SAR privatisation
Banana-Boy, some might say the overall aim of the privatisation was to hand over all SAR assets to the MCA as part of an empire-building exercise. On the other hand there are those that think it is the only way to get modern aircraft onto the SAR front-line since the MoD has used all its beans up on very useful
Typhoons.
Once the military engineering is contractorised by the end of next year it will be easier to see the relative cost differences between mil and civ.
I do like the sound of £73k plus allowances though
(but that's about half of what Leopold is on and he's not even a driver!!)
Typhoons.Once the military engineering is contractorised by the end of next year it will be easier to see the relative cost differences between mil and civ.
I do like the sound of £73k plus allowances though
(but that's about half of what Leopold is on and he's not even a driver!!)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
My unease with the SAR-H process is that it should aim to be as objective as possible. The MCA has an obvious goal to assume responsibility for the entire UK SAR service and they have at least one person embedded within SAR-H IPT. This must be a conflict of interest. There are many forms that future UK SAR could take; from all military to all civilian. At which end of that spectrum do you think the MCA member of the IPT would want the answer to be?
The SAR-H IPT should be totally independent of either military or civilian vested interest and only invite RAF/RN/MCA involvement on an ad hoc basis when they require service specific information. That is the only way you ever stand a chance of arriving at the best answer.
On another subject, you should be able to tell us the capitation rates of RAF/RN aircrew. It would then be very easy to do a quick sum, based on 25 year service provision, and see what the cost differential is. I might do a quick search and work it out for myself.
HAL
PS Still no answer from my democratically elected representatives - what do they do all day?
My unease with the SAR-H process is that it should aim to be as objective as possible. The MCA has an obvious goal to assume responsibility for the entire UK SAR service and they have at least one person embedded within SAR-H IPT. This must be a conflict of interest. There are many forms that future UK SAR could take; from all military to all civilian. At which end of that spectrum do you think the MCA member of the IPT would want the answer to be?
The SAR-H IPT should be totally independent of either military or civilian vested interest and only invite RAF/RN/MCA involvement on an ad hoc basis when they require service specific information. That is the only way you ever stand a chance of arriving at the best answer.
On another subject, you should be able to tell us the capitation rates of RAF/RN aircrew. It would then be very easy to do a quick sum, based on 25 year service provision, and see what the cost differential is. I might do a quick search and work it out for myself.
HAL
PS Still no answer from my democratically elected representatives - what do they do all day?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to be very careful about using wage levels to compare costs. Ontop of wages you have to add pension provisions, medical benefits, accommodation allowances, meals, travel, etc etc. I have no idea what those costs might be for the RAF/RN personnel although it is not hard to imagine that the cost to the MOD of providing pensions is somewhat greater than that for the private sector. I think the real cost savings will be made in aircraft provision and maintainance, base services, efficiency and supply chain to name but a few. Another important point is that of "commercial risk". With harmonisation the risks of purchase (aircraft) and maintainance lies with the contractor, not the government. That would a great relief given the debacles the MOD have had with buying Chinooks, Typhoons, Merlins, Apaches, not to mention various warships. You could argue that it would be therefore worrying that a private contractor takes the risk, but one thing that will appear in the contract will be heafty damages if serviceability and availability are not maintained. The companies that are bidding for the SAR-H are all companies who over the years have got very good at making aircraft available and keeping them serviceable - its been said they cheat. They don't need to, they know it costs too much to have a machine down so have developed systems that means the aircraft stay properly servicable.
HAL - as I understand the process, the MCA didn't have the aviation expertees to simply invite tenders from industry to provide the service; they couldn't ask any civilian companies for impartial advice as this would unlikely to be available as any company with the knowledge and expertees would inevitably be a future bidder. Instead they turned to the Military and asked for some assessment of potential platforms, capability etc and from this SAR H was born.
For a while it was very blue sky thinking (as much as you can get in the military) with pretty much any option (helicopter, balloon, fast ship etc) open to a feasibility study to see if it could become the future SAR platform.
