SAR: Search & Rescue Ops
Aser, that is when we would use a Hi-Line, dropped to the boat and attached to the winch hook so the boat's crew can pull the winchman into the vessel's cockpit while we maintain a hover just back and left from the overhead.
Trying to get into a boat from the water in a rough sea is very difficult, even for a fit diver, especially if there is no ladder and the boat has a high freeboard.
The Royal Navy do free drops with the diver.
Trying to get into a boat from the water in a rough sea is very difficult, even for a fit diver, especially if there is no ladder and the boat has a high freeboard.
The Royal Navy do free drops with the diver.
Just Dropped In
Join Date: May 2001
Location: um....er.....
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've found the cure for insomnia!!! 
Interesting that the Mil keep harping on about overland SAR & the apparent shortfall in Civvy overland SAR!
Firstly.....grubbing through terra ferma at night, in foul weather etc etc looking for anyone who isn't actually 'Life At Risk' is nothing short of irresponsible IMHO. Aircraft Captains are first & foremost responsible for their crew! Every flight should be 'risk assessed' regardless of the aircraft's performance! To say otherwise is, again, irresponsible!!
The civvies do overland SAR! & I would suggest that the occasions that they turned back & the casualty lost their life are incredibly few & far between!
Yep....we don't have NVG....yep we are more prone to risk assess & say no! & yep.....we aren't prone to the same level of pushonitis!! Is that bad thing?? Nope! I like life & I like returning safely with the crew!
As for not using other assets, not landing on & waiting for....say an MRT....to bring the casualty safely to you.....is mad! Surely the safest possible course of action, is the only course of action?
Why don't we have NVG?? Why? Because the Coastguard's don't want it!! Overland SAR is secondary! So why blame us?? The Civvy companies would happilly provide NVGs etc etc if the 'Customer' specified it! (& if the Authorities allowed it!
)
But guess what.....they don't!! Strange that considering the RAF claim to have had such a huge influence on the new round of contracts!??
Quite frankly......the world revolves around cash! The military is no different, having been strangled by governments repeatedly! Lets face it....the Civvies do it cheaper! & in 99.9% of cases they do it just aswell, with better serviceability & less fuss!
I will admit that there is a couple of things the RAF do better than anyone else!........Blow their own trumpet & PR immediately spring to mind!!!
RAF, Navy or Civvy I don't care! I have the utmost respect for all the SAR crews! I lose a little of that respect reading through constant bleating & we're better than you!
Right....off back to sleep!
Interesting that the Mil keep harping on about overland SAR & the apparent shortfall in Civvy overland SAR!
Firstly.....grubbing through terra ferma at night, in foul weather etc etc looking for anyone who isn't actually 'Life At Risk' is nothing short of irresponsible IMHO. Aircraft Captains are first & foremost responsible for their crew! Every flight should be 'risk assessed' regardless of the aircraft's performance! To say otherwise is, again, irresponsible!!
The civvies do overland SAR! & I would suggest that the occasions that they turned back & the casualty lost their life are incredibly few & far between!
Yep....we don't have NVG....yep we are more prone to risk assess & say no! & yep.....we aren't prone to the same level of pushonitis!! Is that bad thing?? Nope! I like life & I like returning safely with the crew!
As for not using other assets, not landing on & waiting for....say an MRT....to bring the casualty safely to you.....is mad! Surely the safest possible course of action, is the only course of action?
Why don't we have NVG?? Why? Because the Coastguard's don't want it!! Overland SAR is secondary! So why blame us?? The Civvy companies would happilly provide NVGs etc etc if the 'Customer' specified it! (& if the Authorities allowed it!
)But guess what.....they don't!! Strange that considering the RAF claim to have had such a huge influence on the new round of contracts!??
Quite frankly......the world revolves around cash! The military is no different, having been strangled by governments repeatedly! Lets face it....the Civvies do it cheaper! & in 99.9% of cases they do it just aswell, with better serviceability & less fuss!
I will admit that there is a couple of things the RAF do better than anyone else!........Blow their own trumpet & PR immediately spring to mind!!!
RAF, Navy or Civvy I don't care! I have the utmost respect for all the SAR crews! I lose a little of that respect reading through constant bleating & we're better than you!
