Bristows to take over SAR from 2015
Sink the Bismark!
SAR is a secondary role for all RN RW aircrew
Maybe a quote from the London Gazette dated 1 Aug 1989?
A Royal Navy helicopter crew, which was also on the scene, had
previously assessed the situation to be too dangerous to place their
diver on the ship's deck. However, when the Brawdy helicopter
moved into the hover overhead the vessel it became obvious that the
ship's crew were in grave danger from the violent seas which
continued to pound the wheelhouse in which they were sheltering.
Flight Sergeant Dodsworth without delay and with complete
disregard for his own personal safety volunteered to be lowered to
the deck of the "Secil Japan ".
and that's why it wasn't a secondary role for us
ps all crew remaining (12?) were rescued - FS Dodsworth awarded the AFM
Last edited by Al-bert; 27th Mar 2013 at 23:11.
Bismark,
A vertrep is indeed similar to a deck/Sit, but in many ways simpler. So I concur an element of 'on the job' trg is covered.
Just a thought re RAF 'inefficiency'. The RN has managed to conduct its ME phase on the SK as a savings measure due to the relative costs; the cost of continuing this on the Merlin may be eye-watering. Some RN aviators destined for Merlin already do 60 Sqn to enhance crew co-operation and to defer costs from the Merlin, so I think it's likely that much of your 'efficiency' will disappear in a larger Merlin fleet.
The AAC efficient? Why, just replicate Shawbury at MW and toss in the AH OCU (which could easily be at Wattisham...) to justify keeping the spiritual home open. Can't blame them, we all do it, but it's hardly efficient is it? Nor is giving someone a pilots course and letting them stop flying after 3 years for 'career' reasons.
Nobody's perfect; I think having a central 'schoolhouse' with some retained SAR expertise (from both RAF and RN) is a good idea. Perhaps when all RN pliots go through 60 Sqn we'll be there?
A vertrep is indeed similar to a deck/Sit, but in many ways simpler. So I concur an element of 'on the job' trg is covered.
Just a thought re RAF 'inefficiency'. The RN has managed to conduct its ME phase on the SK as a savings measure due to the relative costs; the cost of continuing this on the Merlin may be eye-watering. Some RN aviators destined for Merlin already do 60 Sqn to enhance crew co-operation and to defer costs from the Merlin, so I think it's likely that much of your 'efficiency' will disappear in a larger Merlin fleet.
The AAC efficient? Why, just replicate Shawbury at MW and toss in the AH OCU (which could easily be at Wattisham...) to justify keeping the spiritual home open. Can't blame them, we all do it, but it's hardly efficient is it? Nor is giving someone a pilots course and letting them stop flying after 3 years for 'career' reasons.
Nobody's perfect; I think having a central 'schoolhouse' with some retained SAR expertise (from both RAF and RN) is a good idea. Perhaps when all RN pliots go through 60 Sqn we'll be there?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albert,
Lets not get into w***y waving when it comes to SAR. I can think of plenty of occasions when I launched for SAR when the RAF had declined. There is always a place for exceptional bravery and differing captaincy decisions. I criticise nobody for the Cecil rescue, or indeed Fastnet, as I wasn't at either.
Evalu8,
Re Vertrep being in some ways simpler....it all depends on the load and sea state. And landing a Lynx or Merlin on the back of a T23, in sea state 6 at night will often beat the hardest SAR.
my point on SARTU etc is that for the RAF SAR is being deleted from the orbit and thus no funds should be spent on the capability beyond disbandment. For the RN the task continues and if there is a requirement to download SAR skill training (which is probably just the conning and winching aspect as hovering is a core skill for a helo pilot!) then the RN and Ascent will sort it out.
Lets not get into w***y waving when it comes to SAR. I can think of plenty of occasions when I launched for SAR when the RAF had declined. There is always a place for exceptional bravery and differing captaincy decisions. I criticise nobody for the Cecil rescue, or indeed Fastnet, as I wasn't at either.
