The end of military SAR?
Thread Starter
The end of military SAR?
UK to unify SAR helicopter service
Private finance initiative aims to replace military and civilian search-and-rescue fleets under a single contract
A competition to select a service provider to operate the UK’s search-and-rescue (SAR) helicopter force is to be launched next year.
The unique cross-department project will replace military helicopters from the RAF and Royal Navy, as well as chartered civilian helicopters operated on behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) from 2012, according to Ministry of Defence sources.
A joint MoD and Department for Transport (DfT) integrated project team at the Defence Procurement Agency proposed the private finance initiative (PFI) solution last year. This year expressions of interest are being sought from industry before a full-blown competition is launched formally next year that could be worth up to £1 billion ($1.75 billion) over 25 years, say industry sources.
The new project aims to replace both the existing military and civilian SAR helicopter fleets and bring them under a single umbrella contract to reduce operating costs.
Plans for UK SAR harmonisation could see a private sector contractor provide between 30 and 40 helicopters to provide SAR coverage from up to a dozen sites around the UK coastline. Under the 25-year “power by the hour” contract, the UK government would pay for use of the helicopters, which would remain in civilian ownership and on the civil aircraft register.
These new helicopters would not be configured to take part in combat operations outside the UK. It is expected that international manufacturers, including AgustaWestland, EADS and Sikorsky, will team with helicopter leasing companies for the contest.
The DfT and the Treasury have been pushing for all peacetime SAR operations in the UK to be handed over to civilian operators to save money, but the RAF and Royal Navy successfully resisted the plans.
TIM RIPLEY / LONDON
Private finance initiative aims to replace military and civilian search-and-rescue fleets under a single contract
A competition to select a service provider to operate the UK’s search-and-rescue (SAR) helicopter force is to be launched next year.
The unique cross-department project will replace military helicopters from the RAF and Royal Navy, as well as chartered civilian helicopters operated on behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) from 2012, according to Ministry of Defence sources.
A joint MoD and Department for Transport (DfT) integrated project team at the Defence Procurement Agency proposed the private finance initiative (PFI) solution last year. This year expressions of interest are being sought from industry before a full-blown competition is launched formally next year that could be worth up to £1 billion ($1.75 billion) over 25 years, say industry sources.
The new project aims to replace both the existing military and civilian SAR helicopter fleets and bring them under a single umbrella contract to reduce operating costs.
Plans for UK SAR harmonisation could see a private sector contractor provide between 30 and 40 helicopters to provide SAR coverage from up to a dozen sites around the UK coastline. Under the 25-year “power by the hour” contract, the UK government would pay for use of the helicopters, which would remain in civilian ownership and on the civil aircraft register.
These new helicopters would not be configured to take part in combat operations outside the UK. It is expected that international manufacturers, including AgustaWestland, EADS and Sikorsky, will team with helicopter leasing companies for the contest.
The DfT and the Treasury have been pushing for all peacetime SAR operations in the UK to be handed over to civilian operators to save money, but the RAF and Royal Navy successfully resisted the plans.
TIM RIPLEY / LONDON
The joint DfT and military project team is the same SAR(H) team that sorted out the recent bidding and award process for the interim contract given to CHC.
The MOD has firmly backed continued military presence in UK SAR so the probable outcome is COMR (Civilian Owned Military Registered) to allow this to happen.
I suspect the aircraft will have an MCA corporate paint scheme but you will have pilots from RAF, RN and MCA flying them.
The MOD has firmly backed continued military presence in UK SAR so the probable outcome is COMR (Civilian Owned Military Registered) to allow this to happen.
I suspect the aircraft will have an MCA corporate paint scheme but you will have pilots from RAF, RN and MCA flying them.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The writing is on the wall of Military SAR
It seems that the arguement of who should do SAR and who can do SAR in the UK is about to raise it's head again and no doubt however hard anybody tries on this thread to stop silly bickering, mindless chat will be posted. However, in a effort to make my opinion known whilst risking the senseless moaning and ill-informed 'chat' from both sides of the fence, I will put my tu'pence worth in now before it all goes mad.
