Civilian SAR
 

Meat

Local rescue organisations and populace are accustomed to the service and the service provider that they already have. People are naturally conservative and distrust anything new or different. For example, people stay with the same Bank/Building Society for years although they could get better and cheaper service elsewhere. Rescue Oscar Charlie, the Bristow/MCA helicopter based in Shetland is engrained into the local community; no amount of persausion would alter the local fishing fleet's love of the white and blue cab that many locals owe their life too. Ditto Lossie, Chivenor etc...

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons for a second. Is not the reason for contractorising the engineering personnel that there is a drawdown in service manpower under MTWS? Whilst this is saving money, it is manpower money and not support costs per se. So the driver is not to reduce support costs, it is to meet the Manning Authorities targets. Also worth pointing out that a number of the civilianised posts are mandated as being reservists.

NRDK - you are right to pint out that Stornoway does a sterling job in the mountains at night but I have yet to see a dark and !!!!ty night where not using the goggles improves the situation. The picture might get a bit speckly but it is always better than pitch blackness which is what you get without goggles. If you used NVG in a previous life you would notice a huge improvement with the Gen3 tubes that we have now.

The only time goggles are useless is in twilight, looking into the setting sun - once it is properly dark they beat reversionary(mortal) hands down and before you ask, yes I have done both.

45 hours a month for 8 pilots and 8 rearcrew is less than 3 hours per crewmember per month - if you think that is enough to maintain competence in the wide range of skill sets required for a SAR crew and allow time to train co-pilots up to be captains then fine (personally I don't)- it certainly won't be if NVG for overland tasking is introduced - then your training bill will get closer to ours.

[email protected]
 

8 Pilots + 8 Aircrew = 4 crews

45 hours = 11.25 hours/crew (usually more because of sickness/leave)
4 crews

Therefore each person gets a minimum of 11.25 hours training per month (probably more) + jobs.

Do you need GCSE/O-level maths to join the RAF?

Children.

Stop fighting. This is getting sad and tiresome and is not helping anyone. For goodness sake you need your legs slapped!

Yes, the military do more training, but the entry level is much lower for military reasons and requirements i.e. they take people direct from training at about the 250 hr point. The civilian side have mainly experienced [not essentially SAR just higher hours] or people who have licenses and then get SAR training. Its different but overall has a lower daily requirement to train. Yes, I know if you look at some of the, shall we say, older populated flights they have an equivalent number of hours. But hey, lets take YOU. Do you need 4 hrs every shift to maintain your SAR skills - not your QHI skills - your SAR skills? No you dont! You need less because your experienced. I bet you even give up some of your training to bring on new people? So, imagine a system where they are all experienced pilots [not SAR but flying] and you only do the minimum training to achieve the aim. Oh, is that called value for money?

Crabb you have led people to believe that the military fly 6 hrs training per shift. Horse muck! It used to be 4 hrs then was reduced. Not every shift flys 4 hrs training as some will be on Rescues and some you will be ops only because of the state of the SK. You are painting a picture which is doing the military NO favours what so ever.

The civil ladies and gents do it differently. Currently, they are not formally tasked to do the same as the military. When they are, SAR-H, they will be trained accordingly. End of.

Stop trying to cause angst when none needs to exist. SAR-H will bring change. Accept it, embrace it and work to help it come in gathering the best practice from both sides.

But stop this stupid pointless bickering. Its gone way past funny and is dead ahead 40 for sad!

Get with the programme

Sarremf
 

It will be interesting to see how the training regime does develop, the MCA are the current 'client' and money is quite tight. As time equals money, I'm not sure how much extra training, if any, the MCA would be prepared to swallow. Would you then end up with a 'harmonised' service with varying levels of capability depending upon which uniform you wear?

SARREMF

So eloquently put. Spent time in mil SAR at the finest SAR flight going (Not far from Kinloss) and now looking to move across to CHC in the near future. Your words and experience speak volumes. No doubt though the kids will start agin no probably on another thread.

