Chivenor Seakings to stand down night time rescues
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little Changes
Wessex Flight - Leuchars - October 1992
That others may live - we've worked hard each day
That others may live - to work hard and play
That others may live - our purpose has been
That others may live - where death might have been.
The Squadron at rest the pace seems so slow
A contrast indeed from the scramble we know
The team it reacts - the scramble bell goes
A polished routine - the training it shows.
The team it's been tested - by day and by NIGHT
Yet now we respond when only it's light
Our history records the successes there've been
Short sighted superiors this history not seen.
The future they say no problems will hold
Protection assured our clients are told
But do they believe that assurance they give
Honours our resolve, THAT OTHERS MAY LIVE.
That others may live - we've worked hard each day
That others may live - to work hard and play
That others may live - our purpose has been
That others may live - where death might have been.
The Squadron at rest the pace seems so slow
A contrast indeed from the scramble we know
The team it reacts - the scramble bell goes
A polished routine - the training it shows.
The team it's been tested - by day and by NIGHT
Yet now we respond when only it's light
Our history records the successes there've been
Short sighted superiors this history not seen.
The future they say no problems will hold
Protection assured our clients are told
But do they believe that assurance they give
Honours our resolve, THAT OTHERS MAY LIVE.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Coast
Age: 79
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
Quite sure! Not a subject to be treated lightly. Phase 5 clearance is a bit above my head but can't imagine for one minute that the Solent & Portland flights would allow us to task them to such operations without such clearance. Strange that ARCCK hasn't told you.
Sapper - are you sure? We have been carrying extra map cover for over a year to allow for Solent and Channel night jobs. Has the Phase 5 been cleared for use?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Thoughts
Well this has been an interesting thread. Crab, as usual, brings to the table his clear and often well thought out views of which of course, there are always alternative perspectives - whether its analysing the statistics differently or just plain having different views on how best to do the job of providing the UK with a top class SAR helo service.
The 12 hour standby of two RAF flights is a sad reflection in my view of how low a priority this (miltary) capability has become since the lack of a proper defence budget impinges on our operational needs and tasks as presently defined. While there may be an undercurrent of SAR force neglect inherent in some of those serving in the MOD (and there is!!), I do sympathise with the wider need to support our people in Afghanistan with the right kit and people - its a shame we ain't doin that as well as we could either given the lack of leadership and money some years ago! I have never accepted that our helo:troop ratio should be so low (although not equivalent to the Yanks - thats overkill) and its a testament to our combined failure to sort this over 30 years that has now been fully exposed in this aggressive operational campaign - goodness knows we had plenty of indicators - just read the helo availability lessons from Borneo, NI, FI and GW1 - so its no suprise that UK SAR gets to suffer its share of underresourcing in the cirucmstances - sad but true!
Now guys - what is sacrosant about 12 bases (the present lot)? - )or for that matter them all being located on the seaside? - a 1950s idea for sure!! - in my view absolutely nothing - nor is Crab's argument that if neccessary an innovative approach to rebasing to best encompass op demand and optimise base/ac numbers and types would have been too expensive. The sad reality is that this approach has been prevented under the SAR-H procurement requirements - and ask yourself what politics has driven us into that hole. This only leads industry to seek solutions that are "conventional" as any interpretation of the UK SAR-H approach is that it is "low risk", wants to avoid controversy, and certainly is not open to providing a truely innovatve and best value for money approach to taking UK SAR helos foprward for the next 30 odd years. Any of the 4 original Bidders' approaches had to account for this as they no doubt strived to bring their proposal in on budget and time - some chose to leave the competition as a result
We could spend days debating Crab's valuable point that reorganising and re-equipping the UK Mil SARF with new ac etc would be more cost effective - I support that view myself despite the realpolitic we have faced in MoD SAR, and more importantly it would allow military planners a better view point (if they only opened their minds!) to UK homeland defence and the use of a large number of capable all weather helos sat around the UK at readiness - see other thread re MPs report on Uk coastal defence for example!! This debate has not been helped by the lack of SH and the ongoing MoD internal politics and policy that deployed ops always have priority for resources of any sort - hence the untimley demise of the UK mil SARF to a PFI - this is a fundamentally flawed policy in my view but not surprising in the circumstances.
