Puma, Merlin etc
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 786
Likes: 2
From: UK
JTO,
Thanks for the response. If you have special access to inside information of the concerns of the Secretary of State for Defence, I will of course yield to that. But in my career, I tried to follow the well worn rule of 'follow the last order'. And those orders, as far as the SDH issue go, are pretty clear and less than a year old. Just for clarity, the relevant MAA reg reads as follows:
'Regulation 1020(2) - Each Service COS shall be an SDH by virtue of position,
and shall personally appoint by name ODHs and DDHs within their AoRs'.
The acceptable means of compliance is also clear - 'SDHs should ensure that the ODHs and DDHs that they appoint are SQEP (see RA1020(3)). '
The MAA preamble to this lot also helpfully points out that: 'The key DH level is the Operational DH (ODH), by virtue of the unique combination of: their competencies, training and experience; “their relevant knowledge of operational requirements; their immediate and daily access to the views and expertise of Front-line air and engineering crews; and the most direct interest in ensuring the safety and airworthiness of their aircraft
So, my conclusion is that COSs are the SDH 'by virtue of position', and the SQEP issue becomes relevant at ODH and DDH level. Seems pretty clear, and I, for one, don't think that Timo Anderson just 'gaffed' this one off. Perhaps he did, or perhaps the Sec of State really is going to get this bit changed after less than a year. Why?
I have to gently raise a couple more issues. First, and importantly, what exactly do you mean by an 'aviator' or 'aviation qualified' when you talk about an SDH? Pilot? Navigator? Observer? 'Air-minded'? (I love that one) Or how, since we are talking about safety management here, and oversight of a complex and essentially technical area of activity, an Engineer? Nothing I read in the RA says it can't be, except that an SDH has to be a service COS.
Of course, getting the SofS to insist on an 'aviator' as SDH would rather 'situate the appreciation', wouldn't it? It's highly unlikely that the RN or the Army would have an aviator as their COS. And if CAS became SDH for all military 'air', well, the logic would no doubt flow that he would then have to have command responsibility for it. And ownership.
Let's just be clear on this. The RN and the Army have experienced people who meet the requirements set out by the independent regulator, and who, most importantly, have a direct interest in ensuring the safety and airworthiness of their aircraft. They've been doing this aviation stuff for a few years. They know what they are doing. Just like the RAF in fact. Just one difference - they aren't going around trying to convince politicians that the other two services somehow aren't capable of operating aircraft safely.
As someone who did this aircraft safety stuff for a living for around 30 years, but in a dark blue suit, I find it just a bit wearing. So, I strongly suspect, would my many highly professional and extremely capable friends in the RAF.
Best regards as ever to those doing something useful,
Engines
Thanks for the response. If you have special access to inside information of the concerns of the Secretary of State for Defence, I will of course yield to that. But in my career, I tried to follow the well worn rule of 'follow the last order'. And those orders, as far as the SDH issue go, are pretty clear and less than a year old. Just for clarity, the relevant MAA reg reads as follows:
'Regulation 1020(2) - Each Service COS shall be an SDH by virtue of position,
and shall personally appoint by name ODHs and DDHs within their AoRs'.
The acceptable means of compliance is also clear - 'SDHs should ensure that the ODHs and DDHs that they appoint are SQEP (see RA1020(3)). '
The MAA preamble to this lot also helpfully points out that: 'The key DH level is the Operational DH (ODH), by virtue of the unique combination of: their competencies, training and experience; “their relevant knowledge of operational requirements; their immediate and daily access to the views and expertise of Front-line air and engineering crews; and the most direct interest in ensuring the safety and airworthiness of their aircraft
So, my conclusion is that COSs are the SDH 'by virtue of position', and the SQEP issue becomes relevant at ODH and DDH level. Seems pretty clear, and I, for one, don't think that Timo Anderson just 'gaffed' this one off. Perhaps he did, or perhaps the Sec of State really is going to get this bit changed after less than a year. Why?
I have to gently raise a couple more issues. First, and importantly, what exactly do you mean by an 'aviator' or 'aviation qualified' when you talk about an SDH? Pilot? Navigator? Observer? 'Air-minded'? (I love that one) Or how, since we are talking about safety management here, and oversight of a complex and essentially technical area of activity, an Engineer? Nothing I read in the RA says it can't be, except that an SDH has to be a service COS.
Of course, getting the SofS to insist on an 'aviator' as SDH would rather 'situate the appreciation', wouldn't it? It's highly unlikely that the RN or the Army would have an aviator as their COS. And if CAS became SDH for all military 'air', well, the logic would no doubt flow that he would then have to have command responsibility for it. And ownership.
Let's just be clear on this. The RN and the Army have experienced people who meet the requirements set out by the independent regulator, and who, most importantly, have a direct interest in ensuring the safety and airworthiness of their aircraft. They've been doing this aviation stuff for a few years. They know what they are doing. Just like the RAF in fact. Just one difference - they aren't going around trying to convince politicians that the other two services somehow aren't capable of operating aircraft safely.
As someone who did this aircraft safety stuff for a living for around 30 years, but in a dark blue suit, I find it just a bit wearing. So, I strongly suspect, would my many highly professional and extremely capable friends in the RAF.