Fwd 40, Winching out, Steady:cool:

SarOwl - your maths is too simplistic because we don't use constituted crews(and I don't think the CG do either). Therefore each shift is likely to be with a different co, radop or winchman who may or may not have done the same training as you and the rest of the crew. Therefore there is much duplication, hence the extra hours.

Previous threads have stated that MCA crews train 1 hour a day which is where my 4 to 1 (and I did say approximately) came from - if they do 1.5 hours a day then it is 3 to 1 for some flights and slightly less than that for others. (Some flights are allowed 4.5 hours trg per day)

Now to put things into perspective, we don't actually fly 4 hours a day every day on training - that is what we are allowed to do unless jobs, serviceability, weather etc get in the way. Most RAF SAR flts average 100-110 ish hours a month with about an 80/20% split of trg to jobs but that still leaves about double the amount of trg compared to an MCA flt.

But, you have to remember that our crews include a radar operator who has radar skills to keep up, as well as FLIR/MSS and his winchop duties. Then factor in that we expect a new pilot on the Sqn (straight from training) to achieve Operational captaincy in about 18 months which takes loads of training and you start to see why we look so much more expensive.

SARREMF - your comments regarding experienced crews not needing as much training are bo88ocks - ALL flying skills are perishable with IF and night flying being the most fragile. I fly less of my own training because I am always training or checking others and I am painfully aware of my own skill fade.

Having lots of flying experience does not make you a good SAR pilot/winchman/winchop - it helps in some situations but is not a replacement (however cheap) for quality SAR training.

Unfortunately you are typical of the non SAR aviators who think they know best about a job they have never done and get all their top info and opinions from crew room chat.

I am not trying to cause angst - change will come, I am sure of it - but when that change comes it needs to be right, not just cheap. Therefore I will continue to fight our corner and highlight where the 'we are cheaper and therfore better' argument is flawed.

PS - over a 30 year contract, if you don't train your SAR co-pilots up to be SAR captains, where are your SAR captains going to come from?

Hmmm! I wonder how the CIVIL MCA units have lasted for the last 20+ years then, if they don't get enough training, don't train co-pilots to being captains, don't have enough hours, don't have enough engineers and anything else I might have missed that they don't have? Seems to me that while they would like more hours, they don't appear to have suffered by the lack of them as perceived by some on this forum. What they need are new aircraft and they are coming.

May I suggest that those who have never worked in the civil SAR world consider that thought for a moment before jumping on their high horses about how wonderful the military SAR are?

(Note: I have experience of both worlds before anyone starts going on about "crew room chat" again!)

Limpopo - I think you miss the whole point of the privatisation thread - it has never been about 'us being better than them' or vice versa - it is about whether the same capability that the military provide can be procured more cheaply in the civilian sector.

I have been attacked several times for daring to say that the military capability exceeds the civilian but I have only ever been defending our position against those would have us believe that the existing civilian SAR is exactly the same as the existing military SAR only cheaper.

You must admit that the civilian SAR world has relied considerably on ex-military crews (front and rear) and has not had the need to provide a structured progression from co-pilot to captain (and I am not saying there is none, just that there is a lot less). After all there is only a need for a certain number captains on one flight because they get paid more - in the military they get paid the same and everyone is expected to become a captain.

When the 2012 contract is let, there will be a need to poach/recruit military crews to fill many of the slots, to think otherwise is fanciful. Once that surge is over and the military no longer produces SAR crews for itself, all the future crews will have to come from within the new MCA SAR force. I believe this is one area that CHC scored heavily on over Bristows because they were realistic about training requirements.

No, I haven't missed the whole point. I just see comments from individuals who think that the civilian world will provide a poorer service than the military, because there wont be as much money put in for training, and that just isn't the case.

I might add there are a number of both crewmen and pilots (including Captains) in civilian SAR units now who have never been near the military. I know that some crewmen have used SARTU (through the FBH links) to be taught the basic techniques and then have returned to their civil SAR units to continue their training and then be brought on line. However, the pilots have been taught without going via the RAF/RN.

