Chivenor Seakings to stand down night time rescues
 

According to the defence minister, Chivenor and Boulmer will cut their 24hr rescue to 12 hrs and daytime only from 2012 as he says the 'new helicopters' will be much faster and will be able to respond from bases further away at night.

So that means only Culdrose will be providing a night time rescue capability along with Lee-on-Solent to cover the whole of the south of England and English Channel because Chivenor and Portland are only 12hr daytime stations.


So, has our MoD got wiff of what helicopter type we will be procuring or leasing yet?
And i suppose we will be still continuing to rely on the USAFE to provide long range SAR support with their HH-60G's as we did with their MH-53M's because our Government can't be arsed to utilise the AR capability of the Merlin...

The theory that you can reduce the number of bases (effectively what you are doing at night) and retain the same level of SAR cover is massively flawed, especially since Culdrose is expected (by the RN at least) to be one of the last flights to get the new aircraft and 'go civvy'.

Even if Valley were to be one of the first flights to 'go civvy' or simply re-equip with the new aircraft (again unlikely since their engineering is piggybacked on the OCU which will need to keep the military flight supplied with Sea King crews until 2017 (the date the SARH transfer is supposed to be completed).

It will leave some big holes in the coverage at night which none of us in the front-line think is acceptable at all.

Does no-one look at how many jobs we do at night from Chivenor?

As soon as either Valley or Culdrose is used to cover Chiv's patch at night you have no SAR cover either in the whole of N Wales and the Irish Sea (in the case of Valley) or none for the whole of the SW approaches, Scillies, Channel Islands or the W half of the Channel.

What idiot thinks this is a good idea? This is not driven by good sense or a desire to provide 'no lesser service' as promised by SARH - this is cost-cutting, pure and simple and it will cost lives.

Maybe they plan to use Airwolf for the nightime SAR role, I seem to remember that it was very fast, over Mach 1 apparently.....

airwolf - helicopter tv series at rotaryaction.com

It's been a while since I was on SAR, so things probably have changed but the primary purpose of the RAF SAR was to rescue RAF aircrew. What RAF aircraft are flying at night down that part of the world?

So from that point of view it perhaps makes financial sense. If you follow that arguement though, it'll be only Monday to Friday next.

Saintsman - Hercules, Chinook, Merlin, Apache, Lynx - I think that warrants proper SAR cover.

I thought we are required to provide SAR cover within the UK FIR, in fact out to 30W, under the terms of some post WW2 argeement/convention.

Of course the definition of SAR cover might be open to interpretation...

I was at CU, though not a SAR boy, 30 years ago. Would the proposed SAR assets/availability, post 2012, be able to manage with another Fastnet?

I thought there was already a plan (pre 2012) for RAF SAR flights to go down to 12 hour (day time) ops for periods of time due to a lack of manning?

If true, how can the MoD then justify a requirement to have 24 hr coverage at all bases for SAR(H)?

Calli

Any comment from the Boulmer point of view?

I am sure that the boys and girls at Boulmer feel equally annoyed at this ill-thought out concept of ops. They are a busy flight and if you take them out of the equation at night there is a huge gap up the East coast between Leconfield and Lossiemouth - maybe the Minister is expecting Bond to plug this gap!!!

Out of our 205 jobs so far this year, 45 have been at night after 2100 and would not, under the proposed regime have been conducted unless an aircraft from Culdrose or Valley were diverted into our patch.

It is like suggesting that having fewer but faster ambulances will improve the NHS stats and service - neatly forgetting that once your asset is tasked, you have no back-up or overlap for hundreds of miles.

Much statistical analysis has been done of SAROPs and interpreted in different ways; when you see a cluster of jobs near to SAR Flts you can either conclude that having the flt there tends to generate jobs because people are more likely to call it out (the erroneous but fashionable version if you are a bean-counter) or that in fact, the SAR flts are in the right place to meet the needs of the British public, whether at work (fishermen etc) or at leisure (walking,climbing,sailing,fishing,swimming etc etc).

The job rate does go down at night, you don't have to be Hercules Poirot to see that, but to naively believe that you wont get more than 1 night job at a time is delusional.

How on earth the Minister can state that the new service will meet and exceed current levels of provision is utterly laughable with these proposed cuts in availability/manning.

Calli - it is what will happen to any two RAF flts at a time when those flights lose a crew to the Falklands. This is due to the MoD downsizing us from 5 crews to 4 but keeping our level of committment the same and not one of us is happy with it.

Airborne Artist - no is the short answer, you would have one aircraft from Culdrose and the next available one would be from Valley or Lee - and that still only makes 3 total even if you assume there are no other searches, rescues, medtransfers, bendydivers etc etc happening anywhere else in the UK.