Eventually common sense and reality kicked in and it became a competiton initially to provide the interim contract and now the full 2012 contract using (surprise, surprise) helicopters based in the same places as they always have been (unless there is a last minute surprise for all of us).
The MCA have to be an integral part of the process because they will control part or all of the final structure ( unless there is a radical move to make it all military
). Despite the empire building aspirations of the previous Chief Exec, I think the MCA will accept whatever the outcome is of the process.
On the pay question, the problem with trying to tie down military pay rates is that the job can be done by a first tourist Fg Off on £40k or a PA Sqn Ldr on £65k - both can be SAR captains or co-pilots whereas your civilian Captain and FO rates will be more rigid I suspect.
For a while it was very blue sky thinking (as much as you can get in the military) with pretty much any option (helicopter, balloon, fast ship etc) open to a feasibility study to see if it could become the future SAR platform.
Eventually common sense and reality kicked in and it became a competiton initially to provide the interim contract and now the full 2012 contract using (surprise, surprise) helicopters based in the same places as they always have been (unless there is a last minute surprise for all of us).
The MCA have to be an integral part of the process because they will control part or all of the final structure ( unless there is a radical move to make it all military
). Despite the empire building aspirations of the previous Chief Exec, I think the MCA will accept whatever the outcome is of the process.On the pay question, the problem with trying to tie down military pay rates is that the job can be done by a first tourist Fg Off on £40k or a PA Sqn Ldr on £65k - both can be SAR captains or co-pilots whereas your civilian Captain and FO rates will be more rigid I suspect.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Over the sea and far away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Astbury's lack of aviation experience is incidental. He had the vast SAR experience and knowledge of Carl Taylor advising him.
Could the MCA take over the control and coordination of SAR-H and be effective? Not a chance. Single helicopter overwater and coastal taskings, yes. Search management for maritime incidents - hell yes, but as a future management agency for the UK SAR-H Force, I don't think so.
Any honest MCA staff would agree.
SARowl - yes, and I spelt competition wrong and used 'as' too many times in the same sentence
I could be really sneaky and edit the post then no-one would understand yours.... but then you'd just remove that post and everyone would continue to think I can spill properlay
I could be really sneaky and edit the post then no-one would understand yours.... but then you'd just remove that post and everyone would continue to think I can spill properlay
Mail On Sunday:
VT Group is drawing up plans to monitor Britain's coastline with unmanned aircraft equipped with high-power lenses. VT has teamed up with Lockheed Martin to bid for a contract to create a UK search and rescue service. Unmanned patrols would patrol the skies over coastlines, looking for boats or swimmers in trouble. At present, search and rescue around Britain is a joint MoD and Maritime and Coastguard Agency responsibility, but vessels from the Royal Navy and RAF are also used. This system is to be streamlined with the introduction of new private services. Other bidders include Thales, AgustaWestland and Bristows/Serco.
And so much cheaper than lifeguards, coastguard lookouts, lifeboats and helicopters - I'm just not sure how many people you can actually rescue with an RPV But the bean counters will love it.
But the bean counters will love it.
Mr. Point.
Sorry, the point of my reference to C.T. was lost on you!!
Also the M.C.A. will not be managing SAR-H. That will be down to the winning bidder, whoever that may be?
The M.C.A. will be the tasking agency pretty much like now. Unless A.R.C.C. decide otherwise of course, but then that is another story entirely.
Sorry, the point of my reference to C.T. was lost on you!!
Also the M.C.A. will not be managing SAR-H. That will be down to the winning bidder, whoever that may be?
The M.C.A. will be the tasking agency pretty much like now. Unless A.R.C.C. decide otherwise of course, but then that is another story entirely.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheffield Floods
I'm sure everybody on Pprune will join me in congratulating the RAF SAR boys and girls on their magnificent response to the flooding yesterday. I was glued to the Sky News coverage watching those yellow helicopter crews doing their thing. If the residents of Sheffield and others rescued by the RAF yesterday were made aware of SAR-H what, as tax payers, do you think their opinions would be? I was unashamedly pro-military SAR before the recent floods and I do not see anything that makes me want to change that view.