Crab, you are right that in the beginning the civil SAR did rely considerably on ex-military SAR crews, but that is not the case so much these days. Many of the units have both pilots and crewmen that have never been near the military other than a short course at SARTU for the crewmen. There are several SAR pilots both in co-pilot and command positions now who have never been in the military. I can think of one unit where they are the majority of the staff.

You say "When the 2012 contract is let, there will be a need to poach/recruit military crews to fill many of the slots, to think otherwise is fanciful." Well, I believe it may be fanciful for you to believe that. At the end of the day, only time will tell, plus of course, whether you can be released from the military!

Limpopo, several of the CHC transition team have just left RAF/RNSAR to work civvy and there are also some on the S92 course in July. Many of the rearcrew who are working/will work for CHC are very recently ex-mil.

I am in no way knocking the civilian SAR pilots abilities - expertees in flying is certainly not confined to the military but there are only so many experienced SAR pilots around and, once you have accounted for them, where will you get the rest. If the future capability is to include NVG ops, where will you get the expertees and experience from if not from the military.

In 2012, if all 6 RAF flights and Gannet become civilianised you will need to find 56 SAR pilots and 56 SAR rearcrew - all with the requisite experience - where do you think you will magic them from if not from the MoD?

That is assuming, of course, that there hasn't been a review of where the SAR units are located by then and the units cut or amalgamated. Not saying there will be, but it's been done before and who says it wont happen again to help reduce the costs for the MCA?

However, assuming all the units will be civilianised there will of course be some ex-military who will get jobs. However, there will be others lurking in other civil operations around the place who may very well have the requisite SAR experience as laid down by the client/winning contractor and not all will go to guys (and gals) straight out of the military.

I understand your protectionism for you and everyone in military SAR and it is very sad for the military to lose the role. However, don't expect it all to come to you on a plate. You will be competing for employment with everyone else.

Limpopo, I don't think any of us are naive enough to think anything will come to us on a plate - we would still need licences and IRs and neither grow on trees apparently:) I still hope that we can retaina big chunk of SAR in the military and not the token gesture that is being suggested at the moment.
As for resiting the bases, none of the competing contractors wants that as it means more outlay to set up a new operation than to assume control of an existing one. The SARH process has looked at it and appears to have come to the conclusion that unless the goalposts are moved (increase response time or similar change of criteria) there is no point in moving the bases.
As ever it will be decided by those who write the jobspec/contract.

This thread is getting a little tense. As an outsider I think I have worked out that crab vs limpopo is a mil vs civ contest between two 'insiders'.

So that others might be able to form an objective opinion can you chaps provide the following information.

1. What are the full range of skills/roles that your respective organisations are obliged to perform? That will provide a baseline for comparing where the training hours go.

2. Who exactly trains your SAR crews? Fairly straightforward for the military to answer but I am unaware of a civilian flying school that offers either basic or advanced SAR training.

3. Is there a civ SAR unit anywhere that has nobody with a military background and has trained and progressed its own SAR crews using solely civilian experienced aircrew? If there is then there is an effective counter to the mil assertion that civ units rely on the military to provide SAR outflow. If not then the question of how a civilian organisation will tackle this issue in the 'all civilian' future needs to be explained (and costed).

It is getting a little tense.

And all wasted I fear and alot of venting of frustrations as this is going to happen anyway (rightly or wrongly, better or worst - it is happening), so it is how it happens that will make it a success or not (and unless you are involved in the contract/project then again I feel that we are all venting our spleen unnecessarily).

But here is one for you (to go off at a tangent - sorry Jevs ;) - if I am looking at leaving H M Forces in about 3-4 years, have about 4000 hours+, CPL H with most rotary SH platforms under my belt (I even did a Junglie exchange many years ago that saw a little bit of overwater stuff - but nothing on the scale of SARTU or 771) - I am starting the planning for a departure date of Apr 2011 and have absolutely no desire to go airlines or rigs, and my 'dream' civvie job would be HEMS or SAR in the South West of UK (Odiham - Benson - Bristol - Exeter area - with Wiltshire being just the perfect location for a HEMS job and Hampshire/Dorset Coast for any possible SAR opening.

