[extpwron]

I trust Gp Capt Sean Reynolds (day two) will remind the audience what the military have brought to the party when the “big ones” happened. (Air India, Lockerbie, East Coast flooding et al)

Also, I think you’ll find that Gp Capt Garden has control over a lot more than 50% of the UK SAR assets.

[HAL9000]

Tucumseh,

I tried to resist biting the bait, honestly, and resist your deliberate misrepresentation . What makes it OK for MCA staff to attend but not a military chap? Surely, in the interests of fairness, neither should attend as they are both linked to SAR-H .

Droopystop has made a very good point. Perhaps this is the start of a very early sales pitch. If so, lets hope the contract is extremely well written.

HAL

PS Aren't smilies great !

[PARAFFIN PARROTT]

ab-initio's ?

From a personal interest point of view (forgive me if this moves the thread in a temporarily different direction), if there is a 'black hole' of crews to man the Civil SAR set up, is it a possiblilty that CHC will take on Ab-Initio crews, particularly Rear crew as a stop gap?

[HAL9000]

Back again

Gents,

Found this:

http://www.iqpc.co.uk/binary-data/IQPC_CONFEVENT/pdf_file/8430.pdf

(NB. This conference took place in Nov 2005 ) Mr Peter Dymond took it upon himself to talk about the 'Development of UK SAR Capability'.

Given my experience of Acquisition (Procurement) I really am not happy with what I am uncovering with regard to SAR-H. I have seen the military screw*d over far too many times by sm*rt ars* civilian operators, and I speak as head of a civilian company, to let this rest. As I am sure that EU competition rules have been broken I have written to my MP and MEP. For those of you that are interested, you might wish to note the following:

The task of tracking down and punishing those in breach of competition law has been entrusted to the European Commission, which receives its powers under Article 85 EC. These grant extensive investigative powers including the notorious power to carry out dawn raids on the premises of suspected undertakings and private homes and vehicles. Any undertaking found in breach of Article 81 or 82 EC, may receive a fine pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62 and Article 65(5) EC. These fines are not fixed and can extend into millions of Euros, up to a maximum of 10% of turnover.

I will let you know as, and when, I get a response.

Hal

[leopold bloom]

Back Again

While I appreciate your concerns about the Military being screwed over, I think you are drifting off the point. The advantage of SAR run by commercial operators is that it's cheaper. If, and this is what agitates Crab, Civ SAR (for want of a better phrase) can provide the same capability as Mil SAR then surely it is better for the tax payer and general public? From my own experience I have no doubt that Civ SAR can provide an equally good, and in many areas a much better (modern reliable equipment, stable workforce, effective management, lack of Service distractions etc), service at a lower cost. But, in the final analysis, it will come down to cost and that is what will attract the attention of the politicians.

[[email protected]]

Leopold - I have to say that if the SAR H contract ended up providing a service as good as your Hong Kong one, then I would have nothing to moan about. However, as we keep coming back to, the contract must be extremely well written and the eventual contractor must have the ethos to provide the best service for the money rather than one that just ticks the boxes of the contract requirements.

HAL - I'm not sure why you are unhappy with the SAR H process - CHC are about to take over as service provider for the CivSAR flights as they were awarded the interim contract so why shouldn't they attend and present at seminars alonside the MCA and military? The competition for the full 2012 contract is still open but to suggest that all or none of the bidders should be allowed to present at seminars is pointless. The decision on the contract will be made by reference to the supplied bids, not a few presentations at seminars.

[3D CAM]

Crab.
Miracles of miracles, I totally agree with your last post.
Droopy.
Mr. Astbury's lack of aviation experience is incidental. He had the vast SAR experience and knowledge of Carl Taylor advising him.

[[email protected]]

3D - blimey

[BananaBoy]

Is cheaper always better?

I thought the aim of this privatization exercise was to give the same excellent standard of service that is currently provided by the RAF/RN/MCA but at a much reduced price through the excellent PFI initiatives (Ignoring of course the NHS ones that are now coming home to roost....)?
As a tax payer I am all for saving public money, but wonder exactly how this will be achieved? Firstly, to retain the overall SAR cover, there needs to be a similar basing set up and similar aircraft/crew numbers to provide the coverage, although Limpopo doubts this:

That is assuming, of course, that there hasn't been a review of where the SAR units are located by then and the units cut or amalgamated. Not saying there will be, but it's been done before and who says it wont happen again to help reduce the costs for the MCA?

That seems to go rather against the grain of retaining this excellent (if patchwork) capability that we currently have. And then there is the issue of cheaper. Has there been a study into how much cheaper this will be with civilian rather than military crews, or have we simply assumed that civvies are always cheaper? Again, Limpopo offers an intruiging insight:

Starting salaries would currently be in the region of (dependent on experience and need for direct entry captains):
Capt: £69-73k (+ allowances)
Co-pilots: £51-54k (+ allowances)
These are at the lower bands of the pay scales I might add as I would think it very unlikely to come straight in at anything above about Year 5 for each scale.

Now I imagine that most military SAR crews would love to be earning those salaries, but it rather tips the cost-effectiveness argument on its head! Certainly, whoever wins the contract should have no problem recruiting military aircrew for that sort of money.
So this leaves me wondering if it really will it be a cheaper and better service as promised. Or will it turn out to be a much reduced service and therefore just cheaper?

[leopold bloom]

Blimey

If people are going to start agreeing with Crab and he is going to hand out compliments then I'm off to another thread.