There has been quite a lot of movement between the green and yellow fleets - in both directions - in recent years. There are various individuals who did a first tour on SAR who are now flying Chinook, Puma, even Apache.

Unfortunately, this only came about after many years where very few people were prised out of a SAR slot, with the consequence that not many SH guys got a 'rest tour' on SAR (unlike the RN); a recent SAR Force Cdr recognized that this was wrong, and did much to address this (including getting SAR Force aircrew involved in MERT amongst other things), but the damage was done and the MOD decided that there was no justification in hanging onto SAR for rest tour purposes

Very useful post, Torque.

So when is the last RAF Seaking/SAR OCU?

Torque,

er, I don't think so. The cross-pol started following the first study into UK SAR (predecessor to SARH) which showed that there was no operational justification for the yellow SARF. The "..if we don't get some cross-pol going (as the RN has always done) we will lose any position in future SAR...sort it!" happened. The SARF tried to break into MCT and all sorts of other activity in order to justify itself.

Re MR teams....if they are needed for post crash work why not make this a RAF Regt task?

By MCT do you mean maritime counter-terror or is it something else in this context?

As for a 2-way street between SH and SAR - all but 4 of the 28 Sqn rearcrew applied for SAR pre-select last week! Now let me see how many SAR rear-crew are clamouring to go SH.......errrrrrrrrrrr.

There seems to have been a fairly major influx of Puma pilots into SAR in the last few years as well - most definitely not matched by those going the other way.

Some who hankered after SH but were posted SAR have got their wish to go green but not many seem to enjoy it - SH is good for promotion and medals but that is it.

Now the decision has been made on dates and full civilianisation just watch the number of SH guys trying to get SAR slots in order to gain kudos for their subsequent CVs to the winning bidder!

..................Yes

Bismark,

Maybe I attributed slightly too much to one individual, but he certainly did a great deal to try to show the potential benefits to the UK of keeping SAR military. Whether you feel that that was self-justification for its own sake, or a genuine attempt to offer extra capability with the existing set-up (which won't be achievable with purely civ SAR), depends on how cynical you are!

And to whom do you attribute the "..if we don't get some cross-pol going...we will lose any position in future SAR...sort it!"? The SAR Force has had very few supporters in high places for some years, so I doubt that anyone in the MOD or high up in the RAF initiated this! Most of the energy came from much lower down the hierarchy.

Crab,

I never said that lots of SAR people were clamouring to go SH (though some are!), nor did I specify pilots or rearcrew, nor enjoyment levels...but the fact is that there is more cross-pollination now than there was 5-10 years ago. I don't have exact figures to hand (nor do you!) but let's face it, it's been pretty hard to get a Puma slot recently because they have stopped training people of any background! So it's kind of inevitable that the number of people going Puma - Sea King has exceeded those going in the reverse direction.

TOTD

Torque,

Think of a recently retired ex-SARF Cmd who retired then came back in as 1* DCmd JHC.

Bismark,

Absolutely right (and I know who you mean!) - but let's face it, even a 1* is small fry compared to the people actually making decisions about where to go with UK SAR. My point was that it's only at Gp Capt level (or thereabouts) where the push to show the merits of mil SAR originated.

TOTD

Question:

If new SAR service is based at current military locations who will man the ATC during airfield closed hours? e.g. Culdrose is fogged out most of the time and SAR usually launches at night and in bad weather. Culdrose has no ILS.

Is this an issue?

Culdrose does have an ILS..... and is almost never fogged out beyond rotary operations.
Who is spreading this anti Culdrose cr@p?

You can always get in to Culdrose no matter if it is Red/Red. The only place better in bad weather is Prestwick!

Plus the duty air trafficers will man ATC. It is their job!

Bismark,

The same people who currently man ATC during closed hours at Boulmer(*), Chivenor, Leconfield, Lee-on-Solent, Portland(*) and Stornoway perhaps....









* - Yes, I know these locations are closing!

When did Culdrose get an ILS it is not listed in my flight manual?

Will Mil ATC cover OOO for civ SAR if so who pays?

Will civ SAR grub it back into Culdrose?

Is Portland etc night SAR?

Portland isn't 24/7, but certainly operates at "night" at certain times of year, and outside of the general opening hours of most small airfields.

The rest in my list are 24/7 - I was trying to illustrate a point...

Errr - don't need ATC to use an ILS, DH for cat 1 is min of 200', Culdrose weather often Red so well below ILS minima - only recovery option is internal aids radar to visual at coast.

Does RN SAR cab actually have an ILS???

Culdrose has a poor weather factor whether you can recover by grovelling or not.