What are the chances of me getting a job (even as a co-pilot and working my way up through the company) - how are the future contract civilian pilots going to be trained?

The obvious answer would be to ask Binnsworth for a SAR tour, but sadly I am pretty much locked into this job until I go now.

Also, without diviluging company Ts & Cs, what is the approximate salary that a SAR and/or HEMs would get based on my entry experience.
Sorry to drag off thread a bit - but it may dampen the latent frustrations that are bubbling away, and also help out a wokka mate.

Cheers

HAL9000

I am not aware of a complete full civilian unit operated by British companies. However, one unit set up in the last few years had trainers with both an ex-military background and fully civilian. In fact the Chief Pilot and his deputy were civilian through and through, the other two trainers were ex RAF and RN. (Pilots) The crewmen were however all ex-military although they had more civilian experience under their belts than military!

Training is in house on the units. As I mentioned in an earlier post, some new civilian crewmen have been trained but they did use SARTU for an initial basic course, the rest of their training was then done on the unit until up to the standard required (comparable with that required by military SAR units I might add).

I believe in-house training is the case for all UK civilian SAR operators currently, although there were lots of rumours around about a civilian SAR school but these seem to have gone quiet recently. Mind you, a civilian SAR school had been mooted many, many years ago by retiring military staff leaving, but never appeared to happen, except for one that went for contracts in the ME I believe. Don't think it lasted long though.

MaroonMan4

Starting salaries would currently be in the region of (dependent on experience and need for direct entry captains):

Capt: £69-73k (+ allowances)
Co-pilots: £51-54k (+ allowances)

These are at the lower bands of the pay scales I might add as I would think it very unlikely to come straight in at anything above about Year 5 for each scale. However, I am not management nor in a position anywhere close to management. You would be given better details by speaking to the relevant company's HR Department.

Allowances could be anything from accommodation, type/role specialisation, training captain, etc.

Not sure about crewmen, but their salaries are comparable with SNCO/WO salaries plus allowances I believe.

Limpopo & MaroonMan4
 

The starting salaries for Civvy SAR are about right, however I think HEMS pilots are on alot less.

Maybe there's a HEMS pilot out there who can enlighten us?

hems, UK; 40-42k.

Hello guys,

I have followed this thread for sometime from the sidelines and have been interested in the complete lack of unity amongst my fellow SAR friends.

We are all here to do a job. When I request that you scramble to an incident I don't care whether you are yellow,black and yellow, grey and red or red and white. All I want to know is that when I reassure my casualty on the end of the radio or telephone that help is on the way it will arrive in a timely fashion and the 4 crew onboard will be professional and will do the job they are sent to do.

It does not matter whether you are military or not your previous experience is not relevant to me, I don't care whether you have been on detatchment overseas or flying shuttle runs to oil platforms. What I wan't when I scramble you is a capable SAR crew to do the job I ask you to do.

There is no point in bickering about training etc....we know how much training goes on at both Civvy and Mil SAR flights and Crab you are the one talking nonsense.

At the end of the day SAR-H will provide the BEST most PROFESSIONAL SAR force for the UK. If anyone on this thread doesn't agree with that idea then perhaps it's time to move onto other things.

SARCO - perhaps you would like to qualify your statement that I am talking nonsense with some facts and figures rather than conjecture. Training is extremely important but you (as a non SAR aviator) seem to know better!

I have stated what RAFSAR flights fly each month and SAROWL has stated what the MCA guys fly - do you doubt our figures?

I don't feel any tension here - we are exchanging views and information which is always good - once everyone has all the correct information instead of hearsay or faded meories of what used to be we will have a clear and balanced picture of what the new contract will have to provide.

"Hello guys", Welcome to SARCO, a lurker, (self-confessed) who has signed up today (with a freudian moniker)just to give you all a mild bollicking.

Carry on!

Not you Crab......my office... pyjamas reversed.

Pencils up the nose and underpants on the head as well sir?

Crabb

Just to set the record straight. Got the T-shirt I am afraid, so your analysis is way off. I am ex military SAR. I am a QHI. I have spoken to you on many occasions using your really name face-to-face!