Right....off back to sleep!
Roofus - not quite sure why you posted that drivel but you clearly make comment from a position of ignorance - you haven't done it and don't want to, therefore the rest of us are irresponsible for doing it - hope you're not on duty when someone needs help
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I'm mostly aware of the techniques used by Polish Navy SAR crews, I just have to ask, what is the RAF procedure for rescuing survivors directly from water ? I understand that Royal Navy do have "Rescue Swimmers", as the most maritime SAR crews I know... but how is it done by the RAF ?
sagy - so when someone posts rubbish about night overland SAR (which he clearly hasn't done) and uses words like 'irresponsible' - I'm not allowed to defend those of us who do it regularly and very professionally? Bo**ocks
yourself
Lt Fubar - we keep the winchman attached to the cable and take him to the survivor in the water where he places the rescue strop and they are both winched in.
yourselfLt Fubar - we keep the winchman attached to the cable and take him to the survivor in the water where he places the rescue strop and they are both winched in.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vsf
You are being a little unfair regarding the medical side. Under the new regime on the interim contract, the winchmen are being trained to the same standard as the RAF winchmen and on the same courses, all winchmen will have qualified well before 2012.
I fully agree that a full NVG capability rather than just the back seat crew having the capability would be a major advantage and feel quite sure that common sense will prevail to achieve this. I only hope everyone comes together to achieve that rather than spending so much time bickering.
You are being a little unfair regarding the medical side. Under the new regime on the interim contract, the winchmen are being trained to the same standard as the RAF winchmen and on the same courses, all winchmen will have qualified well before 2012.
I fully agree that a full NVG capability rather than just the back seat crew having the capability would be a major advantage and feel quite sure that common sense will prevail to achieve this. I only hope everyone comes together to achieve that rather than spending so much time bickering.
Last edited by budget1; 4th Apr 2008 at 06:45.
After being involved with with the civilisation of RAF Shawbury when FBS took over, I found that the main problem was that military crews having joined from school or further education had no idea of civil flying. On the other hand a lot of civilian crews had been in the military beforehand and where does one think what aircrew are going to do when they "jump ship" but join the civvy ranks.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the water rescue from a yacht (or similar type thing), the Australian Search and Rescue (AusSar) helo crews are now using a thing called the Droppable life Raft System (DLRS). Basically, we approach the vessel like a hi-line and lower a line to the boat (also on the hook lowered is a bag with some strops, a rescue freq radio and a set of instructions). The line is attached to a solid part of the boat with a carabiner type hook and the helo backs off a wee bit and a life raft (which is attached to the other end of the line) is thrown out of the helo. As it falls or after it hits the water (depending on the height it was thrown), the life raft inflates (and a weak link on the aircraft means that the liferaft is never really attached to the aircraft at all).
The survivors then use a carbiner harness (they attach themselves on the lifejacket at one end) on the previously lowered strop and attach this to the line between the vessel and the raft. They then go for a swim down the line until they bump into the life raft. There is enough slack in the harness line that the survivor can now get into the life raft before unclippling from the rope (and then clipping onto the liferaft so safe again).
Now we just winch out of the raft like normal (overhead winch with no swimming to the raft). By having the raft at about 150ft from the vessel, we find that the vessel gives a good hover reference (much better than nothing) over the raft. A simple and effective system.
We used to use a RN/RAF/RAN sytle highline but this AusSar method is really very good (and they pay for it, and we do yearly currency rides with AusSar to prove our proficiency).
The biggest thing we find is the line on the way down has the biggest tag on it saying ''DO NOT THROW AWAY'', but the survivor will get the bag (and hook on the end of the line) and then throw away the line
, so we have to put the line to the vessel again so they can connect it.
Otherwise
Cheers from WA
The survivors then use a carbiner harness (they attach themselves on the lifejacket at one end) on the previously lowered strop and attach this to the line between the vessel and the raft. They then go for a swim down the line until they bump into the life raft. There is enough slack in the harness line that the survivor can now get into the life raft before unclippling from the rope (and then clipping onto the liferaft so safe again).
Now we just winch out of the raft like normal (overhead winch with no swimming to the raft). By having the raft at about 150ft from the vessel, we find that the vessel gives a good hover reference (much better than nothing) over the raft. A simple and effective system.
We used to use a RN/RAF/RAN sytle highline but this AusSar method is really very good (and they pay for it, and we do yearly currency rides with AusSar to prove our proficiency).
The biggest thing we find is the line on the way down has the biggest tag on it saying ''DO NOT THROW AWAY'', but the survivor will get the bag (and hook on the end of the line) and then throw away the line
, so we have to put the line to the vessel again so they can connect it.Otherwise
Cheers from WA
sunnywa - an interesting technique but only if the sea state permits and/or the casualties are fit and uninjured. If the weather is OK and the people are fine, why do they need rescuing?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assumptions about SAR-H
I found the various posts about overland SAR uneccessarily devisive - some just childish, and many still making assumptions (not surprisingly in the circumstances) about what the SAR-H requirement calls for.
Hitherto (and before the Interim Contract), it is true that the MCA contracts focussed (but by no means exclusively) on delivering martime SAR capability in the UK - but this has not precluded some very effective CG overland missions either, including mountain work in the Outer Hebrides. Given who was paying for the service (DfT/MCA) this should not be surprising to anyone, and it is fair to say that some in the MCA (but by no means all) will have to adjust their thinking once the SAR-H service is fully up and running - that said - so will many in the RAF & RN but from a different angle!
The RAF (and now the RN) introduced a more effective overland capability in the ealry 90s with NVG - and what an improvement in safety and effectiveness that has provided! I for one was never enthusiastic about grobbling up mountain passes in moonlight at very low level - no NVGs, eye balls on stalks and after a dinner on too many carrots! - or plumetting through gaps in clouds to reach rescue locations hoping the Decca Tans was working accurately and that my torch and 50 thou wouldn't fly out the window!! - just too risky at the best of times!
In many ways this SAR NVG capability trod new ground and can be more demanding and exhillarating than that experienced by combat crews on more headline grabbing operations overseas (I have had the pleasure of doing both).
While civil certification of such NVG capability is more problematic than in the military it is not impossible, nor are other effective registration/certification methods for the SAR-H programme. Which is chosen will be seen in due course. However, It is unlikely that any of the SAR-H bidders will not be moving to provide such a capability - or better, given that the new service has to be at least as capable as that provided at present across the UK. The word Harmonisation was chosen very carefully to reflect the need to introduce a common (high standard) of service across the UK and remove the very differences (often cultural and subtle) that many discuss on this site.
Overall though, This improved night capability was introduced in accordance with the RAF's more general responsibility to provide military and civil aeronautical rescue across the UK SRR (land and sea) on behalf of the DfT via the MoD - held formally since 1948. This is often forgotten in the tit for tat debate over civvy or mil capability.
SAR-H capability is not to be "owned" by the CoastGuard - many people seem to assume this - just not so - they are a main stakeholder in SAR-H just as the RAF & RN (via MoD) will continue to be. The programme is jointly "owned" and funded by both the MoD and the DfT (MCA) - their agent is the SAR-H IPT and this is unlikely to change throughout the life of the programme - in so far as 30 year forecasts can be valid. The company that wins will be working closely with the IPT to deliver this harmonised capability under a direct single point of tasking from the UK ARCC. That has to be a great improvement over the arrangements pertaining today - however professional and capable they are at local level at bases and within crews.
Cheers
Hitherto (and before the Interim Contract), it is true that the MCA contracts focussed (but by no means exclusively) on delivering martime SAR capability in the UK - but this has not precluded some very effective CG overland missions either, including mountain work in the Outer Hebrides. Given who was paying for the service (DfT/MCA) this should not be surprising to anyone, and it is fair to say that some in the MCA (but by no means all) will have to adjust their thinking once the SAR-H service is fully up and running - that said - so will many in the RAF & RN but from a different angle!
The RAF (and now the RN) introduced a more effective overland capability in the ealry 90s with NVG - and what an improvement in safety and effectiveness that has provided! I for one was never enthusiastic about grobbling up mountain passes in moonlight at very low level - no NVGs, eye balls on stalks and after a dinner on too many carrots! - or plumetting through gaps in clouds to reach rescue locations hoping the Decca Tans was working accurately and that my torch and 50 thou wouldn't fly out the window!! - just too risky at the best of times!
In many ways this SAR NVG capability trod new ground and can be more demanding and exhillarating than that experienced by combat crews on more headline grabbing operations overseas (I have had the pleasure of doing both).
While civil certification of such NVG capability is more problematic than in the military it is not impossible, nor are other effective registration/certification methods for the SAR-H programme. Which is chosen will be seen in due course. However, It is unlikely that any of the SAR-H bidders will not be moving to provide such a capability - or better, given that the new service has to be at least as capable as that provided at present across the UK. The word Harmonisation was chosen very carefully to reflect the need to introduce a common (high standard) of service across the UK and remove the very differences (often cultural and subtle) that many discuss on this site.
Overall though, This improved night capability was introduced in accordance with the RAF's more general responsibility to provide military and civil aeronautical rescue across the UK SRR (land and sea) on behalf of the DfT via the MoD - held formally since 1948. This is often forgotten in the tit for tat debate over civvy or mil capability.
SAR-H capability is not to be "owned" by the CoastGuard - many people seem to assume this - just not so - they are a main stakeholder in SAR-H just as the RAF & RN (via MoD) will continue to be. The programme is jointly "owned" and funded by both the MoD and the DfT (MCA) - their agent is the SAR-H IPT and this is unlikely to change throughout the life of the programme - in so far as 30 year forecasts can be valid. The company that wins will be working closely with the IPT to deliver this harmonised capability under a direct single point of tasking from the UK ARCC. That has to be a great improvement over the arrangements pertaining today - however professional and capable they are at local level at bases and within crews.
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 4th Apr 2008 at 09:13.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is the IPT planning to physically intergrate mil & civ crews?
Will they be co-located and fly as mixed crews or will there be a couple of all mil crewed bases?
I ask because if the plan is to mix up which I imagine operationally is the best option for 'harmonisation' how will the small number of mil aircrew at each base be career managed?
As I understand it the mil guys will not be permanent SAR but moved from battlefield helos for a couple of years at a time. Therefore they will arrive as the new boy or girl with limited or no SAR experience at a predominantly civ base where no doubt many of the civ crew will have been for a number of years. How can the mil guys expect to ever reach captain status in that environment and timescale? Also who will be writing their career reports??
Will they be co-located and fly as mixed crews or will there be a couple of all mil crewed bases?
I ask because if the plan is to mix up which I imagine operationally is the best option for 'harmonisation' how will the small number of mil aircrew at each base be career managed?
As I understand it the mil guys will not be permanent SAR but moved from battlefield helos for a couple of years at a time. Therefore they will arrive as the new boy or girl with limited or no SAR experience at a predominantly civ base where no doubt many of the civ crew will have been for a number of years. How can the mil guys expect to ever reach captain status in that environment and timescale? Also who will be writing their career reports??
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NQ
Age: 60
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get A Grip
Crab,
Just because you are military doesn't mean you are gods gift to SAR.
Most of the civilian SAR operators that I work with have a fair smattering of ex military SAR personnel and they all appriciate what each other brings to the table.
Maybe there are "other" reasons for the UK SAR going to a civilian organisation
At the end of the day mate chill out and understand that just because you are British (military), doesn't mean that you are the best.
Cheers
Just because you are military doesn't mean you are gods gift to SAR.
Most of the civilian SAR operators that I work with have a fair smattering of ex military SAR personnel and they all appriciate what each other brings to the table.
Maybe there are "other" reasons for the UK SAR going to a civilian organisation
At the end of the day mate chill out and understand that just because you are British (military), doesn't mean that you are the best.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overland sar - big deal!!!!!
Blimey, a few people are touchy about this one.
In my humble opinion, both sides of the fence (civ / mil) do just as good a job and no one really does it any better. We both fly SAR helicopters, at times in atrocious conditions, over land and water, when any normal person would be closing the curtains and turning the tv up.
It matters not if your chosen machine is yellow, grey or red and white or whether at night you live in a green world or black / white. The job gets done regardless.
Change is coming and with it better aircraft, equipment and medical standards, which is good for who? The casualty and thats who we are there for!!!
Cheers
WB
In my humble opinion, both sides of the fence (civ / mil) do just as good a job and no one really does it any better. We both fly SAR helicopters, at times in atrocious conditions, over land and water, when any normal person would be closing the curtains and turning the tv up.
It matters not if your chosen machine is yellow, grey or red and white or whether at night you live in a green world or black / white. The job gets done regardless.
Change is coming and with it better aircraft, equipment and medical standards, which is good for who? The casualty and thats who we are there for!!!
Cheers
WB
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heck! I almost missed this thread!
ROOFUS
I suggest you read TALLSARs post. Its absolutely accurate. So you WILL have to use NVG come 2012.
Spanish Waltzer. It is NOT up to the IPT to do the workign out. They purchase a solution from the winning bidder. So, during selection each bidders puts forward how it is to be done. And I guess some may go for the spread about option - with all the points you mention needing addressing. Others may go for harmonised procedures, equipment but lumped togther. others may go for another solution entirely. But one thing is certain. There is a step change coming for all. The customer is buying the service. You deliver the service to a set of requirements he has laid down. You dont deliver he will hit you with very big penalties. Yes, the world revlolves around money. Here the incentive is to deliver and not get stung.
By George they may just have got it right this time.
Roofus. I have done overland NVG SAR. I risk assessed. I used a light intensifying device that allowed me greater safety operating in the dark below safety altitude. I took my commander duties very seriously and always flew the aircraft with their safety in mind. I resent your remarks when you tar everyone with the same brush just to score a point at Crabb. I never Civvy bash because I recognise all do the same job and get it done - no one being better than each other - plus I am one now! You insult with limited knowledge of what you talk.
You are about to become the Civilian version of Crabb!
ROOFUS
I suggest you read TALLSARs post. Its absolutely accurate. So you WILL have to use NVG come 2012.
Spanish Waltzer. It is NOT up to the IPT to do the workign out. They purchase a solution from the winning bidder. So, during selection each bidders puts forward how it is to be done. And I guess some may go for the spread about option - with all the points you mention needing addressing. Others may go for harmonised procedures, equipment but lumped togther. others may go for another solution entirely. But one thing is certain. There is a step change coming for all. The customer is buying the service. You deliver the service to a set of requirements he has laid down. You dont deliver he will hit you with very big penalties. Yes, the world revlolves around money. Here the incentive is to deliver and not get stung.
By George they may just have got it right this time.
Roofus. I have done overland NVG SAR. I risk assessed. I used a light intensifying device that allowed me greater safety operating in the dark below safety altitude. I took my commander duties very seriously and always flew the aircraft with their safety in mind. I resent your remarks when you tar everyone with the same brush just to score a point at Crabb. I never Civvy bash because I recognise all do the same job and get it done - no one being better than each other - plus I am one now! You insult with limited knowledge of what you talk.
You are about to become the Civilian version of Crabb!
Just Dropped In
Join Date: May 2001
Location: um....er.....
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roofus. I have done overland NVG SAR. I risk assessed. I used a light intensifying device that allowed me greater safety operating in the dark below safety altitude. I took my commander duties very seriously and always flew the aircraft with their safety in mind. I resent your remarks when you tar everyone with the same brush just to score a point at Crabb. I never Civvy bash because I recognise all do the same job and get it done - no one being better than each other - plus I am one now! You insult with limited knowledge of what you talk.
Would've been nice if you'd read my post! You clearly aren't being tarred with the same brush....why? Because you agree with risk assessing every flight etc etc Fantastic! So why launch an attack on me? Everything I said that was IMHO irresponsible, you've clearly said you don't do!
As for have I done overland SAR......occasionally
Would've been nice if you'd read my post! You clearly aren't being tarred with the same brush....why? Because you agree with risk assessing every flight etc etc Fantastic! So why launch an attack on me? Everything I said that was IMHO irresponsible, you've clearly said you don't do!
As for have I done overland SAR......occasionally
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody else share my suspicion that Roofus and HYDPUMP might be the same person? Although, obviously, I can't prove it the probability that 2 people share exactly the same moronic and uninformed opinions, seems rather unlikely.
There is a lot of intelligent debate in this thread if you can be bothered to filter it from the dross posted by the likes of my good friend(s) above.
Standing by for some inane and childish response. In fact I'll help you out; how about accusing me of posting rubbish, that's normally the first thing that appears!
There is a lot of intelligent debate in this thread if you can be bothered to filter it from the dross posted by the likes of my good friend(s) above.
Standing by for some inane and childish response. In fact I'll help you out; how about accusing me of posting rubbish, that's normally the first thing that appears!
Roofus if you read your own post you will se that you have said grubbing around in foul weather looking for people who are not 'life at risk' is irresponsible. I suggest that lots of the people in the Gloucester floods were not strictly 'life at risk' but they were very glad to see a yellow helicopter that night when the cloudbase was 2-300' in heavy rain - would you have turned back from that one?
As others have said, NVG gives an enormous increase in capability, both overland and sea and it is much, much safer to be using goggles than not. As risk assessments go, when you can see the weather before you fly into it and see all the obstructions and hazards, you are much better placed to make a good captaincy decision (which may or may not be to turn back). As Tallsar said, some of the stuff that was done in the mountains before NVG was very scary.
I'm not sure why you believe we are more at risk from pressonitis than you - that implies a lack of professionalism on our part - we often use the MRT and wait below the cloud for them to recover the casualty - sometimes we go into the cloud if the casualty's condition demands it - guess what? we all want to get home for tea and medals as well and are not about to throw caution to the wind.
SARREMF has changed his tune since he was a crab like me That's life in an armani suit I guess
As others have said, NVG gives an enormous increase in capability, both overland and sea and it is much, much safer to be using goggles than not. As risk assessments go, when you can see the weather before you fly into it and see all the obstructions and hazards, you are much better placed to make a good captaincy decision (which may or may not be to turn back). As Tallsar said, some of the stuff that was done in the mountains before NVG was very scary.
I'm not sure why you believe we are more at risk from pressonitis than you - that implies a lack of professionalism on our part - we often use the MRT and wait below the cloud for them to recover the casualty - sometimes we go into the cloud if the casualty's condition demands it - guess what? we all want to get home for tea and medals as well and are not about to throw caution to the wind.
SARREMF has changed his tune since he was a crab like me
That's life in an armani suit I guess
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crabb, up early again then - you must be on shift!
Its more like "life in an M+S" suit actually! Have I changed my tune? No, or perhaps modified my answer now I have met people and talked to them and tried to understand their problems and how they overcome them. Its an interesting world at the end of the day.
Roofus, not wishing to upset you further, I did read your post. Crabb points out the lines I found irritating [is that better for you rather than resent?].
Occasionally - is that the same as limited knowledge? I think so? The point we are all trying to get through to you is this. If you have done overland SAR on a bad night without NVG, then you return to the same place and time but this time with NVG every single person would never take NVG off! Its what the best dressed person is wearing at night these days! Because its safer. Training and education are the controls to pressonitis. By having robust training methods you give your crews the tools and the framework to make sensible decisions based on risk. I think on this bit we agree. It was simply the broad intent of your post that people who use NVG are dangerous. No,actually there is a very clear argument for the contrary.
Please lets not go down the "we do more training than you" debate again after this post. Just remember, if you increase the skills required then the training has to follow too so your monthly training bill increases.
Dont do it Crabb.
Dont ........
Its more like "life in an M+S" suit actually! Have I changed my tune? No, or perhaps modified my answer now I have met people and talked to them and tried to understand their problems and how they overcome them. Its an interesting world at the end of the day.
Roofus, not wishing to upset you further, I did read your post. Crabb points out the lines I found irritating [is that better for you rather than resent?].
Occasionally - is that the same as limited knowledge? I think so? The point we are all trying to get through to you is this. If you have done overland SAR on a bad night without NVG, then you return to the same place and time but this time with NVG every single person would never take NVG off! Its what the best dressed person is wearing at night these days! Because its safer. Training and education are the controls to pressonitis. By having robust training methods you give your crews the tools and the framework to make sensible decisions based on risk. I think on this bit we agree. It was simply the broad intent of your post that people who use NVG are dangerous. No,actually there is a very clear argument for the contrary.
Please lets not go down the "we do more training than you" debate again after this post. Just remember, if you increase the skills required then the training has to follow too so your monthly training bill increases.
Dont do it Crabb.
Dont ........