Evalu8,
Re Vertrep being in some ways simpler....it all depends on the load and sea state. And landing a Lynx or Merlin on the back of a T23, in sea state 6 at night will often beat the hardest SAR.
my point on SARTU etc is that for the RAF SAR is being deleted from the orbit and thus no funds should be spent on the capability beyond disbandment. For the RN the task continues and if there is a requirement to download SAR skill training (which is probably just the conning and winching aspect as hovering is a core skill for a helo pilot!) then the RN and Ascent will sort it out.
WWaving
Bismark, no willy waving from here, I could never match the RN in that discipline!
I was around, but not involved, for the three incidents that I mentioned. There were many more. The idea that all it takes from 'front enders' is a steady hover and the 'back enders' (do RN officers and non coms still have seperate crewrooms on SAR?) just need to say ''easy easy" for long enough is sadly what frequently went wrong in the past. Fortunately 771 and 819 became professional, eventually, but the attitude that seems to still exist, and you seem to believe ie sar is a 2nd line task, any RN crew can do it, is a step backwards - but then the RN loves its tradition doesn't it!
I was around, but not involved, for the three incidents that I mentioned. There were many more. The idea that all it takes from 'front enders' is a steady hover and the 'back enders' (do RN officers and non coms still have seperate crewrooms on SAR?) just need to say ''easy easy" for long enough is sadly what frequently went wrong in the past. Fortunately 771 and 819 became professional, eventually, but the attitude that seems to still exist, and you seem to believe ie sar is a 2nd line task, any RN crew can do it, is a step backwards - but then the RN loves its tradition doesn't it!
Last edited by Al-bert; 28th Mar 2013 at 10:02. Reason: punctuation!
Bismark,
You are of course correct - both are infinitely variable. Vertrepping off the small flight deck of a T42 in a CH47 was 'interesting' (though we were lifting 6 Merlin loads in a oner - sorry, inevitable Chinook banter there...) but I'd wager that for crews of any cloth trying to hover next to a yacht in a SS6 or above with the mast whipping around on a dark night is harder than landing on a 4000 ton war canoe.
I see your point re capability, but do we really ever want to be in a situation where a life (mil or civ) is lost because the nearest Chinook, Puma, Merlin had not the foggiest idea? Or, worse,we lose an aircraft and crew 'giving it a go'? I'm sure there are things we should be cutting first; perhaps streamlining vestigial Observer and Navigator training with rearcrew training might be a good place to start....sorry, couldn't help myself!
You are of course correct - both are infinitely variable. Vertrepping off the small flight deck of a T42 in a CH47 was 'interesting' (though we were lifting 6 Merlin loads in a oner - sorry, inevitable Chinook banter there...) but I'd wager that for crews of any cloth trying to hover next to a yacht in a SS6 or above with the mast whipping around on a dark night is harder than landing on a 4000 ton war canoe.
I see your point re capability, but do we really ever want to be in a situation where a life (mil or civ) is lost because the nearest Chinook, Puma, Merlin had not the foggiest idea? Or, worse,we lose an aircraft and crew 'giving it a go'? I'm sure there are things we should be cutting first; perhaps streamlining vestigial Observer and Navigator training with rearcrew training might be a good place to start....sorry, couldn't help myself!
While I appreciate that Pprune is an open forum, and we all like to make comments on subjects we have only a passing/interest/knowledge in, many (but not all) people on this thread are talking rubbish.
First of all I’ll treat all the usual RAF vs RN point scoring comments with the contempt they deserve!
Here are some relevant points:
The UK made an international agreement, as part of the Chicago conventions in the 40s/50s which established ICAO, to provide SAR coverage within a certain area of responsibility (which stretches out to 30W). At the time the only organization capable of actually providing airborne assets was the military, who had established a sophisticated system for rescuing downed aircrew. UK SAR provision ever since has been both for military and civil requirements.
The responsibility for meeting our international obligations for SAR lies with the Department of Transport within UK government, but they in turn rely on other departments, e.g. MOD, to actually deliver it for them.
There is no doubt that the UK SAR Sea King fleet (I know the RN assets aren’t necessarily SAR only) is old and expensive to run, in terms of both time and money. It needed replacing, the only question was, by another military run asset, or a civil contract?