Does anybody know the final tally of numbers rescued and does this represent the largest helicopter evacuation ever undertaken on the mainland UK?
To return to a previous post, I have not had an encouraging response from my MP or MEP. Probably to be expected as they are both Labour.
Yesterday's events underline the value and professionalism of the service that the government is, unnecessarily, putting at risk.
Well done again the RAF.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL - Believe the biggest evac is still Boscastle 04 but am happy to be corrected. Once again the importance of SAR is shown to the general public. Shame the people who make decisions in their name don't recognise it. I'm sure we wouldn't be privatising SAR if we could afford to keep it military.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the greatest of respect to the boys and girls in the yellow helicopters yesterday, this has got to be the worst "reason" I've heard for retaining Mil SAR. Do you not think that if Navy or Coastguard Helicopters had arrived on scene in Sheffield that they would have done the same magnificent job?
With the greatest of respect to the boys and girls in the yellow helicopters yesterday, this has got to be the worst "reason" I've heard for retaining Mil SAR. Do you not think that if Navy or Coastguard Helicopters had arrived on scene in Sheffield that they would have done the same magnificent job?
Shaun
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this seems an idiot type question but who in the MCA would task (and fund?) a Private SAR element to respond to deep land-locked incidents? Am I alone in foreseeing "rice bowl" arguments?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was that a single SAR job was a poor argument for retaining Mil SAR. I'm actually all for it. However, surely whichever organisation eventually becomes responsible for UKSAR, even the MCA, they will have to cover inland areas as well. They already carry out a significant number of jobs "inland", 60 yards or 60 miles inland, does it make much difference?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL9000 I am sorry but I miss the whole point of your reference to YELLOW SAR helicopters, what has that got to do with the price of anything. Could the Navy not do the same job, could HMCG not do the same job like they did in Boscastle? It is only by pure chance that their were three YELLOW helicopters available yesterday, what if there had not been? Would you have been shamed and embarrassed if a grey and red one turned up?? Incidentally one of your prized YELLOW helicopters went u/s and had to be replaced, luckily for you with another YELLOW one.
Would it help when SAR-H is agreed and decided if we paint all the cab's YELLOW. Would it...really?
Would it help when SAR-H is agreed and decided if we paint all the cab's YELLOW. Would it...really?
I imagine that's 'yellow' as in 'not green' - i.e. dedicated SAR rather than SH?
Yellow, grey-and-red, midnight blue or sky blue pink, dedicated military-operated SAR has always been an essential military asset - and should continue to be.
Yellow, grey-and-red, midnight blue or sky blue pink, dedicated military-operated SAR has always been an essential military asset - and should continue to be.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fao Sarco
SARCO,
Please do not put words into my mouth. Read my previous posts carefully and you won't find anything derogatory about any of the UK's SAR helo units. The people at the coal face are magnificent, civilian and military. What's more, they have demonstrated the ability to rise above petty politics and work extremely well together when the public need them.
My beef is with the procurement process and the vested interest of those who, in my opinion, are too close to the decision makers. I also feel that the efforts of RN/RAF SAR is not recognised by the MCA hierarchy in order to facilitate their own ends.
HAL
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those were your words my friend and your's alone.
You are quite right you are entitled to your own opinions and I respect that.
If you are a member of the SAR community then you will appreciate that we are all here to do a job to the utmost of our abilities regardless of what role or form that takes.
If you are not a member of the SAR community then I fail to see why you think it is so important to have such a biased viewpoint. PFI such as the SAR-H programme is here to stay. Live with it.
One other thing means nothing to me, I am not a child.
You are quite right you are entitled to your own opinions and I respect that.
If you are a member of the SAR community then you will appreciate that we are all here to do a job to the utmost of our abilities regardless of what role or form that takes.
If you are not a member of the SAR community then I fail to see why you think it is so important to have such a biased viewpoint. PFI such as the SAR-H programme is here to stay. Live with it.
One other thing
means nothing to me, I am not a child.