SAR privatisation
 

Anyone know where I can read more about the arguments for an against?

I'm particularly interested in coverage and whether it would likely improve or otherwise, post privatisation.

I know coverage for the UK is total, but was wondering if capacity would likely go up in the private model.

Potential equipment for private sector contractors also interests me.

On a lighter note:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=275720

There's clearly a skills shortage in the private sector!

I believe the SAR privatisation is known as the SAR(H) programme in procurement (or is it acquisition?) circles.

I am also fairly sure it is a PFI programme. The outcome of other PFI programmes, speaking from personal experience, does not bode well so I would put money on post SAR privatisation coverage being worse. Unfortunately, the holes in these projects only usually appear once it is too late.

Of course the establishment will have nothing but praise for privatisation and there will be no hint of it being anything other than a complete success. To paraphrase a young lady from the 60s, 'Well, they would say that wouldn't they.'.

I stand to be corrected on all the above as my involvement with military procurement, and it was definitely 'procurement' then, ended a few years ago. Also, I was not directly involved with SABR(SAR)/SAR(H) but close enough to pick up on the concerns of some of those involved.

HAL:ugh:

I have a number of reservations about SAR ops being conducted by a comercial operator. The Operator will always have a duty of care for the aircrew and I think it is inevitable that they will not make the extra push we are accustomed to from Mil crews. This may or may not be an example of that possibility The full story is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4997654.stm

Don't misunderstand me; I am not suggesting that the SAR crew at the time shrank from the task; far from it. I do suspect, though, that commercial and civil liability factors may result in avoidance of risk that wouldn't be a military concern.

Please don't start any more threads that degenerate into backbighting about SAR, we have had those already. Look in the archives. Jon don't bite, it looks like a troll.
Head down, look out for the flack.

With the greatest respect, what the **** do you mean by that?

Can someone not ask a question without the paranoid minority jerking their knees?

And who gave you permission to stifle discussion?

I've read the previous threads, that's why I asked for another source.

If someone wants to PM me in response to my question, in light of the SS patrolling the forums, please feel free.

BillyGoat
x

Is that SS as in NAZI party organisation or SS as in SAR Standards???????????????????????

And who gave a self confessed journo permission to trawl on a forum clearly marked as "for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground" ?

:hmm:

On a neutral note, the Air Ambulance and the RNLI are both successful civilian, albeit charitable, organisation where a can do attitude prevails.

With the proper contract there is no reason why a civilian SAR organisation could not operate with the same effectiveness as military SAR.

The recent RNoAF cliff rescue was carried out by the crew not withstanding directives that that particular type of rescue was too dangerous. The final decison will always rest with the captain of the aircraft.

ever so slight tangent...

can anyone say whether the civilian S-61N's or the current RAF SAR Sea Kings are 'better' for SAR, both military and civil?

i assume that the S-61 can carry more passengers, but what about range, sensors, weather restrictions, availablity, cost or any of the other 99 things i've no knowledge of but which are vital?

i've no real position on privatisation, just the knowledge that PFI tends to be an expensive disaster, however given the pressure on the RAF SH fleet and the fact that we don't do CSAR (in the way the US would understand it) suggests that SAR might be a bit of an expensive Cul-de-Sac in military terms.

Everything you ever wanted to know about SAR Privatisation but were, or in this case weren't afraid to ask.

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-hm...monisation.htm

Just curious, but I thought that the military SAR fleet was primarily for the rescue of military personnel and had the secondary role of rescuing civvies. If things did get privatised, would that change? For example, would they come and rescue people shot down if there ever was a war around the UK or would it be too dangerous for them to fly? I know the chance of that ever happening is miniscule though! :)

I think you have answered your own question.

Cable Cutter - - -bite....me????a man with my reputation....:)

Harrogate, this has been done to death and the answer is in waders post - 'with the right contract' etc.

Whether the political and financial will exists to create a completely civilian SAR structure without the strengths (and some weaknesses) that the military brings to the party, remains to be seen.

It will be a very sad day if and when military SAR ceases to exist - our track record speaks for itself and there are few if any other countries in the world that can boast the same capabilities.

It will stay .... just a bit different from now.
It might even be better than now with best practice from both sides, better availability, military and civil harmonised into one cohesive force ..............................
Ooooh I was off for a moment then! No, it will be better . honest

Again, slight tangential.

In the old DEW Line days the DEW Sites were in remote and inhospitable places. At Goose there was a 'cowboy' flying for Ogginawa (sic) helicopters. I believe he had some battered old Sikorsky IIRC. He had the contract to fly to the sites and said because the conditions were too bad for the regular military types.

So contractors can, and do, do things that the military cannot.

Mil or Civvie?
 

Having been on both sides of the fence I have to say that my experience is that the civvie operators are better funded and equipped. They also have a much leaner management structure and are free of the dead hand of IPTs/Air Staff and the colossal "tail" that military SAR is cursed with. As for capability civvies are no less courageous or determined than their military counterparts simply because they don't wear a uniform. When it comes down to it we all do the same job for the same reasons. Have look at these links to see what a civilian organisation can do;
http://www.vtol.org/temp/webrelease14.html
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/publ...govt/9846.html

I clipped the following from Leopold's first site:

The Captain William J. Kossler , USCG Award is given for the greatest achievement in practical application or operation of rotary wing aircraft, the value of which has been demonstrated by actual service during the preceding calendar year. This year’s winner is the Hong Kong Government Flying Service (GFS). During the course of Typhoon Prapiroon last August 3, 2006, the pilots and crews of the GFS carried out a major and heroic rescue operation in the South China Sea that saved 91 lives from two sinking barges. The demonstrated professionalism and skill of the crews and their AS332 Super Puma L2 helicopters, in the face of extremely hazardous weather conditions, were truly remarkable. Despite wind speeds of up to 100 knots, waves of close to 65 feet, turbulence, low visibility and the violent pitching and rolling of the foundering barges, the GFS crews were able to carry out this most challenging search and rescue (SAR) mission and bring 91 people safely back to land.

I can imagine that this is a very complex thing to sort out, what with a Joint MCA & DE&S IPT, various locations, aircraft types, currently operated by different units/services etc. Coupled with the fact that the RAF SAR is being civilianised as from 2008, deciding what is in-scope and out of scope will be a real headache. For example, does anyone know if Cyprus is likely to be in-scope?

Would Cyprus be considered a joint-user SAR? On that basis would a Cypriot or other nation commercial operator be able to tender?

Under EU rules it may not be possible to lump Cyprus with UK if the UK SARO was a reserved contractor.

Cyprus is outside SAR-H

Falklands inside SAR-H

RAF SAR engineering is contractorised from 2008 not aircrew.

Its been fun so far!

I have to agree with Leopold. The MOD retaining a SAR force is too costly, inefficient and because of the immense and complex way the MOD does its business military SAR is untenable. For instance.

Lee on Solent operate a civilian SAR helicopter doing a very good job. They operate

1 aircraft
9 aircrew
6 engineers.


771 sqdn here in Culdrose also do a very good job..
They operate

5 Aircraft
30 pilots
18 aircrewmen
4 SAR divers
8 RNR pilots
5 RNR Observers
6 RNR aircrewmen
4 Engineering Officers (nearly 1 per aircraft)
136 engineers
6 RNR engineers

Try and justify that to the treasury.

Vec

Are you sure?

9 aircrew for a 24-hr service with a crew of 4 sounds a bit unlikely.

And don't 771 do other stuff besides SAR?

Sven

OK....maybe 12 Aircrew....15 at a push. But nowhere near the 71 that 771 have to pay.

I totally agree, 771 do other things other than SAR, BUT that isn't up for privatisation. (yet)

I hope you are not seriously comparing the two units.

If you were to remove 771 Sqns SAR committment altogether, you would make no (or at least very little) difference to their Aircraft numbers and Scheme of Complement numbers.

Vec

The military SAR Flt I'm sat on right now has 18 aircrew on the books, of whom one is long-term sick and one is in the Falklands. That makes 16 equivalent to Lee (who don't do dets and would get rid of non-effectives). Out of that 16 is provided one crew 24/7 (as at Lee) and a second crew daylight hours (definitely not as at Lee). Fairly comparable with Lee's "15 at a push", don't you think?

Not that I don't agree that Mil SAR drags a huge and unwieldy tail around. Just that the argument should stand on its own merits - it doesn't need exaggeration.

Sven

Almost exactly 20 years ago I was packed off to a meeting in Empress State. The annual SAR policy beano. Rafts of RAF people, a token civvy representing the Senior Service (who had more SAR capable a/c, but we won’t go there).

Routine stuff – CSAR progress (excellent, first batch ready for conversion!!), role limited a/c, not enough kit, etc etc. Then Chair announces that he’s been told to allow a guest 5 minutes to present an idea. In walks a very youthful looking beancounter. Puts up a map that looks like it’s been nicked from Mr M. Fish of the BBC (same year – think about it) with all RAF SAR stations highlighted. States that Wessex can fly XX miles out and XX back on a full fuel load, and flips down an overlay with XX radius circles around each station. “Where there is overlap, we’re closing down one of the stations. Thank you for your time”.

To be fair, the RAF got in first, but most were simply silently aghast at the brain numbing stupidity. “Time on task” was the cry. A few shouts for “night capability”. Then someone mentioned a Sea King could fly further. Wrong thing to say. Compounded by, “What about the Navy stations?” Wrong again. He hadn’t the slightest clue that the RN did SAR, or that we had Sea Kings. His eyes lit up, and he went away to re-draw his little chart, count more beans and shut more stations. (Gannet made a big difference).

You know the rest. No CSAR to speak of. Decimated SAR capability. I happen to be on the retention side of the fence. I’m no expert, but I imagine CSAR requires more intensive training and experience than “normal” SAR, and that experience, training and general sustainability must come from somewhere. I may be wrong there, but I relate this to highlight none of these decisions are capability or duty of care based – purely financial. Dreamt up at a surprising low level with no appreciation whatsoever of the practical impact.

Civilian SAR Numbers
 

As ever there is not a dissimilar thread running on the 'Rotorheads' section. I have put a more accurate break down of staff numbers on there.

SAROwl

Thanks for that.

That implies that Bristows run with 2 engineers on a shift + 1 on days.

This is the big difference - A mil SAR Flt has engineer shifts of 6 +/-, and has two SNCOs on days / on call for oversight, plus 3 x SE fitters, plus 3 x Ops staff, plus 2 x MT / Suppliers, plus fire crews at the non-airfield bases.

I can remember when a Mil SAR Flt ran with 4 crews (16 aircrew), 3 shifts of 7 engineers, 1 SNCO eng boss, and nobody else.

Still far more engineers than the civvies use.

There are some reasons for this - I will guess that Bristows contract out their SE support 100%, and lease their vehicle(s) off some company that does that stuff, and get Jeppesen or some such to provide their documentation, and take the risk on fire crews (there's probably a good quality extinguisher and the engineers know how to make it go).

Also the RAF take people off the street, put them through a course, then work them up under supervision in the job. I suspect Bristow's engineers arrive fully qualified and with considerable experience. That still doesn't explain the differing levels of supervision / oversight (Licensed engineers don't need oversight if I understand the priveliges of a civil licence correctly).

So do the mil over-engineer, the civvies under-engineer, the civvies have a simpler machine, or some combo? Plus, how do we get the military contractors to contract in a sensible way?

The engineering of the mil SARForce (with the exception of 771) is going civilian over the next year with 78 Sqn in the FI the first to change. Augusta Westlands in partnership with Vosper Thorneycroft will provide the same aircraft availability (if not better according to their team) as exists at the moment - ie a first standby aircraft 24/7 and a second standby for a minimum of 80% of the time. To provide this they will have 4 shifts of 5 engineers including a shift boss and one Flight Manager.

This highlights that the military aircraft are over-serviced since a civilian company requires almost as many engineers as the military have used and a lot more than a civilian SAR flight.

But the comparison is still of oranges and apples since the military aircraft fly far more hours, especially on training ( approximately a 4 to 1 ratio for RAF SAR flt to MCA SAR flt).

This is one reason a civvy SAR flt looks cheaper - they just don't fly as much - it's not rocket science. And they don't have to hold a second standby aircraft.

When all the engineering is civilianised will people still be trying to claim that mil SAR is expensive? Yes, but only because they don't understand SAR.

CRAB
 

I guess I will give you your due and bow to your obvious skills, given that the Mil SAR units have a 4 to 1 ratio on training hours with which to keep your crews up to speed and the SK3's all worn out (hence all the engineers you have)
After all the MCA units only have 45 hours dedicated monthly training so about 1.5hrs per day, whereas you have 180 hours of monthly training so your 6 hours per day must keep you on the ball.

I only wished that we could have got those sort of hours on the RN SAR units when I was waiting around for the cabs to be serviceable, in between SAR taskings.:D

4:1 Training Hours
 

Which begs the question, "Why so many training hours?":confused:

LB - There is an old adage that:-

"The more you train the luckier you get when doing it for real"

The SAR flights also allow the copilot to train in the RHS so more hours are used to train the up and coming pilots.

HF

4:1 Training Hours
 

Which brings us neatly back to the real reason for privatisation, it's cheaper.:ok:

Civilian SAR
 

Civilian companies are able to keep their costs down in many ways. Use of commercial airfields, you only pay for what you use, you don't have to personally man it 24/7. Ditto transport, catering, cleaning etc. There is very little training requirement ie you buy your experience, you don't train it yourself. Staff have to be more flexible, we all wash and clean the cabs, the engineers marshall, re-fuel, ground handle, fix the aircraft and provide fire cover.

Sar Owl you said "Staff have to be more flexible, we all wash and clean the cabs, the engineers marshall, re-fuel, ground handle, fix the aircraft and provide fire cover".
Are you referring to Civi SAR? Be cause mil SAR do all that already and have been for years.

The discrepancy in training hours reflects the different roles in that, to give just one example, the mil SAR chaps conduct low-level, overland NVG ops. If civvi-SAR took on that particular specialization their training bill would rise accordingly.

The whole problem with the civvi vs mil SAR debate is that you cannot just directly compare what the current units offer. Most people are completely ignorant of this but wade in with their ill-considered, and usually incorrect, opinions anyway. Unfortunately, the result is the usual slanging match that ensues.

Hopefully, both the mil and civvi boys and girls at the coal face know enough about each other to be able to ignore the tripe and get on with the valuable job they all do.

Thats very true but you have to justify that to the bean counters. Why do Mil SAR have to practice Low flying when the Civ SAR don't. Why do MIL SAR have to practice NVG when the Civ SAR don't? those are the questions the treasury are asking.

Toddbabe. The point the previous poster was trying to make was that in the civvy world they Cleaning, refuelling, ground handling, fixing, marshalling etc is done by one bloke. Whereas at Culdrose those jobs are done by lots of blokes.

Now for my threepunce worth.
Civvy SAR units, at the moment anyway, operate with two engineers per shift, and one on days plus a labourer, on a weekday that is. At weekends there are just two. They are usually, what used to be known in the mob as self supervising for component replacement and aircraft checks, namely Licensed Engineers. If a flying or engine control is disturbed then another Licensed Engineer, or two depending on which flying control it is, has to carry out what is known as a duplicate inspection. They also carry out all the tasks mentioned by SARowl, and a few more come to that.
That is were your cost saving comes in! Two compared to how many on a Mil. SAR unit? That is not a dig!! In the dim and distant, I was on a MIL. unit so have seen both sides.
You cannot cut down a four man crew so the aircrew are pretty safe unless the beancounters decide that the front seats can be filled by lower ranks. ie. Less pay.
The military also has to train more, as previous posts have pointed out, for what ever reason, right or wrong!

...because the civvies do not fly on NVGs. Mil SAR helos conduct around 50% of jobs overland and away from coastal areas, compared with the MCA helos who conduct exceptionally few rescues inland. Stornoway is the only MCA flight that carries out mountain flying training and this only happens during the day.

A rescue or search in the hills at night will only be carried out by military crews and, funnily enough, these skills require training! :ugh:

This is the side of SAR that the treasury fails to comprehend. The civvies could do a very good job of taking over UK SAR BUT they would need a massive amount of training in skills they do not currently possess. They would also require continuation training to maintain these skills. Current MCA SAR helo costs cannot be used to project future SAR-H budgeting because their tasking is significantly different from that of the RAF and RN.

Mr Point & Meat
 

The MCA unit at Stornoway does fly night mountain taskings has always done so, just like the pre NVG days of 819SAR @ Prestwick and Lossie etc. (On a dark Sh1tty night how do the useless NVG's get you there? Back to the good ole days eh!:eek:) Almost all of the MCA crews have been there done that in the Military, :rolleyes: so you can not claim that ONLY the Military crews can do it.:ugh:

The MCA units also use a safe, common sense training limit based on A/C performance when 'practising' with emergency services i.e MRT members and so yes they will often explain this and decline to 'play' on some occassions. That said, for 'real'; I know that they have also had some well deserved praise for turning up and getting the job done under extreme conditions. Inland taskings are secondary work and sourced via ARCC. When it becomes all part of their remit under SAR(H) then they will do the job just like Crab and his mates.:}