As for the availability arguments from the 3 remaining bases to cover Chiv - well with a modern fast all weather ac this is a variable debate depending on which angle you look at the argument from. Given that the UK's primary SAR helo requirement is to arrive on top of any incident in less than 1 hour ( and there maybe arguments for having reduced this - at a cost!) (and excepting the long ditsance ones always take longer of course!) - then statistics will support the reduction in night time cover or numbers of bases at some locations depending also on crew/ac availability at the remaining bases. As Crab himself says - just because historic statistics show "hot spots" doesn't neccessarily mean we should co-locate a SAR flt next door in the future - particulary if you are trying to deliver a nationwide service where everyone, anywhere has an "equal" chance of a SAR helo (and backups) arriving in given time limits. (PS Crab - how many of your recent night jobs were in the near vicinty of Chiv (say 50nm radius)). Often as not - we now live in a politically motivated grandtanding world where no local politician will allow a local flight to close or be moved - as they simply don't want to wrap their minds around the "national capability" debate as there is no mileage in it for them nor is there a well thought out wider government policy to support such changes.
Finally, it will be interesting to see where the SAR-H process and decisions go in the near future - an impending election and lack of government money and the continuing turmoil in the banking sector must be creating some interesting situations in decision making board rooms - almost as I write.
Cheers
and best wishes to all those who continue to do a really significant and important flying job - all those elements of the UK SAR helo force!!
The 12 hour standby of two RAF flights is a sad reflection in my view of how low a priority this (miltary) capability has become since the lack of a proper defence budget impinges on our operational needs and tasks as presently defined. While there may be an undercurrent of SAR force neglect inherent in some of those serving in the MOD (and there is!!), I do sympathise with the wider need to support our people in Afghanistan with the right kit and people - its a shame we ain't doin that as well as we could either given the lack of leadership and money some years ago! I have never accepted that our helo:troop ratio should be so low (although not equivalent to the Yanks - thats overkill) and its a testament to our combined failure to sort this over 30 years that has now been fully exposed in this aggressive operational campaign - goodness knows we had plenty of indicators - just read the helo availability lessons from Borneo, NI, FI and GW1 - so its no suprise that UK SAR gets to suffer its share of underresourcing in the cirucmstances - sad but true!
Now guys - what is sacrosant about 12 bases (the present lot)? - )or for that matter them all being located on the seaside? - a 1950s idea for sure!! - in my view absolutely nothing - nor is Crab's argument that if neccessary an innovative approach to rebasing to best encompass op demand and optimise base/ac numbers and types would have been too expensive. The sad reality is that this approach has been prevented under the SAR-H procurement requirements - and ask yourself what politics has driven us into that hole. This only leads industry to seek solutions that are "conventional" as any interpretation of the UK SAR-H approach is that it is "low risk", wants to avoid controversy, and certainly is not open to providing a truely innovatve and best value for money approach to taking UK SAR helos foprward for the next 30 odd years. Any of the 4 original Bidders' approaches had to account for this as they no doubt strived to bring their proposal in on budget and time - some chose to leave the competition as a result
We could spend days debating Crab's valuable point that reorganising and re-equipping the UK Mil SARF with new ac etc would be more cost effective - I support that view myself despite the realpolitic we have faced in MoD SAR, and more importantly it would allow military planners a better view point (if they only opened their minds!) to UK homeland defence and the use of a large number of capable all weather helos sat around the UK at readiness - see other thread re MPs report on Uk coastal defence for example!! This debate has not been helped by the lack of SH and the ongoing MoD internal politics and policy that deployed ops always have priority for resources of any sort - hence the untimley demise of the UK mil SARF to a PFI - this is a fundamentally flawed policy in my view but not surprising in the circumstances.