Chivenor in summer was always a bear garden, even in the Whirlwind days, IIRC when they tried to close the flight in the 70s the response from the local community was overwhelmingly against and meant the flight stayed.
God alone knows what these people are thinking, if indeed they are, but do we really expect any less?
PS How long from Culdrose to Croyde?
BG

Chivenor and Boulmer will cut their 24hr rescue to 12 hrs and daytime only

Any comment from the Boulmer point of view?

Any comment from Flight Lieutenant Wales's point of view? Maybe he had prior knowledge of the "plan"!:)

Jack

It deos seem rather bizarre that the MoD are putting MilSAR into self-destruct mode just as we are expecting to take on our future king as a SAR pilot:ugh:

Crab:
They may have overlooked the fact that Bond is not part of the SAR Framework and are not cleared for overland SAROps!

Bond can do anything......

The James Bond International Fan Club

DKB

I think there may have been a hint of sarcasm in Crabs comment about Bond.

I have to admit, it's very frustrating to have been briefed MANY times that there will be no reduction in capability, now to be informed that Chiv and Boulmer will go to 12 hr ops. I feel sorry for the British public who are ultimately the people who will suffer from this debacle. Thankfully I am no longer one of them.

Where and how has this announcement been made?

Does the MOD pick up the tab for civvy rescues? If not one would assume the Home Office eventually gets the bill and maybe have decided that they don't want helo cover any more?

I assume that the MOD would be Ok covering their own but once day flying is finished it's up to the Air Rozzers/Helimeds etc to pick up the Great British Tax Payer?

Defence Minister Quentin Davies in a letter to MP Andrew George - See link below to BBC news story

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Devon | 'Day only' rescue helicopter plan

Green Flash - the MoD do not charge anyone for SAR rescues - it is only medtransfers that can't be done by air ambulance or land ambulance that are charged to the NHS.

98% of UKSAR jobs are rescues of civilians and the govt discharges its responsibility of provision of SAR to comply with the Chicago convention by utilising the military. The 4 civilian flts are separately funded by the Home Office but do the same job.

Whichever way you cut it, SAR is paid for by the British taxpayer (as it should be) and the Govt should ensure they get value for money which doesn't look like the case under SARH.

Quick sums show a £5Bn contract for SAR provision for 25 years which is £200million per annum. Divide by 12 flights gives you a cost of £16.5 million per flt per year under SARH which seems like an awful lot of money to me.

Even if you take out the capital costs of providing new aircraft and put an approximate price tag of £50 million per airframe (to include all spares provisions) and provide 2 aircraft per flight that is only £1.2 Bn.

If you spent just the £1.2Bn and left everything else as it is (basing, crew compositions, infrastructure etc) I don't think it would cost £3.8 Bn in fuel, wages, heating and lighting for the next 25 years.

Just give us new aircraft and let us get on with our job!

Just seen how the MOD are going to cover the shortfall:ugh: use our neighbours helicopters!!!

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Kent | Belgian helicopter helps diver

This is exactly what the impact of the EUWTD and pathetic manning policy from the MoD will mean more of! For 'RAF helicopter busy' read 'RAF helicopter on 12 hour overnight shifts with no daytime cover'!! This is where we are, robbing Peter to pay Paul:ugh:

Crab - it's entirely possible that the Wattisham cab was already tasked when the Belgians got the call, and even if the Wattisham cab was available and at 15 mins readiness, a Belgian cab from Koksijde could probably be on task in the Straights of Dover faster anyway, surely?

It begs the question why we don't have UK SAR assets for such a busy sea lane closer than Wattisham and Lee on Solent, too.

crab@ - thanks for the update.

leader - interesting! I see it mentions the ARCC coordinated the job. Does that mean we have a formal tasking arrangement with the Belgians and others?

How about a SAR unit at Manston?:E

Cracking idea, BT, but not entirely original :ok:

How about returning 22 Sqn to Leuchars. 30 minutes is a long wait for a lifeboat or Chopper.:eek:

Airborne - the Wattisham cab wasn't tasked, it was, as I said on 12 hour shifts but overnight not daytime.

Green Flash - there is plenty of cross border co-operation in SAR - just as well since moving a SAR flight from Manston to Wattisham was a ludicrous idea - who thought a SAR fl;ight with a 15 min transit to the coast was a good idea?