I have seen the other side and its not as bad as you think or make out. We ALL recognise that enduring training programmes have to be put in place for the future to grow people into Captains. We ALL recognise that there is a shortage. We ALL recognise that the new system will be different because it has to be because change is coming. We are ALL trying to put the best system in place to take over which includes the military so that BEST practice from both sides endures.

For the record,

I agree with your comments about NVG.

I also agree that how I phrased the point I was making about experience and less training sounded like Bo&**lcks.

But what about if I cut your training in half? You state that IF and Night are the perishable - I fully agree with you - so what about if you only train at night? If you can do every thing at night then the day will be easier? Over simplistic but think about it! Perhaps that is what harmonisation brings, difference? Different approaches and change!

SAROWL

I understand your point about the lack of money but I would hope that a harmonised service means exactly that and it will not matter what uniform your wear.

SARREMF - this is the problem with using 'noms de pprune' why didn't you just PM me and tell me:) However I thoroughly agree that best practice is the way forward not cheapest practice.

The problem with just training at night is the Summer - yes you could just train during the day for 4 months of the year but if we go down that route we will end up like the AAC who do their IF at night on Gaz and Lynx to save airframe hours, claiming both IF and night flying. It's a nice idea but you are only actually renewing one skill set not both.

But we could reduce our training bill by doing more at night when the nights are longer, I agree - at the moment we don't have to because the hours are there and we have underflown in the last year because of airframe availability. This surplus of hours wouldn't exist in a civilian contract so while we have have got it we will make the most of it

I Smell a Rat
 

At the risk of repeating myself, I have experience of Acquisition (Procurement in old money) but am in no way a SME when it comes to SAR-H or the current provision of UK SAR.

However, some of the posts on this thread, and my own research in the last few days, leads me to believe that some strange things are going on with respect to SAR-H.

Firstly, there have been some very informed posts recently and there was a brief outbreak of sensible debate. Unfortunately, there seemed to be a distinct change in mood when people started to equate training hours with the different roles and responsibilities of the civilian and military SAR units in the UK. That was what prompted my enquiry as to how to compare the civilians and the military in an objective manner, a reasonable question I thought.

At this point, SARCO comes out of the woodwork and decides that we should all shut up because SAR-H will deliver the best and most professional service and that anybody who disagrees is misguided (I am paraphrasing but you get my drift). The thing is SARCO, your comments have 'vested interest' written all over them. If, as you seem to imply, you are a SAR helo tasker, I would have thought that you would have, at the very least, a small amount of concern about such a radical change to UK SAR. I might be doing you a dis-service, for which I apologise, but you are amazingly confident about a PFI programme when PFIs do not have a marvellous track record for delivery. Hence my suspicion about your motives.

As a final point, I found this on the net from a conference held last year:

14:40 Understanding The Case For Civilmilitary Cooperation

• SAR-H case study: Examining the viability of military cooperation in the UK’s Search & Rescue Helicopter Project (SAR-H)
• Benefits of PFI for major projects
• Harmonisation of capability through civil-military cooperation
• Future directions in civil-military collaboration

John Astbury CBE
Chief Executive
Maritime and Coastguard Agency, UK

The full details of the conference can be found at:

http://www.iqpc.co.uk/cgi-bin/templates/document.html?topic=228&event=10810&document=78578

Having read this my questions are:

1. What qualifies John Astbury (a civilian with no military experience that I have been able to find) to decide what the military's viability in SAR-H is?

2. Surely, as a civilian, his presentation should have been entitled,
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: 18pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt">SAR-H case study: Examining the viability of civilian cooperation in the UK’s Search & Rescue Helicopter Project (SAR-H) ?
3. Given that the MCA have a representative in the SAR-H IPT, should their Chief Executive be allowed to conduct such an obvious 'land grab' on their behalf given that he will have access to commercially in confidence information?

Thank you all for reading this far. I will post more as I uncover it because this is turning out to be far more interesting than first thought!