As for the availability arguments from the 3 remaining bases to cover Chiv - well with a modern fast all weather ac this is a variable debate depending on which angle you look at the argument from. Given that the UK's primary SAR helo requirement is to arrive on top of any incident in less than 1 hour ( and there maybe arguments for having reduced this - at a cost!) (and excepting the long ditsance ones always take longer of course!) - then statistics will support the reduction in night time cover or numbers of bases at some locations depending also on crew/ac availability at the remaining bases. As Crab himself says - just because historic statistics show "hot spots" doesn't neccessarily mean we should co-locate a SAR flt next door in the future - particulary if you are trying to deliver a nationwide service where everyone, anywhere has an "equal" chance of a SAR helo (and backups) arriving in given time limits. (PS Crab - how many of your recent night jobs were in the near vicinty of Chiv (say 50nm radius)). Often as not - we now live in a politically motivated grandtanding world where no local politician will allow a local flight to close or be moved - as they simply don't want to wrap their minds around the "national capability" debate as there is no mileage in it for them nor is there a well thought out wider government policy to support such changes.
Finally, it will be interesting to see where the SAR-H process and decisions go in the near future - an impending election and lack of government money and the continuing turmoil in the banking sector must be creating some interesting situations in decision making board rooms - almost as I write.
Cheers
and best wishes to all those who continue to do a really significant and important flying job - all those elements of the UK SAR helo force!!
Last edited by Tallsar; 16th Aug 2009 at 10:39.
what is sacrosant about...them all being located on the seaside
It's because generally people in difficulty in the water have a lower chance of survival if rescue is delayed than somebody stranded with the same illness/injury on land = base the helicopters as close to the sea as possible (standfast Wattisham/Leconfield!). As it happens, most of the biggest hills in this country happen to be very close to the sea as well, albeit not necessarily near the SAR helo bases, but that's a different argument...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ToD - You raise a valid point - but it is only valid to the degree that a base on the coast happens to be close to an incident - many over water incidents are quite some distance from a coastal SAR base and can be reached just a quickly from other locations. Furthermore, my point was not to suggest that there would be no bases on the coast - indeed there would always need to be some, if not the majority - but others need locating elsewhere (the key mountain areas being the cases in point as you suggest, or for example cost effective long range rescue ) - but these options were not presentable as SAR-H solutions whatever the maths, logic or need. I stand by this point - there is simply no need for all SAR bases to be on the coast - the majority of SAR missons are now overland, and the focussed need for a concept of ops for overwater aviation rescue using short range helos as evinced in the 1950s deployments are no longer valid.
It now seems rather ironic that the SARH process was initially trumpeted as a 'blue-sky thinking' and 'completely free from constraints' concept, so far in fact that they weren't even allowed to mention helicopters because other 'platforms' might prove more efficient.
Many of us said at the time that it was all pointless bo**ocks and that the only decision you needed to make was which helicopter would be used.
Several years and many millions of £s down the road and that is fundamentally the choice - 2 bidders with similar bids using the same bases and needing plenty of mil people to jump ship to man those bases.
The final decider will probably be on cost (despite all the SARH claims that it wouldn't be) and there now neems little doubt that the new service will not be 'at least as capable' as the old service because there will be fewer operational bases at night.
Well done the Govt, MoD and MCA - what a successful outcome
Tallsar - quite a few of our night jobs are, as you suggest, within 50nm of Chiv which highlights how far Valley or Culdrose would have to come out of their patch to do those jobs, thus leaving huge holes in the SAR cover. It certainly isn't unusual for all 3 flights to be on night jobs at the same time so which poor punter will lose out?
As I have said before, one big loser will be the NHS who will very probably be denied the night medtransfers that they often request - if Culdrose or Valley had to take a patient into Central London then huge swathes of the country are again left devoid of SAR cover for several hours.