My point (to Bismark) was that many of the current SAR bases don't have the luxury of an ATC set up such as that enjoyed at Culdrose, but still seem to be able to cope more than adequately........

Sorry, my internet connection has peaked at pre-dial up speeds so I don't know if this has been posted. Extract from official blurb.





QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Will this mean that DfT will take full responsibility for UK SAR?
Yes. The DfT will take full responsibility for the SAR-H procurement with immediate effect and for the operational SAR helicopter service upon the retirement of the final Sea King SAR aircraft in 2016.

Did the review look at the possibility of extending the life of the Sea Kings?
Yes this was considered, however, even with such an extension, the Sea Kings would not be able to provide the long-term SAR service for the UK which SAR-H, based on a modern fleet of aircraft, will deliver.

Why change, when the existing service is doing a good job?
While we recognise that the current UK SAR helicopter providers deliver a first-class service the fact remains that the Sea Kings are reaching the end of their useful life and MCA arrangements are forecast to end in 2017; they therefore need replacing. This is an opportunity to bring together the service provided by MCA and MOD, ensuring a high standard of UK helicopter Search and Rescue is maintained well into the future.

Is SAR being privatised?
No. Control of the UK SAR service delivered by the contractor will continue to be managed by HM Government, including control of the tasking of the service carried out by the Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre.

Will there be a decrease in the level of SAR service when the new service is established?
The future service will continue to meet the full UK national SAR requirement and be at least as successful as at present; providing the UK with an excellent SAR helicopter service with the ability to save lives well into the future

How will you transfer from current operations to the new service?
There will be a phased transfer to the new arrangements, with the Sea King SAR aircraft being progressively retired during 2015 and 2016 to ensure continuity of an effective UK SAR service. The contractor will then assume operations in relation to the MCA capability when their arrangements end.

Will the tasking of helicopters for each rescue be passed over to the SAR-H Contractor?
No. HM Government will retain overall control and tasking of the service.

REF R.A.F. MRT
 

What I heard a few years ago, and what was restated last weekend is that MRT is to be civilianised.

The date this was/ is to occur was tied in with the privatisation of SAR. This does not mean that the dates for privatisation of SAR and MRT are to be the same.

Unfortunately the RN ATC and command structure seems to think that helicopters can't possibly fly without ATC!

Biggus, you are right but not many SAR bases go Red as often as Culdrose.

Crab and others.

No, RN SAR cabs do not have ILS, however, the replacements will.

Red does not mean below precision approach minima for a helicopter. Red at Culdrose in particular means that some area of the airfield is red. You can always come up over loo bar or up the Helford depending on the wind direction.

771 launches without atc being in the tower all the time.
The replacement could do the same.
Civvy police helicopters operate from Culdrose without ATC, as do the gliding club etc.

Can any of you show me figure that show that SAR from Culdrose is stopped by weather more than any other base?
No?
Thought not.


Is this an example of early political manuevering against Culdrose?

Oh dear, I should have been more clear. What I am getting at is "What is the military overhead, post 2016, for enabling 24/7 civilianised long range SAR from a mil airfield?" Will DfT pay this?

Have you got stats for that, showing how wx has affected SAR launch/recovery? Factor in the location and I'm certain CU makes sense.

Why should there be any overhead Bismark?
The duty personnel are already there.
There is no requirement to close up ATC before launching the SAR. They often do, but on a shout the SAR goes before the tower is open.

So which 'precision approach' are you using to specific parts of the airfield that are not red? What you mean is you grovel in because you can't use the PAR as it is below minima. If that is your preferred technique then everyone can get in everywhere regardless of the weather, you just hover taxy until you see dispersal.

I would be interested to know if the present CivSAR crews are allowed to rtb that way.

Penzance won't be a poor weather option unless you plan to do your shopping at Tescos at the same time;)

Some people seem very sensitive to the future of Culdrose - the same people who were being smug when Chiv was faced with 12 hour ops or even closure???

Tourist,

Afraid Crab@ is right, you're talking out of your hoop. Red conditions will be only be declared if cloud and visibility fail to criteria for a higher colour state. And if they fail to meet higher colour state minima then it means that the weather is below precision approach minima at CU. For example, what is the lowest DA/DH for an instrument approach to CU? And what would the weather have to be for it to be declared colour state Red?

If you choose to get around that with low level landfall approaches then that is another thing entirely because you are not flying an instrument approach.