Best regards as ever to those doing something useful,
Engines
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: UK
Engines
Having participated in a formal visit to the light blue a few months ago, I was interested to hear a relatively senior Regiment officer justifying their role as essential to have an 'air-minded' organisation to provide airfield defence. While I'm grateful for the job that they do, having spent more than enough time flying in and out of Bastion under their FP cordon in the immediate surroundings, I'm intrigued by the suggestion that a Service CoS needs to be 'air-minded' and wondered how our light blue brethren might feel about a Regt CoS?
Having participated in a formal visit to the light blue a few months ago, I was interested to hear a relatively senior Regiment officer justifying their role as essential to have an 'air-minded' organisation to provide airfield defence. While I'm grateful for the job that they do, having spent more than enough time flying in and out of Bastion under their FP cordon in the immediate surroundings, I'm intrigued by the suggestion that a Service CoS needs to be 'air-minded' and wondered how our light blue brethren might feel about a Regt CoS?
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
From: East Anglia
Orca,
A good academic post on 19 Feb-not saying I agree, but certainly thought provoking.
AW, I think that you might find that even if 1SL does care two hoots about CHF and Merlin, rather than all his other floating toys, I think that you will find find he will be struggling. Neartheend might be a little closer to the truth, but even then a Joint Force Merlin is looking a tad optimistic, as any Merlin Force at all is looking dodgy if MLSP is not funded.
I know that some of the Merlin guys cannot believe that we were willing to sacrifice them in order to ensure the survival of Puma, but if the posts and rumours are true and due to the dire financial situation the people at the top directed that a RW type was to go, better the type that was not RAF don't you think? Otherwise we would have not only been looking at handing over Merlin to the Fisheads, but binning Puma, with only one RAF RW then we were not looking in a good position.
However,due to some good work by our Airships we now have enough cockpits for our Merlin guys to transfer into when they switch off the lights at Merlin OSD, with Puma safe, and our new buy Chinook. I reckon that Defence still has a pretty capable (and affordable) RW capability across all environments.
I think it always does pay to have the right people at the top informing the high level meetings where these kind of decisions are made.
A good academic post on 19 Feb-not saying I agree, but certainly thought provoking.
AW, I think that you might find that even if 1SL does care two hoots about CHF and Merlin, rather than all his other floating toys, I think that you will find find he will be struggling. Neartheend might be a little closer to the truth, but even then a Joint Force Merlin is looking a tad optimistic, as any Merlin Force at all is looking dodgy if MLSP is not funded.
I know that some of the Merlin guys cannot believe that we were willing to sacrifice them in order to ensure the survival of Puma, but if the posts and rumours are true and due to the dire financial situation the people at the top directed that a RW type was to go, better the type that was not RAF don't you think? Otherwise we would have not only been looking at handing over Merlin to the Fisheads, but binning Puma, with only one RAF RW then we were not looking in a good position.
However,due to some good work by our Airships we now have enough cockpits for our Merlin guys to transfer into when they switch off the lights at Merlin OSD, with Puma safe, and our new buy Chinook. I reckon that Defence still has a pretty capable (and affordable) RW capability across all environments.
I think it always does pay to have the right people at the top informing the high level meetings where these kind of decisions are made.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 26th February 2012 at 11:35.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,196
Likes: 1
From: Among these dark Satanic mills
the RAF is losing all HC3 and HC3a to CHF
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
From: at home
MM4,
There are 35 mk3 crews. There are less pumas in the P2 programme than we have at present, and the present force is full to bursting. We are getting 12 of the 22 promised wokkas. Do the maths.....
Do you really think the Merlin crews can be absorbed into Puma and Chinook? I can't really get bitter over handing Merlin to the RN as they need something to replace the SK with. The decision at the moment is to transfer it lock stock. That's life.... However, mk3 is patently unsuitable, will cost a packet to modify and train the new crews and will not be fit for purpose at the end of it. MLSP fixes what aint broke and makes no performance enhancing difference to what is a wheezy airframe. The RAF will end up deploying to sea anyway to augment the lift required.
What's the point of crowing about Puma? Puma 2 is a minor sop. It polishes the !!!! for another 10 years. Whoopy do..
There are 35 mk3 crews. There are less pumas in the P2 programme than we have at present, and the present force is full to bursting. We are getting 12 of the 22 promised wokkas. Do the maths.....
Do you really think the Merlin crews can be absorbed into Puma and Chinook? I can't really get bitter over handing Merlin to the RN as they need something to replace the SK with. The decision at the moment is to transfer it lock stock. That's life.... However, mk3 is patently unsuitable, will cost a packet to modify and train the new crews and will not be fit for purpose at the end of it. MLSP fixes what aint broke and makes no performance enhancing difference to what is a wheezy airframe. The RAF will end up deploying to sea anyway to augment the lift required.
What's the point of crowing about Puma? Puma 2 is a minor sop. It polishes the !!!! for another 10 years. Whoopy do..