As to basing at coasts - apart from the short time to get to a PIW, the biggest advantage is the ability to recover at low level in poor weather with a coastal letdown or similar - something that Wattisham struggles with because of its comedy location inland.
The ability to recover to base rather than divert is important for several reasons; the aircraft can be serviced and rectified if required, the medical kit can be replenished, the crew can get quickly back into resting (at night) rather than faffing to organise hotels etc and, if the aircraft is U/S, the crew instantly have the second one available. Suddenly having inland bases doesn't seem such a great idea.
Sapper - I will ask the ARCCK but the 139s were still toted on the RCS until a couple of months ago as having no night, overwater winching capability and a crew that visited us earlier in the year confirmed that they were still waiting for the certification of the autopilot SAR modes. Have you actually tasked them to a PIW at night where they have completed the rescue? Anyone from Lee or Portland care to comment?
Many of us said at the time that it was all pointless bo**ocks and that the only decision you needed to make was which helicopter would be used.
Several years and many millions of £s down the road and that is fundamentally the choice - 2 bidders with similar bids using the same bases and needing plenty of mil people to jump ship to man those bases.
The final decider will probably be on cost (despite all the SARH claims that it wouldn't be) and there now neems little doubt that the new service will not be 'at least as capable' as the old service because there will be fewer operational bases at night.
Well done the Govt, MoD and MCA - what a successful outcome
Tallsar - quite a few of our night jobs are, as you suggest, within 50nm of Chiv which highlights how far Valley or Culdrose would have to come out of their patch to do those jobs, thus leaving huge holes in the SAR cover. It certainly isn't unusual for all 3 flights to be on night jobs at the same time so which poor punter will lose out?
As I have said before, one big loser will be the NHS who will very probably be denied the night medtransfers that they often request - if Culdrose or Valley had to take a patient into Central London then huge swathes of the country are again left devoid of SAR cover for several hours.
As to basing at coasts - apart from the short time to get to a PIW, the biggest advantage is the ability to recover at low level in poor weather with a coastal letdown or similar - something that Wattisham struggles with because of its comedy location inland.
The ability to recover to base rather than divert is important for several reasons; the aircraft can be serviced and rectified if required, the medical kit can be replenished, the crew can get quickly back into resting (at night) rather than faffing to organise hotels etc and, if the aircraft is U/S, the crew instantly have the second one available. Suddenly having inland bases doesn't seem such a great idea.
Sapper - I will ask the ARCCK but the 139s were still toted on the RCS until a couple of months ago as having no night, overwater winching capability and a crew that visited us earlier in the year confirmed that they were still waiting for the certification of the autopilot SAR modes. Have you actually tasked them to a PIW at night where they have completed the rescue? Anyone from Lee or Portland care to comment?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Crab - yes I think any objective assessment of where the SAR-H overall requirement and constraints have taken us has almost nullified any original aspirations for open minded innovation and providing a solution that delivers as originally concieved (by some anyway!). That said - its only when you come to test many such novel ideas in detail (particulary when the detailed costs are available) that you realise that many such ideas just prove unaffordable without better customer commitment at all decison making levels - and that is just not forthcoming at the moment.
The PIW debate I believe is not a driver for coastal location overall given the broader UK requirements - if that was so we would need many more op bases along the coast to provide the true short range/notice reaction that survival dictates across the UK - while there is a case (and don't I know it for some reason!
) for having a larger number of coastal readiness bases (perhaps simply founded along air ambulance lines for cost and efficiency reasons) this was off the agenda once the 12 base lock down was directed by the SAR-H customer. There are some close mathmatics and costings to be done to get the balance right particularly if you have a mixed fleet and a large number of op locations (NB I do not say bases!), and like it or not, decisions to be made as to which locations would be 24hr all weather and which might be (VMC) daylight only - crewing dictates this if nothing else if the overall budget is to be affordable (never mind if it comes in at some nafarious limit such £5B and is driven by that extraordinarily facile legislation called the EWTD!)