There are currently 12 assets available during the day, 11 at night. That’s about 1 per 5 million people, which is not especially generous. Under the new contract 10 assets will be available at any one time. That’s a reduction of 1/6th of capability, or 16-17%. The new assets may be faster, but they can’t be in two places at once.
I’m sure someone has drawn all the nice 1hr radius circles, and apparently coverage is better. However, as has already been pointed out, having only one asset (Humberside) all the way down the east coast from Inverness to Manston does look a bit bare.
Civil MRTs currently prefer working with Sea Kings rather than S-92s, as the latter has a greater down draught. However, this would no doubt have been an issue with any newly purchased military helicopter, and no doubt the Sea King had a worse down draught than the Wessex, which was worse than the Whirlwind, etc….
While I don’t doubt either the skill or bravery of civil SAR helicopter crews, what (CAA?) rules will they be obliged to work to compared to a military equivalent? For example, will they be allowed to (as opposed to be capable of) hover-taxi in almost zero visibility?
See: grough — Honour for Royal Navy pilot in daring rescue of stricken Ben Sgulaird walker
In summary, this change gives a fleet of new generation, lower maintenance, cheaper to run and faster to scene helicopters. However, the overall fleet shrinks by 1/6th, and there are doubts about the limits they will be able to fly to compared with equivalent military assets.
I like to think the above is a dispassionate assessment of the situation. I am not advocating a particular course of action – just trying to put some meaningful points into a somewhat misinformed debate…
Only time will tell, but personally I think the new contract will bring a reduction in terms of what SAR helos will (be allowed to) achieve in poor weather in the mountains. However, privatization of the service had a certain inevitability about it!!
One last point, with regard to the issue of charging. There is no general intention to charge anyone who is rescued by a SAR helo, but interestingly enough, charges are already raised for one particular mission conducted by todays fleet of SAR assets, whether it be RAF, RN or CG! Just one indication of how little many contributors to this thread know of the subject.
I hope nobody has been offended by my comments, that was not my intent!
First of all I’ll treat all the usual RAF vs RN point scoring comments with the contempt they deserve!
Here are some relevant points:
The UK made an international agreement, as part of the Chicago conventions in the 40s/50s which established ICAO, to provide SAR coverage within a certain area of responsibility (which stretches out to 30W). At the time the only organization capable of actually providing airborne assets was the military, who had established a sophisticated system for rescuing downed aircrew. UK SAR provision ever since has been both for military and civil requirements.
The responsibility for meeting our international obligations for SAR lies with the Department of Transport within UK government, but they in turn rely on other departments, e.g. MOD, to actually deliver it for them.
There is no doubt that the UK SAR Sea King fleet (I know the RN assets aren’t necessarily SAR only) is old and expensive to run, in terms of both time and money. It needed replacing, the only question was, by another military run asset, or a civil contract?
There are currently 12 assets available during the day, 11 at night. That’s about 1 per 5 million people, which is not especially generous. Under the new contract 10 assets will be available at any one time. That’s a reduction of 1/6th of capability, or 16-17%. The new assets may be faster, but they can’t be in two places at once.
I’m sure someone has drawn all the nice 1hr radius circles, and apparently coverage is better. However, as has already been pointed out, having only one asset (Humberside) all the way down the east coast from Inverness to Manston does look a bit bare.
Civil MRTs currently prefer working with Sea Kings rather than S-92s, as the latter has a greater down draught. However, this would no doubt have been an issue with any newly purchased military helicopter, and no doubt the Sea King had a worse down draught than the Wessex, which was worse than the Whirlwind, etc….
While I don’t doubt either the skill or bravery of civil SAR helicopter crews, what (CAA?) rules will they be obliged to work to compared to a military equivalent? For example, will they be allowed to (as opposed to be capable of) hover-taxi in almost zero visibility?
See: grough — Honour for Royal Navy pilot in daring rescue of stricken Ben Sgulaird walker
In summary, this change gives a fleet of new generation, lower maintenance, cheaper to run and faster to scene helicopters. However, the overall fleet shrinks by 1/6th, and there are doubts about the limits they will be able to fly to compared with equivalent military assets.