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: troon
I think I might be over simplifying things but i've seen other related threads where it has been mooted that the Sim at benson would have to be transfered to Culdrose and Jungly SK Crews would need training from the RAF to fly the HC variant.
Now then here is a pic of a Merlin HM Cockpit
And here is the HC
Please forgive my ignorance but even to the untrained eye I dont see too much difference between either, in fact I would aver that The HM variant is slightly more complex due to the nature of its task. What would be the problem with taking SK pilots and putting them through Merlin HM Training and then when the time comes deploying them on HC. Same with Ground crew. In fact other than the Rear opening up. the HC variant must be a less complex helicopter.
Sorry for rabbiting on but the debate has piqued my curiosity.
Now then here is a pic of a Merlin HM Cockpit
And here is the HC
Please forgive my ignorance but even to the untrained eye I dont see too much difference between either, in fact I would aver that The HM variant is slightly more complex due to the nature of its task. What would be the problem with taking SK pilots and putting them through Merlin HM Training and then when the time comes deploying them on HC. Same with Ground crew. In fact other than the Rear opening up. the HC variant must be a less complex helicopter.
Sorry for rabbiting on but the debate has piqued my curiosity.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: wallop
Yep, it sure has.....
And there are plenty of balloon cables and Hesco Bastion walls that would show the scars of the Merlin HC being there!
What a useless and pointless comment!
Serves no purpose, just like this one!
Can we get back to the point?
And there are plenty of balloon cables and Hesco Bastion walls that would show the scars of the Merlin HC being there!
What a useless and pointless comment!
Serves no purpose, just like this one!
Can we get back to the point?
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
From: In England
Althenick
A perfectly reasonable comparison ..as the HC3 was based largely on the then available cockpit and systems when ordered in 95. That happened to be the RN Mk1 standard. There are a few differences, including mission systems, communications and If you look carefully, changed display units for map and FLIR in the Hc3
Bear in mind too that the 8 Mk3as inherited the New LCD based cockpit...so that is significantly differrent.
Furthermore, the RN (MCSP)MK2 is on the threshold of service entry with attendant simulator changes, and of course that too has a new LCD based cockpit system with new misson system/ computers. Will any Mk3 SLEP copy this?
Hence there will be several significant "fleet within fleet" issues, all if which
will potentially affect any transition programme, depending on such things as who is doings what with the simulators, conversion programmes of both services, airframe availability and of course the timings of all such events.
Although I suspect moving the Mk3 sim is unlikely, sometimes such events can prove the most cost effective in the full scheme of things, despite the apparent hassle up front.
Whatever the final decision in these matters, I just hope it remains consistent, because it seems to me there are quite a few variables that need resolving...and once the plan is sorted, any small change will only create delay
and add more expense.
A perfectly reasonable comparison ..as the HC3 was based largely on the then available cockpit and systems when ordered in 95. That happened to be the RN Mk1 standard. There are a few differences, including mission systems, communications and If you look carefully, changed display units for map and FLIR in the Hc3
Bear in mind too that the 8 Mk3as inherited the New LCD based cockpit...so that is significantly differrent.
Furthermore, the RN (MCSP)MK2 is on the threshold of service entry with attendant simulator changes, and of course that too has a new LCD based cockpit system with new misson system/ computers. Will any Mk3 SLEP copy this?
Hence there will be several significant "fleet within fleet" issues, all if which
will potentially affect any transition programme, depending on such things as who is doings what with the simulators, conversion programmes of both services, airframe availability and of course the timings of all such events.
Although I suspect moving the Mk3 sim is unlikely, sometimes such events can prove the most cost effective in the full scheme of things, despite the apparent hassle up front.
Whatever the final decision in these matters, I just hope it remains consistent, because it seems to me there are quite a few variables that need resolving...and once the plan is sorted, any small change will only create delay
and add more expense.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
From: at home
At the nick.
One cockpit is not NVG compatible. One is. Can you guess which one?
The sim will have to move in the fullness of time to either yeovs or culdrose. The mk1 sim would not have the capacity to train both. Not with the vast majority of conversion hours in the sim as they are at present. A lot of people dismiss it as a factor in the process. It is highly used for both conversion and maintenance of currency and tactical knowledge.
It still doesn't change the fact that marinisation will add weight, and without better engines, gearbox and tail rotor it will cough and wheeze more than it does now....and the chinook will have to go to sea to augment it's crapness.
One cockpit is not NVG compatible. One is. Can you guess which one?
The sim will have to move in the fullness of time to either yeovs or culdrose. The mk1 sim would not have the capacity to train both. Not with the vast majority of conversion hours in the sim as they are at present. A lot of people dismiss it as a factor in the process. It is highly used for both conversion and maintenance of currency and tactical knowledge.
It still doesn't change the fact that marinisation will add weight, and without better engines, gearbox and tail rotor it will cough and wheeze more than it does now....and the chinook will have to go to sea to augment it's crapness.
Last edited by high spirits; 27th February 2012 at 06:29.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
From: Racedo blows goats
If you have to be "air minded" to hold airworthiness responsibility the SofS must have blagged his CV:
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | People | Ministers | Secretary of State for Defence
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | People | Ministers | Secretary of State for Defence