As for all weather recovery to coastal bases - not neccessairly a winning argument these days if the right base recovery aids are provided and on for that odd occasion (lets face it it don't happen that often!)that a diversion is required then suitable prenominated locations are selected by long term planning and agreements - eg Southend for Wattisham - I disagree that it is essential to recover to base to maintain an effective standby posture for a short period until the weather clears if it proves that bad, nice as it can be.
As the guy who fought to prevent Wattisham happening as a location I need no further comments!!
- what a waste of transit time that has proved to be - think of the cost of ownership of such a location over 30 years!! - yet another example of why sticking with the present 12 bases for optimum operation was ridiculous, and from an original decison that was mostly dictated by the need to place an RAF SAR flt on what was then percieved to be an RAF flying base and MoD territory (remember St Mawgan too!) - that insular thinking is not how to produce a UK wide approach to efficient SAR helo cover.
So there we go - I have a work to do - no doubt chat more later
Cheers
The PIW debate I believe is not a driver for coastal location overall given the broader UK requirements - if that was so we would need many more op bases along the coast to provide the true short range/notice reaction that survival dictates across the UK - while there is a case (and don't I know it for some reason!
) for having a larger number of coastal readiness bases (perhaps simply founded along air ambulance lines for cost and efficiency reasons) this was off the agenda once the 12 base lock down was directed by the SAR-H customer. There are some close mathmatics and costings to be done to get the balance right particularly if you have a mixed fleet and a large number of op locations (NB I do not say bases!), and like it or not, decisions to be made as to which locations would be 24hr all weather and which might be (VMC) daylight only - crewing dictates this if nothing else if the overall budget is to be affordable (never mind if it comes in at some nafarious limit such £5B and is driven by that extraordinarily facile legislation called the EWTD!)As for all weather recovery to coastal bases - not neccessairly a winning argument these days if the right base recovery aids are provided and on for that odd occasion (lets face it it don't happen that often!)that a diversion is required then suitable prenominated locations are selected by long term planning and agreements - eg Southend for Wattisham - I disagree that it is essential to recover to base to maintain an effective standby posture for a short period until the weather clears if it proves that bad, nice as it can be.
As the guy who fought to prevent Wattisham happening as a location I need no further comments!!
- what a waste of transit time that has proved to be - think of the cost of ownership of such a location over 30 years!! - yet another example of why sticking with the present 12 bases for optimum operation was ridiculous, and from an original decison that was mostly dictated by the need to place an RAF SAR flt on what was then percieved to be an RAF flying base and MoD territory (remember St Mawgan too!) - that insular thinking is not how to produce a UK wide approach to efficient SAR helo cover.So there we go - I have a work to do - no doubt chat more later
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 17th Aug 2009 at 16:34.
as a slight aside,
it was a bit of a comedy just getting the Seakings into Wattisham....
the RAF Station had just been 'sold' to the Army and when the MOD asked for one of the existing hangars to use as the SAR unit, the Army told them to 'go away'!
So a new hangar was planned, to be sited on the old QRA dispersal.
To save money someone at MOD decided to use the same building plans as the recent Wessex SAR build at Leuchars. MOD did not bother to send these plans to the Seaking flight at Manston (the unit relocating to Wattisham).
At the subsequent siting board at Wattisham, the MOD and Army reps sat down and spread the plans out on the table.
Almost immediately the senior Army Air Corps officer present pointed out that the proposed hangar doors were not high enough to get a Seaking in.
16 years later, I wonder if it would help if the Army had a look at the SARH plans?
something that Wattisham struggles with because of its comedy location inland.
it was a bit of a comedy just getting the Seakings into Wattisham....
the RAF Station had just been 'sold' to the Army and when the MOD asked for one of the existing hangars to use as the SAR unit, the Army told them to 'go away'!
So a new hangar was planned, to be sited on the old QRA dispersal.