Minima for PAR in a seaking = 150' last time I looked.
Red means cloudbase below 200ft



Also, at DA/DH you must be able to see the "required visual references", not, I repeat not, be clear of cloud. The required visual references include runway lighting which can be seen through a lot of cloud.(especially if you fly high all the way down the approach so that MAP is over the runway itself. It has to be pretty thick to not be able to see vertically 150':E)

An airfield will declare colour code red if the cloud base is below 200' in any sector. Culdrose has 6 runways. It is very common that one of the available ones will be usable even if the others are not. At Culdrose, the red colour code which you may see on your brief at your own airfield far away is often caused by fog funneling from either the Helford or Loe Bar and only impinges on one area of the airfield. The other areas are often available in beautiful VMC. Many is the time I have landed on 30 in sunshine to meet a solid wall of fog half way down the runway.


The ability is grub in with relative ease is not irrelevent. You cannot make a low level landfall approach to Newquay in the same way. The cliff makes it a little more tricky.:uhoh: Culdrose is very nicely placed in terms of options. The Lizard gives both an easterly and westerly "grub" option depending on the wind. One side is invariably clear.

Are you telling me that the modern Seaking replacement will not be Cat II anyway?

The proof is in the pudding.

It has been posted on here that Culdrose has a poor weather factor which makes it unsuitable for SAR.

Normally the burden of proof would fall upon the postee to back that up with some stats.

Show me a list of SAR bases and jobs lost due wx please or stfu.

I bet your IRIs are going to love that one - how are you flying a precision approach if you ignore the glidepath which would normally give your MAPt (assuming 150' DH and don't forget your HTA) at 1/2 a mile?

I also think you might find not many of your RN standards would agree that looking down through cloud at the lights is within the spirit of 'required visual references'

If that is your idea of safe operation then I can only conclude that you are a bit of a gash operator.

PS Cat II ILS is as much to do with the ground installation as what is on the aircraft.

PPS - I said Culdrose had a poor weather factor, not that it precluded SAROps - how many times has the airshow been washed out there and how many non-SAR RN aircraft have had to divert because of poor weather?

Tourist,

You are getting very sensitive. No one has anything against Culdrose excepting to identify if there are any changes to operating with a Civ SAR as opposed to mil SAR. If there is no ILS then there is no unmanned option for precision approaches. If the Duty people (ATCs, AOOD, Duty LtCdr F) etc are only there to cover the current SAR commitment then that will be an overhead if they are reqd for CivSAR. For example, I believe at Yeovilton, if there is no night flying programmed the Duty ATCs go home and the only airfield duty staff are at the fire station to cover an establishment fire not to cover non mil flying.

No agenda just curiosity.

"Airshow washed out" and not fit for SAR are two entirely different things.

Airshows require 1000s of feet for a half decent show.


Speaking for myself, I have only once ever diverted from Culdrose, and that was fixed wing. Even the Hawks diverted that day:eek:



"I also think you might find not many of your RN standards would agree that looking down through cloud at the lights is within the spirit of 'required visual references'"

I think they would be unhappy about the "high on the glidepath" option hence the smiley, but would be perfectly happy with the required visual references, because those are the rules in black and white. They don't say "clear below the cloudbase", they very clearly state "required visual references" and then say what they are in great detail. They are written like that for a reason.

To be fair, I may be/am a bit of a gash operator, but at least I know my basic rules and weather limits, unlike some on here talking about it not being possible to legally recover a helicopter by precision approach in red.....

Bismark
There is an ILS like I said before:rolleyes: 771 just don't use it, and DLCF etc are not just there for the SAR by any means. ATC may be different, but are not required for launch anyway.

If you want to be clear about the rules then consider that unless you have the required visual references by the MAPt, which will be 1/2nm for a PAR with a 150' DH you must go around.

Poncing about deliberately high just to get visual with the lights is not legal - just gash! As you say, the rules are written that way for a reason - to stop idiots who think they are clever, crashing trying to get down in out of limits weather!

There are no cloud/viz conditions at Culdrose that would preclude me from launching on a SAR mission. The wind strength/direction might, ice might. What is relevant before launch is that there is a suitable destination to land any casualties that have been picked up; the challenge of the Met conditions at the rescue site is also relevant, but would not prevent me from launching.

Having successfully delivered the casualties to an appropriate destination (which could be Brest, if that's the only viable destination), the SAR mission is over. If Culdrose is RED/RED the crew should not return to Culdrose. Indeed, on occasions having recovered casualties up Carrick Roads to Treliske hospital, we'd call for the groundcrew to re-cock the aircraft at Treliske, and the aircrew would declare at Alert to RCC from Treliske until Culdrose clears (which could be a day or two later), crew changing as required at Treliske.