I like to think the above is a dispassionate assessment of the situation. I am not advocating a particular course of action – just trying to put some meaningful points into a somewhat misinformed debate…
Only time will tell, but personally I think the new contract will bring a reduction in terms of what SAR helos will (be allowed to) achieve in poor weather in the mountains. However, privatization of the service had a certain inevitability about it!!
One last point, with regard to the issue of charging. There is no general intention to charge anyone who is rescued by a SAR helo, but interestingly enough, charges are already raised for one particular mission conducted by todays fleet of SAR assets, whether it be RAF, RN or CG! Just one indication of how little many contributors to this thread know of the subject.
I hope nobody has been offended by my comments, that was not my intent!
Last edited by Biggus; 28th Mar 2013 at 12:47.
What are the difference in the "Limits they can fly to...."?
Equally equipped aircraft, equally skilled Crews, or is there a significant difference in the capability of the current Sea King Fleet as compared to the Civilian Fleet that replaces them?
How does the US Coast Guard fleet of JayHawks and Dolphins compare in capability to the 92 and 139 fleet that is coming?
The Coast Guard seems to do just fine up in Alaska which has weather as bad and in some cases far worse than in the UK.
Equally equipped aircraft, equally skilled Crews, or is there a significant difference in the capability of the current Sea King Fleet as compared to the Civilian Fleet that replaces them?
How does the US Coast Guard fleet of JayHawks and Dolphins compare in capability to the 92 and 139 fleet that is coming?
The Coast Guard seems to do just fine up in Alaska which has weather as bad and in some cases far worse than in the UK.
Last edited by SASless; 28th Mar 2013 at 15:04.
Soz Biggus!
First of all I’ll treat all the usual RAF vs RN point scoring comments with the contempt they deserve!
Medevacs, or Hospital to Hospital transfers were always charged for in my day, £4500 ph for a SK I believe. It always seemed like an anomally to me since the 'exhausted walker in flip flops' didn't get charged but hey, I didn't make the rules I agree about the smoke and mirrors used by the politicians to justify reducing assets, the same tactics were used by MOD when they closed Manston, Colt, Brawdy and Leuchars and actually said that the coverage was increased by removing a third of the flights. A bit like the MCA improving coverage by reducing the number of MRCC's. We've just got to be grateful that the RNLI and Civ MRT's are not Govt funded.
Last edited by Al-bert; 28th Mar 2013 at 15:49.
SASless,
It's about the limits you are allowed to fly to by your operating rules/regulations, etc, not what the aircraft, kit, crew are capable of actually achieving. Two fleets with exactly the same aircraft, equipment, crew experience, etc can be operating to very different limits depending on who owns/regulates them!
Al-bert,
You have nothing to apologize for, I'm just fed up of reading RAF vs RN pi*#ing contests on so many threads on pprune, JSF, carrier, MPA and now apparently SAR. I thought we were both supposed to be on the same side? The common enemy is the Treasury!!
It's about the limits you are allowed to fly to by your operating rules/regulations, etc, not what the aircraft, kit, crew are capable of actually achieving. Two fleets with exactly the same aircraft, equipment, crew experience, etc can be operating to very different limits depending on who owns/regulates them!
Al-bert,
You have nothing to apologize for, I'm just fed up of reading RAF vs RN pi*#ing contests on so many threads on pprune, JSF, carrier, MPA and now apparently SAR. I thought we were both supposed to be on the same side? The common enemy is the Treasury!!
oh come now Biggus (if I may call you that?) just being simplistic is no excuse, I bet you really annoyed them too - I know I did!
Last edited by Al-bert; 28th Mar 2013 at 16:08.
(CAA?) rules will they be obliged to work to compared to a military equivalent? For example, will they be allowed to (as opposed to be capable of) hover-taxi in almost zero visibility
Anything, nowadays, will hover taxi better than a Sea King.
Annoying Pilots? Moi??
I will warn you, again, about throwing in your day job. There are quite a few Coastguard contract personel manning a quite a few SAR establishments around the UK. They will, unless they go to another of CHC's operations, be made redundant. However, they are protected by industial law and it is called TUPE.