To save money someone at MOD decided to use the same building plans as the recent Wessex SAR build at Leuchars. MOD did not bother to send these plans to the Seaking flight at Manston (the unit relocating to Wattisham).
At the subsequent siting board at Wattisham, the MOD and Army reps sat down and spread the plans out on the table.
Almost immediately the senior Army Air Corps officer present pointed out that the proposed hangar doors were not high enough to get a Seaking in.
16 years later, I wonder if it would help if the Army had a look at the SARH plans?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Bertie - an intersting and still sadder perspective on the Wattisham affair. After 30 years in the RAF I can relate many similar tales of how hangar door heights were similarly badly specc'ed - talk about missing the wood for the trees! Despite that wrong Wattisham spec they could have at least built it somewhere more appropriate - Ah Well!
... and as for your proposal for Army staff scrutiny of the SAR-H requirement - what a great idea!! - must keep an eye out for the added requirement line for regular training deployments to somewhere near the Kyber Pass mind you!!
... and as for your proposal for Army staff scrutiny of the SAR-H requirement - what a great idea!! - must keep an eye out for the added requirement line for regular training deployments to somewhere near the Kyber Pass mind you!!
Tallsar - I think the diversion issue is still relevant and the reason it doesn't happen often is exactly because of where the bases are located.
If you have to divert after a messy rescue (lots of blood and guts in the back) unless you can get home you have no way of sanitizing the aircraft nor re-stocking the medical kit so you are left in the wrong place in what is effectively a U/S aircraft.
Appropriate recovery aids are expensive (we have just had our ILS replaced so we know!) which means inland bases would have to be sited on an airport with an ILS (still with a 150' DH) where a coastal base would allow an internal radar letdown to the beach and a hover taxi back to dispersal in far worse conditions.
Trying to move away from coastal bases ignores the fact that we are an island nation with a lot of coastline and both tourism and maritime trade and fishing generate the majority of our jobs. Add in the Lake District and Snowdonia being easily accessible from the sea and there seems little reason to have a SAR base anywhere except the coast.
The concept of inland bases was, I think, where the Fire and Rescue Service were going when they mooted the idea of having their own helicopters and it doesn't seem to have got very far.
If you have to divert after a messy rescue (lots of blood and guts in the back) unless you can get home you have no way of sanitizing the aircraft nor re-stocking the medical kit so you are left in the wrong place in what is effectively a U/S aircraft.
Appropriate recovery aids are expensive (we have just had our ILS replaced so we know!) which means inland bases would have to be sited on an airport with an ILS (still with a 150' DH) where a coastal base would allow an internal radar letdown to the beach and a hover taxi back to dispersal in far worse conditions.
Trying to move away from coastal bases ignores the fact that we are an island nation with a lot of coastline and both tourism and maritime trade and fishing generate the majority of our jobs. Add in the Lake District and Snowdonia being easily accessible from the sea and there seems little reason to have a SAR base anywhere except the coast.
The concept of inland bases was, I think, where the Fire and Rescue Service were going when they mooted the idea of having their own helicopters and it doesn't seem to have got very far.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Crab - well you wouldn't expect me to not reply would you?
All good points you make - in principle and from both our own experiences - I have a feeling I might have been part of the first RAF SK crew that actually did an internal aids IMC recovery in anger to a certain Scottish base - but then.....it was along long time ago ( a certain Sgt Webb might have been on the tube too!!)
As for such technques' use in the future vs (expensive (a relative term) but safe) recovery aids - I'm afraid my vote still goes to the recovery aids - and the statistical certainty (or not) of needing to use them on exactly the occasion that you are full of contamination! My thoughts are also with the cost/likelihood of getting a proper clearance to do an internal aids recovery with the likely kit available to a SAR-H ac (whether mil or civ registered - thoughts of A139 night clearances have some indirect bearing on this argument)) vs the more regular need to get down to useful limits such as 150 ft - often a very acceptable DH for the vast majority of recoveries. Its all a balance of investment decision - and you can swing it one way or another - I am not sure I accept your point that internal aids recoveries have consistently allowed many recoveries to base in the poorest of weather. And of course - there's always the option of getting the GCs in a bus to come and sort the ac at the div location once the duty crew have done their bit too of course!