The RAF have clearly stated that they must maintain a SAR capability, not for UK peacetime but for its deployed operations which are on the increase every year. Agreed that UK peacetime SAR is an ideal way to get 'experience' but is that experience really what is required for CSAR/TSAR operations? Well, 28 Sqn have just announced they have such a capability but when one examines what they can do, how much of it needs experience gained from the UK SAR arena? Not much I believe.
With that in mind, the RAF does not need 30 crews around the UK to support a small CSAR capability within 28 Sqn? The announcement in the aviation press this week states that the RAF and RN have successfully resisted plans for all peacetime SAR ops to be handed over to civilian operators. Surely the RAF is going to be hard pushed to maintain the justification now. This announceent is the clearest indication yet that things are going to change. The RAF and RN may still resist but if they give in to a civilian operation with some RAF and RN crews flying those civilian registered aircraft, they will still be able to maintain some of the required expertise and they will not have handed over [I]all[I] of the UK SAR.
Views that the system will probably go COMR I do not think will happen. The most important point of the article issued this week is the 'power by the hour' contract. I see this as the helicopters coming under the authority of an agency such as the MCA, but the MOD paying for the use of those helicopters when the military need arises. The aircraft would be civilian owned and operated but with RAF crews dotted around the bases - certainly not 30 crews however. The CAA believe military personnel flying G- aircraft is a feasible option. Likewise, if the equipment and training of the civilian crews matches that currently used by the RAF today, then the capabilities between now and then will not be any different.
The writing is on the wall. The AB twins who will be taking up the command of RAF Sqns within the next year will be the penultimate SAR Sqn Commanders I believe. A shame it will be, but the RAF and RN have done their job extremely well in a time when them military control of SAR was right. Times have changed and now so, I believe, will UK SAR.
There will be no drop in the service provided. I see many of the current crews moving across to civvy street, to pick up their pensions and a much bigger pay cheque. No detachments, no secondary duties. Just a different coloured flying suit.
CHC's 5 year contarct will be carried out using AB139s and S92s. This is the way SAR needs to go and unless the military divulge much of the control of SAR, then we are not going to see the much needed platform replacement so desperately needed now that the Sea Kings have been on their last legs for years now.
Now let the replies flow............
The RAF have clearly stated that they must maintain a SAR capability, not for UK peacetime but for its deployed operations which are on the increase every year. Agreed that UK peacetime SAR is an ideal way to get 'experience' but is that experience really what is required for CSAR/TSAR operations? Well, 28 Sqn have just announced they have such a capability but when one examines what they can do, how much of it needs experience gained from the UK SAR arena? Not much I believe.
With that in mind, the RAF does not need 30 crews around the UK to support a small CSAR capability within 28 Sqn? The announcement in the aviation press this week states that the RAF and RN have successfully resisted plans for all peacetime SAR ops to be handed over to civilian operators. Surely the RAF is going to be hard pushed to maintain the justification now. This announceent is the clearest indication yet that things are going to change. The RAF and RN may still resist but if they give in to a civilian operation with some RAF and RN crews flying those civilian registered aircraft, they will still be able to maintain some of the required expertise and they will not have handed over [I]all[I] of the UK SAR.
Views that the system will probably go COMR I do not think will happen. The most important point of the article issued this week is the 'power by the hour' contract. I see this as the helicopters coming under the authority of an agency such as the MCA, but the MOD paying for the use of those helicopters when the military need arises. The aircraft would be civilian owned and operated but with RAF crews dotted around the bases - certainly not 30 crews however. The CAA believe military personnel flying G- aircraft is a feasible option. Likewise, if the equipment and training of the civilian crews matches that currently used by the RAF today, then the capabilities between now and then will not be any different.
The writing is on the wall. The AB twins who will be taking up the command of RAF Sqns within the next year will be the penultimate SAR Sqn Commanders I believe. A shame it will be, but the RAF and RN have done their job extremely well in a time when them military control of SAR was right. Times have changed and now so, I believe, will UK SAR.
There will be no drop in the service provided. I see many of the current crews moving across to civvy street, to pick up their pensions and a much bigger pay cheque. No detachments, no secondary duties. Just a different coloured flying suit.
CHC's 5 year contarct will be carried out using AB139s and S92s. This is the way SAR needs to go and unless the military divulge much of the control of SAR, then we are not going to see the much needed platform replacement so desperately needed now that the Sea Kings have been on their last legs for years now.