HAL

HAL - I think said individual is a very political and ambitious person who perhaps looked at the US Coastguard and thought the MCA should have similar powers and capability. To be fair, there are not many countries around the world where the military provide what is essentially civilian SAR since about 98% of our jobs are rescuing civilians. There are even fewer where the role is split between 3 different service providers (RAF,RN and MCA).

Although he talked of partnerships at first it soon became apparent that his intention was for MCA to become the sole providers. Quite shrewd really since he involved the military (SAR H) in constructing the argument to (possibly) bring about the loss of military SAR.

As for informed debate - that's what happens when you use facts instead of rumour and hearsay.:)

Hmmmmmm
 

Well, well, well, look what I have found. Follow this link http://www.aerosociety.com/conference/PDFs/553.pdf

if you want to know about the future of Public Service Helicopters. Here is an extract from the first day's programme:


The Future for
Public Service Helicopters:
2007 TO 2016
Tuesday 26th - Wednesday 27th June 2007
No.4 Hamilton Place, London W1J 7BQ, UK

Day One: Tuesday 26th June 2007

09.40 Keynote Address:

Today and Tomorrow - Helicopters in Civil Resilience

John Astbury CBE, Recently Retired Chief Executive, Maritime & Coastguard Agency

SESSION 1: SEARCH AND RESCUE

10.10 The Way Forward for UK SAR

Peter Dymond, Chief Coastguard, Maritime & Coastguard Agency

11.10 The Introduction of New Technology Helicopters & Equipment to UK Civil Search & Rescue

Capt Steve Duffy, Operations Manager, CHC/Thales Search & Rescue Helicopter Bid Team, CHC

11.40 The UK SAR Force: Managing the operational interface between Military & civil operations

Gp Capt Steve Garden, Station Commander, Royal Air Force St Mawgan

There is our old friend, giving the Keynote Address no less, and there is another senior MCA man telling us what the way forward is going to be. Slightly more concerning is the next speaker up, how convenient that he just happens to want a slice of the SAR-H pie and is rubbing shoulders with those able to influence the SAR-H programme. As a token gesture, the commander of 50% of the UK's total SAR effort gets to talk just before lunch to an audience that will already have been given the hard sell.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to suggest for a moment that anything untoward is going on here.

It just gets even more interesting.

Regards,

HAL

Good post HAL. I admit unease over a serving officer speaking alongside the Thales bid team, with others bidders not mentioned. It gives the impression that Thales is the preferred bidder. Are they?

Even so, a good commercial officer (in practice the DE&S Commercial Director, a 3*, or one of his staff) would jump on this and demand (as is his right and duty) the good Gp Capt does not attend; in the interests of fair competition.

I think you are not reading enough in to the conferences. It strikes me that whatever those at the sharp end think, our illustrious civil service seniors and the politicians have made their decision about the future of SAR. As far as they are concerned, it is not negotiable. What they are doing now is the marketing of the idea - trying to sell it to those at the front line and more importantly to the public. Mr Astbury is the messenger and as such his qualifications (or rather lack of aviation ones) don't matter.

The success or otherwise of Harmonised SAR lies almost entirely with how the contract is set up and more importantly how it is written. It will be very different to the current one. There has been much said about the capability of the future SAR system. To compare the future with the current MCA contracts is folly since the current situation requires Maritime SAR only.

I trust Gp Capt Sean Reynolds (day two) will remind the audience what the military have brought to the party when the “big ones” happened. (Air India, Lockerbie, East Coast flooding et al)

Also, I think you’ll find that Gp Capt Garden has control over a lot more than 50% of the UK SAR assets.

Tucumseh,

I tried to resist biting the bait, honestly, and resist your deliberate misrepresentation :=. What makes it OK for MCA staff to attend but not a military chap? Surely, in the interests of fairness, neither should attend as they are both linked to SAR-H :oh:.

Droopystop has made a very good point. Perhaps this is the start of a very early sales pitch. If so, lets hope the contract is extremely well written.

HAL

PS Aren't smilies great :D!

ab-initio's ?
 

