Crab,
If that is your idea of a retraction, then I guess that will have to do.

Incidentally, can you not see the irony of pouring scorn on my "modified PAR" technique and then putting forward your own?

chopabeefer

1. Traditionaly in this country we tend to not go in for self adulation in public. We usually leave that to the Americans and gangsta rappers, plus too much self admiration might be considered dangerous in a pilot, perhaps?


2. "Training is varied as much as imagination can allow but it always within the confines of the rules"

You are talking about formal training.

Rightly or wrongly, I suspect most of us have learned some of our biggest lessons whilst doing stupid things in our youth, both airborne and not.

As big butch Oscar said, "Nothing that is worth knowing can be taught"

I would not say "nothing", but I agree with his gist.



3. "Is a SAROP the best time to explore the untested? A really daft question, asked by somebody who has not the first idea about SAR. It is clearly the only time"

The problem with the RAF "SAR for life" system is that most of you are so parochial. :ugh:You really consider SAR to be of core importance to this country.

There are many operational reasons in non-SAR aircraft that are a lot easier to justify when stretching the rule book.

It is easy on a shout to get caught up in the moment, but is there ever really a good reason to risk the aircraft by stretching the rules on something as mundane and frankly unimportant as SAR?

Compared to the operational imperative of getting the troops to the right place/sinking the Kursk/bombing the dam, rescuing some spanish fisherman with a tummy ache is pretty low down the list of reasons to employ some flexibility of interpretation.


Don't get me wrong, I loved doing SAR, but if I ran the budgets I would chop it overnight. In terms of cost per life saved it is truly, truly ridiculous.
If it was not for international obligations, and NICE was allowed to judge SAR on it's benefits, SAR would be gone overnight.

SAR is not the best reason to break a rule.

Icanseeclearly,
Re post #101 "only Military base with no real alternative is Valley."

Maybe Caernarvon could be used instead of Valley.

Tourist
 

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D Well said.

It could be argued that getting rid of SAR, and presumably placing at risk any CSAR competence we have, could be seen as a very public expression of the Government’s long held attitude toward servicemen. That is, up yours, we don’t give a **** about our duty of care, the so called military covenant or any notion you may hold that we could care less about you. You are expendable – all we’ve done is moved the goalposts a little to emphasise the point.

Putting it another way, I wonder what the American public would say if their Government so publicly reneged on their obligation never to leave a man behind. I know this isn’t exactly what the Government have done, but it’s a bloody long step.

Dervish

That would be completely true if CSAR had any connection to SAR, which it does not.


Plus of course the fact we have never had a proper CSAR setup anyway so cannot lose it.

Only the US has ever had something worthy of the name CSAR.

Dervish - if you want to see it that way in order to "prove" a point then i can't stop you.

However, i can't see that the ageing UK Seaking fleet has any real contribution towards CSAR (i suppose one could argue that MPA is CSAR but it's a stretch) and withdrawing it would in no way prevent the development - or continued development of CSAR with the Merlin or Chinook fleet (it could as easily be argued that it might enhance it by potentially freeing up MOD resources for CSAR development).

As for duty of care - Have a look at what is going on in Afghanistan with the MERT / Chinook combination alongside the state of the art medical facilities at Bastion etc and tell me that there is not a commitment to or investment in duty of care.

Civvy SAR and CSAR are different specialities - end-of.

OH

Tourist ... I simply can't let that go...

I think you are mixing up your own MoD focused thoughts on the value of simple SAR against all those continuing demands for expenditure on purely combat focused ( which these days means overseas) capability. Whether it's wise to have chopped back so much on UK area capabilities as a result is another argument for another thread.

Yes, I agree with you in principle, and I have mentioned in the previous SAR-H thread, much to several regular contributors ire, many of the missions flown by UK SAR helos, of any operator, cannot be objectively described as essential life saving operations. Often they help relieve suffering or potential risk by getting to the casualty earlier than other already available rescuers, be it the RNLI, MRTs, police etc etc, or these days the Police air service and Air Ambulances.

We all know that their original ( duty of care) responsibility as an essential rescuer of military aircrew has long been diminished by a much smaller and much safer military aviation community, and the modern expansion of the other rescue methods mentioned above. Think of UK infrastructure in the 1950s and that of today.