Now let the replies flow............
Does this mean SAR becomes Public Transport since there is a charge being levied for the flight and passengers are being transported?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless - SAR in the UK would be just like HEMS anywhere - i'm sure it would run on the same grounds.
Thomas - I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm not going to get into a bun fight, but perhaps you'd like to add your views on the matter. All I was suggesting is that it would be good if this thread might stayed in the realms of a reasonable argument that's all. We shall see........
Thomas - I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm not going to get into a bun fight, but perhaps you'd like to add your views on the matter. All I was suggesting is that it would be good if this thread might stayed in the realms of a reasonable argument that's all. We shall see........
mallardpi
"The CAA believe military personnel flying G- aircraft is a feasible option."
This already done with AEF pilots flying G-reg Grob Tutors and vice versa with civilian pilots flying mil reg 365N2s for the Navy.
It would make more sense for the SAR a/c to be on the mil reg as they then can work to mil rules not civilian.
HF
"The CAA believe military personnel flying G- aircraft is a feasible option."
This already done with AEF pilots flying G-reg Grob Tutors and vice versa with civilian pilots flying mil reg 365N2s for the Navy.
It would make more sense for the SAR a/c to be on the mil reg as they then can work to mil rules not civilian.
HF
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA are considering allowing a civvy SAR operation to work to limits equal to those of the military. As long as the crews are trained to the correct standards and are using the right equipment there should be no problem. The only concern for the CAA is third party risk - which is a concern to the military and civvys alike already.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Mallardpi, I think your close to the answer but not quite there. You can have military crews within a PFI all on the civil register - people have already given you examples. You only consider 28 Sqn for the skill transfer because you dont value your own skills enough. It is not winching you take to the SH force it is a mindset, a rapid response mind set and the ability to change rapidly. That said, before the SH mates dive in for a kill, they too have this but it IS in a different way. Yes, you also bring the SAR experience but do not ever think its your winching skills. Wiht this in mind, you became more use to the wider SH community - even though they probably will never admit it!
Now to the anouncement, I see nothing here that says end of mil SAR, reduced yes, different yes, but not over. Someone will get the contract, they will provide assets, crews and a management system which willsatisfy both sides of hte equation - mil and civil.
Dont fear change, it might actually be better - possibly?
Now to the anouncement, I see nothing here that says end of mil SAR, reduced yes, different yes, but not over. Someone will get the contract, they will provide assets, crews and a management system which willsatisfy both sides of hte equation - mil and civil.
Dont fear change, it might actually be better - possibly?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Civilian SAR has training limits not too dissimilar to the MOD, however since at present it is piggy backed onto the Companies Public Transport AOC, it is afforded CAA dispensations for training particular to the SAR environment. There are also company ops manual limits on training limits to provide a sensible, safety margin for the Crew and aircraft. These constraints don’t exclude the crews from achieving sound practise on a daily basis.
A civilianised UK SAR organisation would no doubt be set up without the limitation of the public transport AOC i.e it should have an AOC dedicated to SAR. As for actual SAR missions, at present there are not limits imposed by the CAA on what can be achieved or flown….just like the MOD crews. As long as a crew can justify what they have done to “save life” then you are quids in. The present UK MOD SAR crews aren’t going to double away aboard to do rescues in time of armed conflict…plenty of other great crews out there to do that….no magic involved. So the fact it will be in a civilian guise will not matter really.
A civilianised UK SAR organisation would no doubt be set up without the limitation of the public transport AOC i.e it should have an AOC dedicated to SAR. As for actual SAR missions, at present there are not limits imposed by the CAA on what can be achieved or flown….just like the MOD crews. As long as a crew can justify what they have done to “save life” then you are quids in. The present UK MOD SAR crews aren’t going to double away aboard to do rescues in time of armed conflict…plenty of other great crews out there to do that….no magic involved. So the fact it will be in a civilian guise will not matter really.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main difference between the current mil and civil rules is that the civilians tend to winch train at a single engine hover weight, whilst the mil can be committed. With new aircraft coming in 2012 this will be less of an issue.
Any news on how the AW139 is progressing/developing for the SAR role? Feedback from a couple of civil operators show it is not quite what the brochure promised.
Did SAR (H) make a wise choice and if not what will they do better for 2012?