As for coastal base issue- I refer you to my previous but one post - I am and always will believe that there are many good reasons for having some if not the majority of SAR flts on the coast. But I also believe there are many good reasons for having others elswhere, depending on the missions you are trying to cover and the types of ac you have available - and of course the real and pressing need to keep operating costs within agreed bounds. I refer back to the Wattisham argument - no organisation worth its salt would have agreed to that location if the total through life op costs were on the table and needed to be managed within a budget - and thats before you considered the operational drivers in that part of the world that said it was crass anyway. I continue to believe there are better 21st century ways of sorting the complete UK SAR helo capability picture than just replicating the way we have done business for many decades. Much of it of course is well worth carrying across for ever - and its a shame some of it has already been allowed to change or dissappear - but onward we should be going - not just copying what we have done for the last 30 years with just another ac type - the public's expectation, the military requirement and the legislative, budgetary and regulatory environment require we it tackle it that way..I like to think!
All this is a long way from discussing Chivenor's forthcoming 12hr status by the way!!
All good points you make - in principle and from both our own experiences - I have a feeling I might have been part of the first RAF SK crew that actually did an internal aids IMC recovery in anger to a certain Scottish base - but then.....it was along long time ago ( a certain Sgt Webb might have been on the tube too!!)
As for such technques' use in the future vs (expensive (a relative term) but safe) recovery aids - I'm afraid my vote still goes to the recovery aids - and the statistical certainty (or not) of needing to use them on exactly the occasion that you are full of contamination! My thoughts are also with the cost/likelihood of getting a proper clearance to do an internal aids recovery with the likely kit available to a SAR-H ac (whether mil or civ registered - thoughts of A139 night clearances have some indirect bearing on this argument)) vs the more regular need to get down to useful limits such as 150 ft - often a very acceptable DH for the vast majority of recoveries. Its all a balance of investment decision - and you can swing it one way or another - I am not sure I accept your point that internal aids recoveries have consistently allowed many recoveries to base in the poorest of weather. And of course - there's always the option of getting the GCs in a bus to come and sort the ac at the div location once the duty crew have done their bit too of course!
As for coastal base issue- I refer you to my previous but one post - I am and always will believe that there are many good reasons for having some if not the majority of SAR flts on the coast. But I also believe there are many good reasons for having others elswhere, depending on the missions you are trying to cover and the types of ac you have available - and of course the real and pressing need to keep operating costs within agreed bounds. I refer back to the Wattisham argument - no organisation worth its salt would have agreed to that location if the total through life op costs were on the table and needed to be managed within a budget - and thats before you considered the operational drivers in that part of the world that said it was crass anyway. I continue to believe there are better 21st century ways of sorting the complete UK SAR helo capability picture than just replicating the way we have done business for many decades. Much of it of course is well worth carrying across for ever - and its a shame some of it has already been allowed to change or dissappear - but onward we should be going - not just copying what we have done for the last 30 years with just another ac type - the public's expectation, the military requirement and the legislative, budgetary and regulatory environment require we it tackle it that way..I like to think!
All this is a long way from discussing Chivenor's forthcoming 12hr status by the way!!
Last edited by Tallsar; 18th Aug 2009 at 13:52.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Deliverance - perhaps I'm being a bit thick here but can't wrap my brain around quite what your're trying to say altogether.
My points above where effectively my own views on what an ideal approach to sorting out the future of UK SAR helos might be - particularly with regard to basing etc. As for the SAR-H PFI - well there's another matter - is it ultimately value for money that the taxpayer forks out much more over a 25-30 year period for a service that would be cheaper to purchase if we did it ourselves and paid up front - no I don't think so!! But thats the way Government has gone (as with many other major programmes) as it has insufficent immediate cash to do anything else (certainly now!!) without a complete priority volt face and even greater tax rises than we can expect next year anyway...and so here we are...