That said, there are some missions where the helicopter is either essential in bringing timely rescue to an otherwise inaccessible location, or makes an
essential contribution to that activity. Often these can be in difficult weather and other demanding conditions ( exploding rigs spring to mind). They may not occur very often, but the nation has come to expect, and now rightly assumes that this modern capability is there, and well trained to do so, at minimum risk to all involved, not least the helicopter crews themselves. You
know as well as I that this is one of the main bonuses of crews flying on and therefore having additional training opportunities in all those other " jobs" where the otherwise lack of a helicopter would not be fatal. As a result, the UK helicopter rescue services as a whole can be proud of our safety record over many decades... It is exceptional by any standard. Some of those standards are down to the rigorous application of the rules during training by excellent IREs and QHIs, the imbuing in all new SAR crews our corporate experience, and yes, ensuring SAR captains along with their crews, are trained to know when it is right occasionally to make decisions, being appreciative of the balance of risks, that are on the boundaries of or potentially exceeding those otherwise sound rules.

It's not a question of who operates the service, we now know the destiny of that in this country, but of international and national obligations that the UK must fulfil by treaty and law. To suggest that these could be swept away as of no fundamental value to a modern and first world country like ours is simply being irresponsible, even if some of the hype over potential relocation, particularly at local political level, is well overdone. Indeed that's the irony... Too many successful local rescues where the helicopter was not often essential yet persuading the many that they are an indispensable local service.

Fortunately, a solution of some sort, that will provide a modern and nationwide service is still on it's way despite massive cuts in other areas of national expenditure ( so far anyway!) - so let us all be grateful for that.

Cheers :)

Tourist and Overthawk

Thank you for your replies. My post was promoted by the majority of posts being from people who operate the aircraft, not those who hope they never have to reply upon it. Some will see this as yet another money saving exercise to the detriment of safety (of those who need rescuing).

I understand the point that CSAR and SAR are not entirely related, but the former was given up to the money men without a fight before it even got off the ground. Who is there to ensure we don't become dangerously incapable? That oversight is meant to come from our VSOs but they have long since become political animals. I am the first to admit I don't know all the history behind this SARH initiative but it seems to me this latest attempt serves to conceal a nasty smell lingering from the last aborted contract.

Dervish, I do not believe there is anything other than a simple government intention to get moving on a replacement solution, not only to get a modern service in place sooner rather than later, but also driven in part by the MoD's decision to retire their SAR SKs early in 2016. SAR-H and whatever issues existed with it are now history.

Tallsar

That's what I mean. The nasty smell of incompetence and wasted money is now buried in history. Or are you telling me those responsible have been brought to book?

Wouldn't dream of it.... Whatever the responsibility of individuals in the demise, it was a much wider set of circumstances that contrived to send SAR-H to the bin. Not least in my opinion, were the effects of the crash on money availability, a new government with new politics, and the review giving an opportunity for all involved to realise that a 30 year lock in at low profit was not a risk worth taking.... And then a certain someone gave everyone an excuse to walk away.:eek:

I remember someone mentioning that Pprune was suppose to be a large crewroom in 'the cloud' if you will. Is it just because of the anonymity that makes people get petty in their views over criticism? Why can't we have a debate about different methods of getting out the poo when the wx is bad and no div available? A debate with reasoning and thought behind the posters ideas rather than 'you way has no merit, you must be new/ or your unprofessional cos your ****e!!'

Come on fellas. Critically argue your points of view and respect others and maybe some people will learn something!! Enough of us on here have enough experience to know when someone is speaking out of their bottom!!

If only Pprune were like an old style crewroom.

Most of the people in there would be front line aircrew with a few engineers to make coffee/fix the toaster again.
None of the people in there would be journalists.
Cadets would sit quietly in the corner and listen.
Swearing would not only be acceptable, it would be mandatory.
When somebody spoke, you already knew their credibility, or lack of.
Shagging dits would outnumber flying dits at least 3:1

Ahh, heaven

Now that I gotta agree with in toto T!:ok:

With the occasional dit involving both....requiring an element of flexibility

as a rule!

And ne'er may the two meet!:E

InTgreen,

Holding your breath isn't going to help you get better...;)

TOTD

Probably the best feature of that crew room is that there would not be a civilian in sight :ok:

When SAR is privatised the current SAR aircrew will just leave the RAF/RN and take their skills to who ever gets the contract.
When these aircrew retire in time where will the new aircrew come from and will the operator be prepared heavily to invest in training the next generation of aircrew?
Although it will happen I'm in favor of using "full time reservists" who although under the control of the MoD would be considerably cheaper to employ than regular service personal.
I only know of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand who use civilians for SAR but am curious to know are there are any other nations?

See Jeremy Clarkson article in the news review section of the Sunday Times....

Kind of says it all.

A4scooter

"I only know of Australia, ....................... who use civilians for SAR"

Until they are overwhelmed or it is too far off shore and then the RAAF, RAN or Army are called in (or all three at once depending on the situation).