Tourist, grobbing into Cu over Looe Bar, or up the Helford, is no way to fly an aircraft that has already finished its SAR mission and is merely returning to base.

is that because the aircrew are too busy being re-cocked by the nurses... ;):oh::mad:

...sorry should add and doctors to remain E&D current :ok:

There is usually a south westerly wind at CU. In my experience of flying SAR missions out of there I found the North coast normally had a higher cloud base due to the effect of the land lifting the cloud base sufficiently enough to allow an approach into Newquay. I have diverted into Newquay on a number of occasions having failed to get in on a PAR to CU. Yes there are several runways but they are not all down to 150 feet DH. I have no proof to hand that Newquay weather is better than CU, just my own experience. If I had a choice I would move the future SAR base to the North coast and use a new ILS into Newquay and/or pay the civy ATC to man out of hours.

Tourist,

Out of interest on which runway is the ILS and when did Culdrose get it? I have my flight manual open in front of me and no ILS is listed for any of the runways at Culdrose(whereas the one on 27 at yeovilton is). Nor does the on-line TAG data list an ILS.

What is DLCF there for if it is not for SAR? There is no station based OOH DLCF at Yeovilton if no flying is programmed.

Fascinating ( and to some extent revealing!) as the discussion about CU's weather factor is, there is one main reason behind the "vicinity" option against each of the present SAR base locations.
In part it recognises that politics will no longer allow any contractor complete freedom to base any future SAR helo organisation where they wish, be it the optimum disposition to deliver the new service or not. However, it does recognise that in some (note some) cases, the costs of ownership to the taxpayer in staying put may outweigh all the other factors, including some of the politics. This happened during SAR-H where despite political insistence that all 12 present bases had to remain the same, all the bidders finally got the message through that Prestwick was very expensive to keep going for 25 years, certainly as compared with the other 11 bases. Hence a compromise was reached where bidders could propose a move to a more cost effective location nearby.
The new competition has now encompassed this across all 10 remaining bases following pre competition discussions with industry. Bidders are unlikely to propose moving "down the road" unless there is a clear value for money reason to do so. Amongst a variety of factors, considering comparative implications of the local weather factor will no doubt be part of the decision.:)

Crab

As I made clear, there was a smiley for a reason, and why don't you answer my points?

How come you did not know that a DH of 150 feet is possible in red?

Where are you getting your "culdrose has a poor weather factor for SAR" data from?

Are you giving up on all your arguments and just digging at the one point you think you have leverage?

6Z3

I have no argument with any of that, though missions are not always over after the first drop off.
I am merely trying to argue that Culdrose is not bad for weather. Which it isn't.

Ticked all the boxes

I call walt.
Your terminology is wrong for a SAR boy.

Tourist, I am well aware of 150' DH being available in Red conditions but Red is defined as below 200' cloudbase not below 200' but above 150' and more often than not Red conditions are a result of advection fog which gives cloudbases in the SW well below 150'.

I suspect I could ring the met office at Culdrose and find out exactly how often it is in Red conditions every year but I spend most working days looking the RCS and MOMIDS which show exactly what a poor weather factor the place has.

How come you did not know that your great idea about fudging required visual references is illegal - how did you not know what a precision approach is actually all about?

If I am digging at one point - it is your credibility to argue anything to do with SAR because you don't seem to be able to do basic aviation safely.

I suggest you stop digging.

ILS is on Rwy 30 and was installed earlier this year

That's changed, all the PAR minima (minimii?!!) are now 200'

"fudging required visual references is illegal "


Yes it is, but obeying them to the letter is not, in fact it is recommended.
It is rather worrying that you do not understand what both the letter and the meaning of the minima rules are.

Can you honestly tell me that you go around off a precision approach because though you can see the required visual references you feel you are not clear of cloud?



"but Red is defined as below 200' cloudbase not below 200' but above 150' and more often than not Red conditions are a result of advection fog which gives cloudbases in the SW well below 150'."


Ok - so now you admit that your earlier statements about not being able to make a precision approach in red are bollocks. What you should have said is that sometimes red will be too bad to make an approach. A very different thing.

You have also made a new statement.

"more often than not Red conditions are a result of advection fog "

Go on then. Rather than firing off statements, give me some data to support this.


"but I spend most working days looking the RCS and MOMIDS which show exactly what a poor weather factor the place has."

As I said earlier, watching from afar can give a very false impression. Your experience of Culdrose weather is down to watching a colour code on MOMIDS. Gosh what depth. The only true judge would be the data showing that Culdrose loses more jobs to weather than others.

Data that you have been ominously silent producing.....