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions. It's as if their employment contracts had originally been made with the new employer. Their continuity of service and any other rights are all preserved. Both old and new employers are required to inform and consult employees affected directly or indirectly by the transfer.
I will, however, add that with a civilian employer as long as you are medically fit in normal circumstances you can keep going until you retire at 65, or are made redundant, or for any other reason.
Think about whether it is better to stick with the evil you know.
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions. It's as if their employment contracts had originally been made with the new employer. Their continuity of service and any other rights are all preserved. Both old and new employers are required to inform and consult employees affected directly or indirectly by the transfer.
I will, however, add that with a civilian employer as long as you are medically fit in normal circumstances you can keep going until you retire at 65, or are made redundant, or for any other reason.
Think about whether it is better to stick with the evil you know.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 28th Mar 2013 at 20:00.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
You may be fed up but there is nothing wrong with banter between the Services. In the case of the RAF vs RN it is born of very different cultural backgrounds and thus approach to the way we do business. In the case of SAR the RN has treated it as part of any RW aircrews day to day job because in general we work solo off the decks of ships. The RAF on the other hand grew up with a culture of a static and thus bureaucratic approach to the subject - an empire was created in the form of SARF, SARTU etc.
None of the many SAR sorties I was involved with over many years were any more or less difficult, brave etc than the "professional" SAR boys from the RAF. Often we were tasked on the same missions and worked quite happily alongside each other. However, our training routes were very different. I was using core skills learned from frontline operational flying, in general the RAF boys had only ever known the yellow Wessex or Seaking, and operated from static bases. No-one is necessarily better than the other, but the cultures are totally different hence the banter.
All of the angst the RN feel is a direct result of your seniors behaviour in trying to dismantle the FAA via the Harrier debate. The distrust of the RAF resulting from this runs exceptionally deep I can assure you and it will take many years to recover. The FAA has high hopes for Andy Pulford!
You may be fed up but there is nothing wrong with banter between the Services. In the case of the RAF vs RN it is born of very different cultural backgrounds and thus approach to the way we do business. In the case of SAR the RN has treated it as part of any RW aircrews day to day job because in general we work solo off the decks of ships. The RAF on the other hand grew up with a culture of a static and thus bureaucratic approach to the subject - an empire was created in the form of SARF, SARTU etc.
None of the many SAR sorties I was involved with over many years were any more or less difficult, brave etc than the "professional" SAR boys from the RAF. Often we were tasked on the same missions and worked quite happily alongside each other. However, our training routes were very different. I was using core skills learned from frontline operational flying, in general the RAF boys had only ever known the yellow Wessex or Seaking, and operated from static bases. No-one is necessarily better than the other, but the cultures are totally different hence the banter.
All of the angst the RN feel is a direct result of your seniors behaviour in trying to dismantle the FAA via the Harrier debate. The distrust of the RAF resulting from this runs exceptionally deep I can assure you and it will take many years to recover. The FAA has high hopes for Andy Pulford!
Last edited by Bismark; 28th Mar 2013 at 21:25.
The issue how can Bristows who will be providing this service for profit be cheaper than the RAF / RN?
The problem is that is the present and previous governments / civil servants are incapable of running any organisation efficiently.
As a civil servant I see on daily basis the ability of government bodies to waste money.
If we had a government and civil servants who could manage budgets etc there would no requirements for private companies to take over services.
The alternative now would be an efficient government body providing SAR and Police helicopter services.
Why aren't other countries also privatising SAR services if it a more affordable option?
The problem is that is the present and previous governments / civil servants are incapable of running any organisation efficiently.
As a civil servant I see on daily basis the ability of government bodies to waste money.
If we had a government and civil servants who could manage budgets etc there would no requirements for private companies to take over services.
The alternative now would be an efficient government body providing SAR and Police helicopter services.
Why aren't other countries also privatising SAR services if it a more affordable option?
Bismark?
core skills learned from frontline operational flying
in general the RAF boys had only ever known the yellow Wessex or Seaking
Sea King 'drivers' (see, I have also learned navy talk) in latter years do fit your description to some extent, deplorable as that is.