Our local news has been running a piece on the Chivenor proposals, unfortunately the MoD line is still that newer faster helicopters will meet present response times with fewer bases. Hmmmm:(

So Crab,

Can I get this straight, the Wattisham crew are only coming to work at night time? Are they then holding a 15 mins readiness all night or simply coming to work in their pyjamas & slippers and straight off to bed at 2200 like the rest of you working 24 hr shifts? :ok:

If Wattisham are permanently stood down during the day, who is covering for RW SAR the Southern end of the East Coast round to the Dover Straights during daylight? Not the Belgians, surely, not that I have anything against them.

airborne - it isn't a permanent situation, just a temporary fix to get over some manning problems - I believe they had Leconfield on 12 hour days and Wattisham on 12 hour nights for a short while to keep the E coast covered.

However, this will become more commonplace if the MoD implement the scheme to man the Falklands on a flight by flight basis and is only happening because MoD thought it was a good idea to reduce us to 4 crews per flight.

Essentially, after Christmas, at any one time there will be 2 RAFSAR flights on 12 hour ops because those flights will have lost a full crew to the Falklands and you can't run 24/7 SAR with 3 crews.

This pretence that the FI is an operational theatre and justifies the assets we have trapped down there is long overdue a review with some probing questions asked of our Lords and Masters.

But in answer to your question - yes the Belgians - Lee is the nearest other flight but I believe the 139 is still waiting for the night over-water winching capability it was supposed to come into service with.

crab
Wrong, the 139 has been able to do this since the phase 5 introduction last Oct/Nov

spr

"Hello, this is __Flight of 22/202 Squadron Search and Rescue. We cannot take your call right now. Please leave your message after the tone" Beep

And really to rub it in, "Your call is important to us". Cue Beethoven's Third Symphony.

Here you go.

In Feb 2007, when the train crash happened in the Lake District, Boulmer sent one aircraft, Leconfield sent one aircraft, and Valley sent two (even though 2nd Standby had formally finished for the day, a scratch crew was found for the second aircraft).

With the new manning level of 4 crews per flight, the possibility of finding a crew for the spare aircraft will vanish.

Were the train crash to be repeated after 2012, Boulmer would be unable to send an aircraft (night-time). Valley would only have one crew available, who might or might not be somewhere in Wales doing a job in Chivenor's patch. Leconfield would be able to send an aircraft, but by doing so the ARCC would leave no cover along the east coast between Lossiemouth and Wattisham!

Discuss.

Apart from the reduction in SAR cover, which will - as Crab says - end up costing lives at some point, what seems most daft about the whole proposal, is that dropping to 12-hr ops will save only pennies. To save a worthwhile amount of money, one would need to totally close a base. Not that I am advocating this...

On the night shift, are crews allowed to sleep and be at, say, 15min readiness or do you all sit around wide awake and waiting for a call? If allowed to sleep a la civvy fire service could you realistically maintain 24hr coverage with four crews per flight?

Any particular reason for the sudden (?) shortage of SAR crews?

Gainsey, this gov't has done away with sleeping firemen too.

All beds have been removed and some stations have been converted to "part-time volunteer" status overnight.

Now the few remaining "overnight" fire crews are expected to undertake "cleaning duties" or complete the paperwork outstanding after all the clerical staff were removed.

Oh yes, and "due to more modern equipment" the crews have been reduced from 5 to 4 per appliance in some areas. 1 to drive it and man the pump. 1 to monitor the BA crews and 2 guys to actually fight the fire.
This despite the fact that the appliances in question were designed around 5-7 man crews. Ho-hum. :rolleyes:

Anyway, what makes us think the SAR fleet would escape unscathed from good 'ol Gordos f***-ups. :ugh::ugh:

Gainsey, we are RS 15 from 0800 to 2200 and then RS 45 from 2200 to 0800 which allows us to sleep (well, until the job phone goes that is). I believe the civvySAR crews do overnight from home but that would affect reaction times compared to sleeping on the flight so we don't do it - well not yet but it might be in the pipeline along with RS 75 at night but we will see.

You can run 24/7 SAR with 4 crews but not if you have to man the Falklands (especially on a flt by flt basis) and not if you have to comply with the EUWTD.

This is not one of Gordon's f***ups, this is all home-grown from the MoD.

This is a the article from the Northumberland Gazette:

Rescue cover at night threatened - Northumberland Today

A RADICAL review of helicopter search and rescue operations across the UK could leave RAF Boulmer providing only day-time cover, Government Ministers have admitted.
Under a Private Finance Initiative bid, two consortia are now in the running to supply both the Ministry of Defence and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) with a single fleet of ultra-modern aircraft from 2012.

Known as Search and Rescue Harmonisation (SAR-H), it could also include emergency helicopter services operated by the Royal Navy and the offshore oil industry.

But the MoD has confirmed that RAF Boulmer's current 24-hour watch by its Sea King crews would be halved under the programme, with any night missions instead being flown from RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland or RAF Leconfield in east Yorkshire.