DTD
Any news on how the AW139 is progressing/developing for the SAR role? Feedback from a couple of civil operators show it is not quite what the brochure promised.
Did SAR (H) make a wise choice and if not what will they do better for 2012?
DTD
UK Civilian SAR has training limits not too dissimilar to the MOD
The simple fact is, that under current rules and through no fault of the crews, the civilian SAR operators are unable to offer the same 'completeness' of service of a military unit. Granted the NVG issue could change if the CAA so decide but they have been extremely reluctanct to do so in the past. The only civilian operators that I am aware of, that use NVG, have rules that would be impossible to follow in a SAR environment.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVGs are not an issue either, the CAA have developed rules now used by the police and the JAA have approved procedures - TGL 34 if I remember correctly.
The MCA units have not developed the use of NVGs as 90+% of their SAR work is overwater where NVGs are not that helpful and they have had FLIR for decades, unlike the UK mil.
DTD
The MCA units have not developed the use of NVGs as 90+% of their SAR work is overwater where NVGs are not that helpful and they have had FLIR for decades, unlike the UK mil.
DTD
NVG's are still a BIG issue. As far as I am aware the civvy NVG rules state that they are a back-up to standard night techniques. I also believe that they cannot be used at low-level (below 500' from what people tell me). That is of very little use for SAR and if the civvy route is chosen then these rules will have to be looked at again. I may be wrong is I haven't read the rules myself.
I agree that MCA's roots are in overwater rescue. However, if the whole UK were to go civvy then who would do the overland night SAR (granted that not all overland night SAR needs NVG's but a lot does)? If I were to choose between FLIR or NVG I don't think it would take me too long to decide.
I agree that MCA's roots are in overwater rescue. However, if the whole UK were to go civvy then who would do the overland night SAR (granted that not all overland night SAR needs NVG's but a lot does)? If I were to choose between FLIR or NVG I don't think it would take me too long to decide.
... if the whole UK (SAR) were to go civvy then who would do the overland night SAR ...?
Well gosh....lessseee here....uh...err....the SAR folks?
After being rigged with NVG's and trained....with the instant approval process the CAA would grant them after the talking bone jingled from down the road and the voice from ON High suggests "get yer fingers out and make this happen!"
Ah, we're back around some of the same buoys of previous threads - if the CAA change their rules regarding NVG and any other legislation that prevents SAROps and training being completed to an acceptable standard, then we might see an end to mil SAR. If not, then either a reduction in capability will have to be accepted by those who pay the bill (presuming all civ SAR in 2012) or we will continue to see mil pilots in SAR helos whether on the mil or civvy register.
SAR Bloke,
When the guidance for civilian use of NVIS were formulated and JAA TGL 34 written, the decision was taken not to constrain their use by setting arbitrary limits. The weather limits were aligned to those that were specific to the type of operation - thus permitting variation according to the task.
NVIS is not considered to be a "back-up to standard night techniques"; it is accepted that appropriate techniques should be used and the TGL contains many pages of guidance to assist with their formulation. What you might be alluding to is the policy that the limits on weather for Night VFR should not be lowered for NVIS - that was jointly agreed between the FAA/JAA and RTCA/EUROCAE when the task of providing regulations was started.
We were also mindful that existing NVG use in specific phases of operation - particularly transition in landing and take-off - had been evolved by operators over a number of years; we were therefore reluctant to be specific and instead tied this to procedures contained in the Operations Manual.
We were also interested in generalising the text so that NVIS could be used in areas of aviation other than CAT; in fact the only NPA for NVIS that has been produced and circulated for comment in Europe was the ANPA for JAR-OPS 0, 2 and 4 (general aviation, corporate aviation and aerial work).
Even before the JAA started work on TGL 34, the CAA already had a limit of operations of 500' for one of their operators; that was proposed to the working group but the JAA decided, after much debate, not to align the text with that policy.
Jim
When the guidance for civilian use of NVIS were formulated and JAA TGL 34 written, the decision was taken not to constrain their use by setting arbitrary limits. The weather limits were aligned to those that were specific to the type of operation - thus permitting variation according to the task.
NVIS is not considered to be a "back-up to standard night techniques"; it is accepted that appropriate techniques should be used and the TGL contains many pages of guidance to assist with their formulation. What you might be alluding to is the policy that the limits on weather for Night VFR should not be lowered for NVIS - that was jointly agreed between the FAA/JAA and RTCA/EUROCAE when the task of providing regulations was started.
We were also mindful that existing NVG use in specific phases of operation - particularly transition in landing and take-off - had been evolved by operators over a number of years; we were therefore reluctant to be specific and instead tied this to procedures contained in the Operations Manual.
We were also interested in generalising the text so that NVIS could be used in areas of aviation other than CAT; in fact the only NPA for NVIS that has been produced and circulated for comment in Europe was the ANPA for JAR-OPS 0, 2 and 4 (general aviation, corporate aviation and aerial work).
Even before the JAA started work on TGL 34, the CAA already had a limit of operations of 500' for one of their operators; that was proposed to the working group but the JAA decided, after much debate, not to align the text with that policy.
Jim
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help thinking that Crab and SAR Bloke are clutching at straws again, ie civies can't do SAR because they don't have NVGs. How have the RN managed, I don't remember Culdrose and Gannet having NVG compatible Sea Kings, unless things have recently changed.
As JimL says operators can develop their own rules and when the requirement exists they will develop them.
Crab, what do you mean by "if the CAA change their rules regarding NVG and any other legislation that prevents SAROps and training being completed to an acceptable standard, then we might see an end to mil SAR".
Would you like to explain what you mean, as most of us who have been involved in both sides of the mil/civil world don't see what you mean. Many of your previous posts on SAR have shown you to be ignorant of the outside world (except when you leaked the MCA bid details), is this another example?
DTD
As JimL says operators can develop their own rules and when the requirement exists they will develop them.
Crab, what do you mean by "if the CAA change their rules regarding NVG and any other legislation that prevents SAROps and training being completed to an acceptable standard, then we might see an end to mil SAR".
Would you like to explain what you mean, as most of us who have been involved in both sides of the mil/civil world don't see what you mean. Many of your previous posts on SAR have shown you to be ignorant of the outside world (except when you leaked the MCA bid details), is this another example?
DTD
I don't see why the MOD/Home Office don't use 2012 as an excuse to remove the mil in its entirety from "civvy" SAR. As it stands now, the mil are utilised for approx 90% of their time with civvy tasking on and offshore. WHY?
We all know the mil is a lumbering beomoth financially - accepted it is falling into line with good working practice along commercial lines in a number of their depts - but there is still a long way to go, I would suggest.
Let the civvy SAR companies do what they know best - they are more maleable to market forces and can adopt and adapt very quickly.
JAR 3.005(h) gives the rules for SAR training NOT the CAA.
Currently civvies have to fly training missions (note: not live ones) where a critical unit failure does NOT jeopardise the crew/aircraft. Small cabs like the 109 / 365 etc often find this regulation difficult to attain.
How they go about it then - requires exemptions from European law, not national law.
NVG is potrntially available to the deck (and is as we speak being profiled right now, by the CAA). NVG will NOT be a hurdle for civvy SAR, believe me.
The biggest issue for any current/future SAR operator, is without doubt - litigation issues. The mil are feeling this intensely lately and I have a feeling they would want to wash their hands of it IF there is a suitable alternative......and there is. Watch CHC over the next few years [No connection with them either].
We all know the mil is a lumbering beomoth financially - accepted it is falling into line with good working practice along commercial lines in a number of their depts - but there is still a long way to go, I would suggest.
Let the civvy SAR companies do what they know best - they are more maleable to market forces and can adopt and adapt very quickly.
JAR 3.005(h) gives the rules for SAR training NOT the CAA.
Currently civvies have to fly training missions (note: not live ones) where a critical unit failure does NOT jeopardise the crew/aircraft. Small cabs like the 109 / 365 etc often find this regulation difficult to attain.
How they go about it then - requires exemptions from European law, not national law.
NVG is potrntially available to the deck (and is as we speak being profiled right now, by the CAA). NVG will NOT be a hurdle for civvy SAR, believe me.
The biggest issue for any current/future SAR operator, is without doubt - litigation issues. The mil are feeling this intensely lately and I have a feeling they would want to wash their hands of it IF there is a suitable alternative......and there is. Watch CHC over the next few years [No connection with them either].