As for what level of service will result from the SAR-H contract - well I have to disagree in the most part. While there is no doubt that transfering from a majority military ownership will reduce ultimate flexibility to get a much larger military owned and manned fleet airborne in extremis ( and bear in mind that has rarely happened in the numbers I am thinking of) - then yes there will be a reduction in ulimate capability in this respect. However, I am in little doubt that despite some major criticisms I could make of the conceptual and policy approach of the SAR-H customer community, other detail of the requirement as I understand it has been rigorous enough to ensure as good and in some respects better capability than we have at present- Do not underestimate either the flexibility and efficiencies that will come from having a single all weather long range modern fleet operated across the UK by one organisation under one tasking authority - its never happend before, and given my own experience, its been a long time coming. This in itself will be one vast capability improvement over whats gone before.
My points in the previous messages were my own exaspiration that so much more could have been achieved if the UK Customer had given a proper open book approach to any bidders to resolve the future - Oh how niave I am!!. It was never going to happen given the funding issues and politics involved sadly. Take a look at how Norway is approaching the same problem - some lessons to learn there I think!
Cheers
My points above where effectively my own views on what an ideal approach to sorting out the future of UK SAR helos might be - particularly with regard to basing etc. As for the SAR-H PFI - well there's another matter - is it ultimately value for money that the taxpayer forks out much more over a 25-30 year period for a service that would be cheaper to purchase if we did it ourselves and paid up front - no I don't think so!! But thats the way Government has gone (as with many other major programmes) as it has insufficent immediate cash to do anything else (certainly now!!) without a complete priority volt face and even greater tax rises than we can expect next year anyway...and so here we are...
As for what level of service will result from the SAR-H contract - well I have to disagree in the most part. While there is no doubt that transfering from a majority military ownership will reduce ultimate flexibility to get a much larger military owned and manned fleet airborne in extremis ( and bear in mind that has rarely happened in the numbers I am thinking of) - then yes there will be a reduction in ulimate capability in this respect. However, I am in little doubt that despite some major criticisms I could make of the conceptual and policy approach of the SAR-H customer community, other detail of the requirement as I understand it has been rigorous enough to ensure as good and in some respects better capability than we have at present- Do not underestimate either the flexibility and efficiencies that will come from having a single all weather long range modern fleet operated across the UK by one organisation under one tasking authority - its never happend before, and given my own experience, its been a long time coming. This in itself will be one vast capability improvement over whats gone before.
My points in the previous messages were my own exaspiration that so much more could have been achieved if the UK Customer had given a proper open book approach to any bidders to resolve the future - Oh how niave I am!!. It was never going to happen given the funding issues and politics involved sadly. Take a look at how Norway is approaching the same problem - some lessons to learn there I think!
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 18th Aug 2009 at 23:50.
Tallsar - I know where you are coming from when you say there could have been so much more from SARH but it would have needed to be bigger in scope and cover the need for a joined up Govt helicopter service providing AA, police, fire and rescue and SAR - then we might see economies of scale and sensible basing/crewing.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there is the Holy Grail, crab.... don't we know it - and don't we know it ain't ever gonna happen unless heads are bashed at the highest levels by a true champion - no chance!!
Still - perhaps SAR-H, whatever else it brings,may be a largish step on the slowly slowly catchy monkee route to precisely that!! Stranger things can happen!! I suspect my (future!) grandchildren will be in retirement by then though!!
Time for my Bo Bos....zzzzzzzzzzzz
Still - perhaps SAR-H, whatever else it brings,may be a largish step on the slowly slowly catchy monkee route to precisely that!! Stranger things can happen!! I suspect my (future!) grandchildren will be in retirement by then though!!
Time for my Bo Bos....zzzzzzzzzzzz