From a personal interest point of view (forgive me if this moves the thread in a temporarily different direction), if there is a 'black hole' of crews to man the Civil SAR set up, is it a possiblilty that CHC will take on Ab-Initio crews, particularly Rear crew as a stop gap?

Back again
 

Gents,

Found this:

http://www.iqpc.co.uk/binary-data/IQPC_CONFEVENT/pdf_file/8430.pdf

(NB. This conference took place in Nov 2005 ) Mr Peter Dymond took it upon himself to talk about the 'Development of UK SAR Capability'.

Given my experience of Acquisition (Procurement) I really am not happy with what I am uncovering with regard to SAR-H. I have seen the military screw*d over far too many times by sm*rt ars* civilian operators, and I speak as head of a civilian company, to let this rest. As I am sure that EU competition rules have been broken I have written to my MP and MEP. For those of you that are interested, you might wish to note the following:

The task of tracking down and punishing those in breach of competition law has been entrusted to the European Commission, which receives its powers under Article 85 EC. These grant extensive investigative powers including the notorious power to carry out dawn raids on the premises of suspected undertakings and private homes and vehicles. Any undertaking found in breach of Article 81 or 82 EC, may receive a fine pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62 and Article 65(5) EC. These fines are not fixed and can extend into millions of Euros, up to a maximum of 10% of turnover.

I will let you know as, and when, I get a response.

Hal

Back Again
 

While I appreciate your concerns about the Military being screwed over, I think you are drifting off the point. The advantage of SAR run by commercial operators is that it's cheaper. If, and this is what agitates Crab, Civ SAR (for want of a better phrase) can provide the same capability as Mil SAR then surely it is better for the tax payer and general public? From my own experience I have no doubt that Civ SAR can provide an equally good, and in many areas a much better (modern reliable equipment, stable workforce, effective management, lack of Service distractions etc), service at a lower cost. But, in the final analysis, it will come down to cost and that is what will attract the attention of the politicians.;)

Leopold - I have to say that if the SAR H contract ended up providing a service as good as your Hong Kong one, then I would have nothing to moan about. However, as we keep coming back to, the contract must be extremely well written and the eventual contractor must have the ethos to provide the best service for the money rather than one that just ticks the boxes of the contract requirements.

HAL - I'm not sure why you are unhappy with the SAR H process - CHC are about to take over as service provider for the CivSAR flights as they were awarded the interim contract so why shouldn't they attend and present at seminars alonside the MCA and military? The competition for the full 2012 contract is still open but to suggest that all or none of the bidders should be allowed to present at seminars is pointless. The decision on the contract will be made by reference to the supplied bids, not a few presentations at seminars.

Crab.
Miracles of miracles, I totally agree with your last post.
Droopy.
Mr. Astbury's lack of aviation experience is incidental. He had the vast SAR experience and knowledge of Carl Taylor advising him.

3D - blimey:)

Is cheaper always better?
 

I thought the aim of this privatization exercise was to give the same excellent standard of service that is currently provided by the RAF/RN/MCA but at a much reduced price through the excellent PFI initiatives (Ignoring of course the NHS ones that are now coming home to roost....)?
As a tax payer I am all for saving public money, but wonder exactly how this will be achieved? Firstly, to retain the overall SAR cover, there needs to be a similar basing set up and similar aircraft/crew numbers to provide the coverage, although Limpopo doubts this:
That seems to go rather against the grain of retaining this excellent (if patchwork) capability that we currently have. And then there is the issue of cheaper. Has there been a study into how much cheaper this will be with civilian rather than military crews, or have we simply assumed that civvies are always cheaper? Again, Limpopo offers an intruiging insight:
Now I imagine that most military SAR crews would love to be earning those salaries, but it rather tips the cost-effectiveness argument on its head! Certainly, whoever wins the contract should have no problem recruiting military aircrew for that sort of money.
So this leaves me wondering if it really will it be a cheaper and better service as promised. Or will it turn out to be a much reduced service and therefore just cheaper?

Blimey
 

If people are going to start agreeing with Crab and he is going to hand out compliments then I'm off to another thread. :ok: