A Gloomy day in Cyprus
 

Well the RAF has finally made it official. We have all known that the Military has been stretched to breaking point for ages. And now, the truth is out there.. .. .In a week or two, it will be announced that 84 Sqn at RAF Akrotiri will lose the Wessex next year, and it will be replaced by a civilian aircraft. All of the engineers will become civilians, and one of the very best postings in the RAF will be lost. The aircrew will remain military for the time being - thank god for small mercies. If this is the Government admitting that we can't cope, and I believe it is, then it's a sad day for us all. Please don't dismiss this if you were not on the list to come to Cyprus. One of the best UK postings was RAF Shawbury - now all the engineers and half the aircrew are civvies. I am not disparaging the civvies who do the jobs...that is not my intention at all. Rather, I lament the fact that the rot has finally set in, good and proper. Don't get too comfy in your nice little posting, wherever you are, because next time, it might be you. And believe me, no matter how loud you shout, and no matter how sound your reasoning, you won't win.

An interesting thread, LambJ, and you are right to point out that nothing is secure, however, PFI is going to be the way ahead (for anything off the battlefield that is). . .. .The advantages of PFI are firstly that the cost curves are flattened and secondly that the RAF should be able to keep up with technology by allowing regular competition between contractors over relatively short term contracts. The most saddening point you raise is in fact where you state “All of the engineers will become civilians” in which I assume you mean that the new engineering contractors will bring their own employees. This, you will find, is all linked with the RAF’s current lack of JAR licensed engineers who would be able to legally service [supervise the servicing of] the aircraft themselves. The RAF’s future engineering training policy is to align training with JAR qualifications but that is a few years away yet. . .. .Bizarre as it may seem, the Wessex seems to be retiring too soon for you.

For example, the Airworks contract for F3 maintenance was outstanding. They only wrote off several airframes necessitating the reformation of an RAF engineering squadron which spent a few years repairing the damage done in an attempt to save money by cutting corners...

In the case of a PFI, though, the contractor owns the aircraft, so if the contractor ruins his own property by inadequate servicing, whose problem is that ? (as long as we have a contract to sue the pants off them if they can't deliver ).. .. .This may actually be quite a good way of shifting a large chunk of the risk of the operation to someone else.. .. .Sven

Those airworks guys did a bit of work for usHerc chaps afew years ago to fit some kit near the air deflectors. Result...a new IAS limitation on the air deflectors until the corrective work was carried out at greater expense.. .. .It is 'money saved'!!!

RSB,. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> . .An interesting thread, LambJ, and you are right to point out that nothing is secure, however, PFI is going to be the way ahead (for anything off the battlefield that is). . .. . </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">In the Armed Forces there is no such thing as "anything off the front line", we can ALL be called upon in times of National crises/war to go to the front line, regardless of a/c type or trade. How many adminers or chefs thinking they were in a safe job have ended up in dodgy places over the last few years?. .. .All these cut backs in order to save money and free up personnel is just asking for BIG trouble in the future. How about a proper plan to retain and recruit across the board, rather than just targeting a few of the aircrew. The forces are desperately short of personnel across the board, and we are taking on more roles with fewer people. No wonder so many of us are leaving either prematurely or at our options points! . .. .Lets stop false economy by cutting squadrons or civilianising posts. A civilian can always refuse to go somewhere nasty, a serviceman can't. We are rapidly heading towards the day when the only people left in uniform will be the aircrew. How good will they be in a war zone if they have no backup personnel to service the aircraft, etc?. .. .I have seen the Royal Air Force, of which I was once very proud, decline into such a pile of $hite over the years with morale plummeting in many areas.. .. .Role on my options point and pension.. .. .Mad Mark!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

Name me an RAF related PFI (apart from MT at Brize) which has resulted in any long term improvement in efficiency or cost effectiveness. Once internal capability has been lost, the contractors can jack up the prices and always do. Even the original bids are usually less effective, it's just that the flexibility of servicemen is seldom given adequate 'weighting' when costing bids, while service manpower/infrastructure costs often look high.. .. .Just one will do..... . . . <small>[ 05 March 2002, 23:51: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]</small>

The problem from the point of view of the civvies, (i.e. me, I work on the Tutor,) is that you always take the lowest bid. The result is that the contractor has to penny pinch to make the contract pay. This results in minimum manning and low pay and you therefore get an unhappy workforce.. .. .Mike W

Lamb:. .Why all the gloom?. .As a result of PFI, 84 should get some shiny new state-of-the-art aircraft, which will probably be military registered (like the Shawbury/Valley aircraft)and will have no detrimental impact on the aircrew situation. Contractor owned aircraft can be operated at much less cost than MoD owned aircraft and part of the rationale is that if civilian maintenance schedules are adhered to, the aircraft can almost instantly be restored to the civil register and therefore has a decent residual value during, and at the end of, the contract. The downside to squadron life is that the engineers do have to hold civil licences: that, for the present at least, means that they will be civilian, though probably there will be some light blue uniforms around.. .Of the contending Wessex 'replacement' aircraft there are several, including a better version of the B412 currently in service as the Griffin. Sorry, but respect I have and happy memories of my own flying in the Wessex: it's had its day. It's way too expensive to operate and there are better options around.. .New toys: be happy!

PFI, MMMmmmm. .Just a quick aside, the quality of the contractors must be suspect as the towing team at RAF Sleapy Hollow parked a Grob in the side of a Honda CRV. Doh!

Several of you seem to have slightly missed the point.. .. . I am not surprised that the civvy option has been taken, simply because my time in the RAF has destroyed any vestiges of optimism I had left.. .. .We will get 'new toys to play with', you say. Yes, that's true. But only the aircrew. What about the groundcrew, who outnumber us by over 4 to 1? They will ALL be posted away, and their compatriots will never get the chance to come here (NO, there will NOT be 'a few light blue uniforms around'.) And what of that word we have seen thrown around this forum for so long...retention. This is yet another posting that a prospective engineer cannot have.. .. . Another 50+ people will be taken off the orderly sergeant/corporal/duty runner rosters - so increasing the burden on others on station. The list goes on.. .. .Oh, and for the aircrew out there, you may be interested to know that neither of the two remaining bids, the B412 (3 axis only - as much use as a chocolate kettle for SAR), and the Dauphin (Great for SAR, less so for trooping), are not nearly as capable as the military option 84 wanted...This has been dismissed because the DEC and others have pre-decided that PFI is the way ahead. The initial investment appraisal for Cyprus Helo's was flawed and incorrect. The HICIPT ignored this fact until it was simply too late to implement a military option - for political reasons I imagine. So, yes, the Wessex has had it's day, and should go. But believe me, whatever you may read in the coming weeks, the best solution was the military option that 84 Sqn wanted, not the COMR solution that they will get. I feel that many of the respondents to my intial thread have, understandably, seen this issue more from the side of serving aircrew, and less so from the view of one who is lamenting the decline of a once proud service.. .. .Look into the faces of the engineers on 84...and then tell me I am wrong.. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> . .. .'Stupid is as stupid does...'

LJ. .. .What was the military option 84 wanted?. .. .And if a 3-axis autopilot is as much use as a chocolate kettle, how has dear old Walter managed all these years?

Radalt,. . Pretty high quality work that, I thought. Got the Japanese ******* fair and square.. .. .Whilst we are chatting, do you think you could hover your Mixmaster in front of your own line hut rather than mine? Too bluddy noisy by far.. .. .Regards,. .. .Mike W

Lamb,. .. .COMR? . .. .What did 84 want?

Jacko. .. .Contractor Owned Military Registered. .. .Sven

Mention has been made of the fact that the Wessex is not a 4-axis acft, and therefore the B412, with it's 3-axis system, will suffice. So, what you're saying is that 84 cannot reasonably expect their new and EXPENSIVE aircraft to be any more capable than the 40yr old one that it is replacing?...interesting point of view. By that logic, I imagine you advocate the use of some ex Aeroflot Illuysins to replace the VC10?. .. .What did 84 want?. .. .Seakings.. .. .The Seaking has its problems when it comes to reliability, and the UK SAR force has a significant challenge on its hands to maintain a viable rescue force with them. BUT, UK flights have 2 aircraft, and must keep one going, and ideally two. They find this difficult. 84 need to run a two line program, but would have got 4 aircraft to meet this commitment. The aircraft in question were low time Ex-Navy aircraft which were to have been refit to RAF SAR Spec. The Seaking is known to the RAF. We have a vast pool of experience and expertise on this aircraft, both in terms of aircrew and groundcrew. It carries more troops than either of the civvy options. It flies further. It has greater endurance. It has a 4 axis autohover system...etc. .. .AND WE ALREADY HAVE THEM!!!. .. .If a pilot (for example) goes sick etc., we have a pool of people who could replace him quickly, with no need for training.. .. .Oh, and it's cheaper.. .. .All of this has been studiously ignored by the IPT. They finally decided to re-evaluate the military option only when they knew that it was too late for the required conversion work to take place before the Wessex out-of-service date. It seems that the decision to go with a COMR solution in Cyprus was taken long ago. To some, the outcome of this selection process has never been in doubt.. .. .This is the thin end of the Wedge. Once it works here (Or is 'Seen' to work, after some major spin), the UK SAR Force will be next.. .. .Oh Dear.. . . . <small>[ 07 March 2002, 17:57: Message edited by: LambJalfraezi ]</small>

As far as civilian contracts are conerned...... .If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Well its just as well that the new unit will have a couple of Army Warrant Officers. With the rest of the Sqn moaning and dripping, someone will have to set the standards! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />

Gary. .. .Why on earth would 84 need a couple of Warrant Officers?

LJ. .. .Lets review. .. .Mention has NOT been made that a 3-a autopilot will suffice.. .. .Over many years, it has been demonstrated that the Wessex is an effective day VFR SAR platform. Many people, some no doubt known to you, have demonstrated that with skill and care it can be an effective SAR platform in more adverse conditions. . .. .Therefore the statement that a 3-a autopilot on a SAR cab is "as much use as a chocolate kettle" needs a greater defence than you give it. . .Regarding the VC-10 / IL-62 question.. .If the IL-62 had a full UK CAA certification (chance of a single failure being catastrophic - 1 in 10 to the minus 8 I think is the standard), and the contractor offered me 99.9% despatch reliability, and the operating costs were half of the most beautiful airliner ever, and if what I wanted was the capability of an IL-62, then yes I would take it.. .. .Regarding the Sea King question.. .SK is a cold war relic. The original design was to fight the anti-sub war across the North Atlantic. Its hot & high performance is appalling. The spec for the Wessex replacement must have contained some hot & high perf standards. If you put them up here, I'm sure some SAR boy (SARBoy Loser are you there?) will check the Sea King ODM against them and tell you just what chance you have of complying with GSU standards in the hover with a SK in Cyp.. .. .Regarding the expense.. .Your Sqn runs SAR Standby. Therefore you have at least 3 crews, and knowing the RAF propensity for goldplating the solution, probably 4 or 5. Thats between 9 and 15 aircrew. Your GCs outnumber you 4 to 1. So you have 36 to 60 GCs. For how many aircraft? Any contractor would be bankrupt at that level of manning. A COMR solution requires UK certified aircraft operated by licensed engineers - the work standard should be OK, or the CAA has a lot to answer for (it does, but that's another story). Modern aircraft are orders of magnitude more reliable and less maintenance-intensive than Wessex / SK vintage, thus much cheaper.. .. .Also, if you go SK you will need (assuming 4 crews - see above) 4 extra pilots. Even with the shortcuts being taken from JEFTS to Shawbury thats probably an up-front investment around £8M. You also double your training hours. A S-61 costs about £1500/hr. With the RAF propensity for gold-plating (see above) and given that the SK is a more complex machine, you are probably talking £3k/ hr x 4 pilots x 120? hrs/yr = 1.44M/ yr just in trg costs. Add on 4 x 40k in pay and double it (the usual rule regarding personnel costs) and we are hitting really frightening sums of money before we have ripped the well-worn RN airframes that are presumably being scrapped for good reason to bits and paid Wastelands more telephone numbers to put them back together in a usable state.. .. .Meanwhile, we are closing FJ Sqns, scrapping SHAR, the hospitals are cr@p, the railways are falling apart, the roads are jammed, my tax bill is outrageous and St Tony wants Blair Force One.. .. .Sorry LJ, the numbers don't add up.. .. .With apologies for usurping AGs place in the scheme of things!. .. .Sven

Just playing Devil's Advocate....now that the Republic of Cyprus has formally agreed to accept responsibility for SAR cover of the Nicosia Search & Rescue region I reckon your lucky to get away with keeping the Sqn. I know that BFC maintains responsibility for the SBAs and any British Mil aircraft in the SRR but we've provided SAR cover for donkeys..perhaps its payback time!! As I recall you only get about 25 jobs a year and most of those involve putting out fires in Summer. . .. .As for the SH tasking side of the house, that used to revolve around giving the TA 10 min trips round the WSBA on their Easter and Summer holidays. Don't suppose you'd miss that.. .. .At least some of you are still in a job, but I do feel for the GCs, I recall most used to love it out there. I personally won't miss the lack of aircon in the quarters, the search for an honest car dealer, the smell of the fish counter in Orphanides and, surprisingly, I don't miss the LOA!!

Sven,. .. .I think you too are falling in to the trap of cherry picking from the requirements sheet. I spoke to 84’s Sqn Cdr this morning (he’s not ‘LambJ’ as I thought) and he said they wanted 4-axis to improve safety/accuracy when operating at high hover heights in the slack winds and poor vis Cyprus summer mornings (when most FJ dets operate). He also said that an added value benefit of getting 4-axis would be a night overwater capability – something 84 don’t have with the Wessex as STC are prepared to take that at risk. You rightly pointed out that the King’s performance Hot & High is not good but at sea level, where 84 spend most of their time, it could lift loads of troops and has loads of space to work on stretcher casualties.. .. .As for cost. It appears that COMR costs went through the roof when the contractors realised they wouldn’t be tax free, couldn’t live in the SBA, had to be able to deploy to surrounding countries etc etc. It certainly aint Shawbury.. .. .Yella R&G,. .. .Irrespective of the Republic’s declaration of SAR cover, Akrotiri still host APCs and I don’t think they’ve reached the ‘host nation support’ stage yet. Also, will the Republic’s SAR Force really cover the region – what about going to the north?. .. .LambJ,. .. .Your emotion to your engineers is commendable but you’ve reached a new era as you appear to have recognised. Your COMR will arrive next year and those left on the Sqn will almost certainly enjoy playing with the new toy. And by the way, your Sqn Cdr knows who you are.

Red sikorsky dude...let's see them prove it in court! To the others, thank you very much for your opinions so far. I do feel that many of you are unfortunately more interested in budgets and aircraft than people and quality of life. This does not surprise me, I am sorry to say. The point of this thread was that I feel it is a sorry state of affairs when 'we' start giving away such postings...or indeed any postings. We will find out soon what our new aircraft will be, and soon our engineers will get posted. The rest of the station will take up the extra burden on all of the duty rosters. Our guys will tell their colleagues at their new stations how 'good 84 was - but don't bother to put it down...we've given it to the civvies'. And nothing that I have seen written in this thread can convince me that this is a sensible decision.

LJ,. . Nice one dude, we keep giving all the good stuff away. Bet your glad your not an "ass kissing", "name dropping", "bubbler" like the bloke above you. . .. .Happy Herc Mate. .. .all spelling mistakes are alcohol induced. . . . <small>[ 11 March 2002, 01:26: Message edited by: Always_broken_in_wilts ]</small>

The Cyp Government allow only 84 to be permanently based in Cyprus because it is dual-hatted with its UN support role (note the blue UN band round the fuselage). As for going 'oop north', I would imagine they would continue do so in both roles. Witness a couple of years ago they spent a huge amount of time with rainmaker fighting a major fire west of Kyrenia - the Cyp Authorities would be unlikely to refuse help from 84 even if they had a fire-fighting capability of their own.. .. .Also, SAR crosses international boundaries, and additionally 84 enjoys an enviable reputation with the Cypriot authorities for their fire-fighting & SAR work, which have saved many Cypriot lives and many villages, all at no cost to their Government. Therefore, whatever the Cyp Gov put in place to fulfill their commitment, it is likely that the 2 SAR forces will work closely together like all SAR forces worldwide.

Didn't we just snip the '4th axis' cablework on the 412 to produce the Griffin autopilot? I believe originally it was capable of flying the ILS down to 50' without input from any of the assorted limbs in the cockpit.

It is rare that I am moved to post, but I am driven by the ill informed load of cobblers that have been written on this thread.. .. .FJJP. .84 Sqn lost it's UN role in 1986 and retains it's blue band as a political casevac role which is a bit of a wast of time in reality. The Cyprus government have no say on 84 Sqn's establishment in Cyprus, in fact, under the Treaty of Establishment, I think that you will find that the UK has powers way beyond that which are now considered acceptable.. .. .Yellow & Red. .I agree the Cypriots are a good bunch of guys and want to do their own SAR, but they have one basic snag, they do not train. Whilst they maintain an acceptable standard of capability for certain tasks, when the SAR jobs are beyond them, they call for the RAF. At least they know their limitations.. .. .The Seaking is only marginally younger than Walter, has a better performance than the Wessex at a similar fuel weight, and has the benefit? of being in service with the mainstream SAR Force. The airframe does not exist which meets all of the pipe dreams of the job spec, so lets go for the best of the bad job and stay military. 84 Sqn is probably the most difficult sqn in the Air Force to put a support contract on because of it's most diverse tasking. If you want flexability, stay military, you want cheap, pay the monkeys and go civvy.. .There is not the money to go for a Rolls Royce solution to the problem, so lets ignore the chair bound army staff officers driving the spec, and go for a solution which offers some compatabilitiy (albeit of a museum nature) which at least will maintain some flexability.. .. .All this banter is a waste of time anyway, cause we will get the cheapest solution. Flexability is an excuse for cockups.. .. .Head down, look out for the flack.

Cabe Lecutter, well said chap, there is nothing the Wessex does in Cyprus that cannot be done by the Sea King and the SK is capable of a great deal more besides. The only problem is cost and manpower - we have barely enough engineers and crews to maintain UK SAR without having to produce another Sqn as well. Now if they turned the FI into a COMR or contracted it out entirely then the UK SAR force could man 84 Sqn on a detachment basis with no shortage of volunteers.. .Sadly, as you rightly said the cheapest option will prevail regardless of it's operational or motivational impact.

Of course, the Wessex replacement will be required to do. .. . Far more than a Wessex can. . . . Quite a bit more than a SK can. .. .For a great deal less money than either.. .. .So as always in aviation, the solution will be a desperate compromise (the ideal aircraft having infinite payload, infinite speed, infinite range and someone paying you to fly it!). .. .I do not envy the HQ bods the decision on this one.. .. .Sven. . . . <small>[ 17 March 2002, 13:43: Message edited by: Sven Sixtoo ]</small>

Defence procurement was once explained to me thus:. .. .The RAF wants a Cortina - . .Which has all the bells and whistles and performance of a Granada - . .But costs the same as a Fiesta. .. .(Apologies to younger readers who've never heard of these ancient pieces of motoring poo!)

.....and a contractor is found who promises to do just that. Great for a while. Then you find out about contract restrictions and can't do the job you want to do. Or the equipment spec submitted by the Procurement Exec is not man enough for the job - but can be fixed at a price.... .. .So the deal ends up costing more <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

Well.... .. .It's (almost) official. The FBH bid has got the contract (Subject to signing). That is 4x bell 412's. Almost half as good and more expensive than the military option that the Sqn wanted, but there you go. It carries almost half as many troops as a seaking, has no auto-transition (Virtually essential for night SAR), less range, less endurance etc. than the Seaking. BUT it must be better because the HICIPT selected it as the best solution after 2 years of going through the smart procurement process.. .. .Except...they didn't. They selected the Dauphin, bid by another company. The entire RAF process of 'SMART' procurement came up with a solution. The end user then said 'Sorry, but you're wrong - we don't want that, it's crap. Give us the 412 instead.' So they did. . .This proves beyond doubt that the new process quite simply doesn't work. The people who actually use the aircraft know what they want, and after hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent looking for a solution, they are able to ask for (and get!!!) what they wanted all along. Why have the procurement process at all?. .. .I have ALL of the documents pertaining to this, and can assure you that this is true - every word.. .. .What is the point?

I thought you said you wanted Sea Kings?. .. .Now you say you've got an aircraft with a 3-axis autopilot, which I thought you said was as much use as a chocolate kettle for SAR?. .. .And you claim you've got what you wanted all along?. .. .Are you sure the goalposts are fixed down?. .. .Sven. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" />

It's the same old story, happening again and again. A requirement appears, the boys at the front line know what they want, and then many years and millions of wasted pounds later, they get fed with something that doesn't work and they just have to get on with it. It's pathetic, but that's how it has always been done. Just get out, like I did, and watch the whole thing crumble away from the comfort of civvy street.

Lamjal makes a valid point when he refers to the impact that contractorisation has on retention. It goes without saying that if you remove the cream postings, you diminish the smooth and have more rough. When I hear people say that it is too expensive to have the RR military option, they cannot tell me how many excellent people will leave at an option point as a result of seeking a better quality of life elsewhere; how much their experience was worth, and how much will be the cost of recruiting and training their replacements.

Work with COMR unit. It all goes fine. Civvy/Mil interface fine.. .. .Stop Whining!!

I am left cold by this whole process, particularly if Lambjal's comments are correct. However, I do have a few queries with some of your comments lambjal.. .. .1. If "The end user then said 'Sorry, but you're wrong - we don't want that, it's crap. Give us the 412 instead.". Who is that end user? The Army?, potential survivors? or 84 Sqn? Aircraft selection must not be left to individual units to dictate. If you mean 84 Sqn then I disagree with your line "The people who actually use the aircraft know what they want". They know what they want to do with the cab but unless they have a wide background and have flown a lot of types, how could they offer a balanced opinion on type selection (this is not a dig at 84 so dont take it that way please). The Sqn personnel are the experts on the task, NOT on the selection of a replacement aircraft and they are probably best suited to draft the capability requirement.. .. .2. Onto the IPT. What training / background do they have. If it is broad and balanced, then they, armed with the capability requirement should be the only authority on aircraft selection. If however, the IPT lack the training/background etc to carry out their task (not their fault) I could understand their solution being questioned. Nevertheless, how the IPT decision can be rejected by the "user" leaves me thinking why bother (as Lambjal said). . .. .I will watch the final outcome of this competition with interest. But why a 412 would be selected over a Dauphin, given the lack of a Trans down AFCS function on the 412 seem odd. there must be more to this ??? Any comments from the user unit appreciated. . .. ."Not angry, just curious"

Flew the 412 and Dauphin during the selection for DHFS. Although the D is a great bit of kit to waz around the sky, it's got no room in the back and not much in the front. Wheels also a bit small for Cyprus rocks. OK for Baywatch, but not much else. 412 on the other hand, feels like a 'proper' heli, whatever that is. With glass cockpit a 4 axis AP, I would think it would do fine.

Just noticed this topic had 84 posts, quite appropriate to end on really, damn.....I've spoilt it!

Congratulations to your new boss, I hope you'll all make her welcome! Where did that dashing young blade go to?

Random query, but who's the new boss of 84? Initials will do if we're being all secret.
Ta.