The move was first revealed by Defence Minister Quentin Davies in a letter to Cornish MP Andrew George, who was concerned about the impact on his local station at Royal Marines Base Chivenor, in North Devon.

This week, Mr Davies and the MoD sought to justify the plans, saying that the new helicopters would out-perform the old yellow RAF workhorses which had provided search and rescue cover for the last three decades.

But community leaders in Northumberland have demanded assurances that lives will not be put at risk.

Unitary councillor for Longhoughton, John Taylor, whose ward includes RAF Boulmer, said: "I am absolutely appalled and very angry about this development, which is to effectively privatise search and rescue.

"This is a return to the problems faced by RAF Boulmer when it was earmarked for closure, and I strongly believe that taking search and rescue out of the hands of the station will threaten its future survival.

"Privatising that facility, which has played a vital and integral role in the local community, will be like lopping an arm or a leg off."

And he added: "I seriously wonder whether this will be the first step towards charging for search and rescue."

North Northumberland MP Sir Alan Beith said: "I have asked the Minister to provide evidence in support of this decision as I am extremely concerned that the North East could be left without vital helicopter cover at night, especially since the air ambulance cannot fly at night and the police helicopter cannot winch.

"It is not long since a decision was made to close RAF Boulmer and I got this reversed as the figures did not add up.

"I shall be looking closely at this situation to ensure costly mistakes –in terms of public safety and money – will not be made."

But Mr Davies said: "In light of the capability of these new helicopters, we have been able to conclude that we can continue to provide effective and responsive coverage for all night-time incidents utilising only nine of the 12 bases.

"Additionally, historical data shows that the level of incidents falls markedly from the daytime peaks.

“This will still enable us to meet, and indeed exceed, previous historical concurrency and surge incident levels at night-time across the UK, when we transition in to the new service from 2012.”
An MoD spokesman said: “In the light of the capability of these new helicopters we will continue to provide effective and responsive coverage including any surges in night-time incidents.” WHAT HARMONISATION MEANS SAR-H will take over at sites progressively, starting with the Coastguard sites in 2012 and follow on with the MoD sites.
Using modern helicopters, the aim is to enable faster transit times to incidents, resulting in reductions in response times around the UK.
Nine bases will remain on 24-hour alert, with the remaining three offering day-time cover.
Two bidders are in the running – the Soteria Consortium, comprising of CHC, Thales and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and AirKnight, consisting of Lockheed Martin UK, VT Group and British International Helicopters.
Soteria has chosen the Sikorsky S-92, the aircraft currently being used by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for search and rescue operations from Sumbergh in the Shetland Islands and Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides.
Airknight has chosen the Eurocopter EC225, known as the Super Puma.

Whatever we do we must never ever get to a point that we charge for SAR. We would end up in a situation whereby a boat gets into difficulties, does not call it in, it gets worse, coastguard mandates a SAR launch in much worse circumstances and people die.

Am I over dramatising? Think it would never happen?

Then Google "Penlee lifeboat" or "Solomon Browne."

Those unpaid volunteers that man the orange boats - the wake you see when they are moving at speed is not the boat, it's from their Balls. Big, Round, Shiny and Solid ones.

And we still do not pay them.......

We need SAR cover 24/7. Fact. Someone please drop the muppet responsible in a liferaft 5 miles out in a force 8 with a big sea at night and tell them that budgie will be out in the morning......
Problem solved.

I don't believe they have any new figures and are basing their plans on old studies which were used to try and justify closing bases completely to save money.

The bid which inlcuded the EH101 was predicated on this idea that a faster helicopter would allow similar response times to incidents further away thus allowing a larger area of Ops and fewer bases.

The problem with this idea is that to follow the logic properly you would have to re-site all the bases to optimise response times - that would clearly be too expensive and the answer is to close some of the existing bases (or in this case reduce operating hours) and try to ignore the very big gaps in overlap for concurrent ops that it leaves because you have only met half the reuqirements the operational analysis demands.

It also ignores the very real fact that historical data is exactly that and is only of limited use when planning future capability - in order to provide the sort of cover the UK presently enjoys and to have sufficient surge and concurrency capability, fewer bases is not the sensible choice - especially since under SARH there will be no second standby aircraft and crew; something that the RAF have provided (serviceability permitting) for many years and has proven its worth when the unexpected (Boscastle, Gloucester, Sheffield, Lake District train crash, etc etc) happens.

It also assumes that the weather will always permit rapid straight-line transits to the far away jobs which is most certainly not the case in my experience and ignores the fact that to jump from job to job still requires refuelling, especially when going from one extreme of your patch (or someone elses) to another.

Sadly the lies, damn lies and statistics brigade have only addressed single response times which looks good on paper (especially to those ignorant of what real SAROPs entail) and appeals to the bean-counters.



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?