The end of military SAR?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could not agree more that a good crewey is worth their weight in fuel!
There are plenty of decent amateur polers in that world too - but I wouldn't want any of 'em to drive me into the hills at night. (Dare say a few have said that about me as well!)
There are plenty of decent amateur polers in that world too - but I wouldn't want any of 'em to drive me into the hills at night. (Dare say a few have said that about me as well!)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - couldn't agree with you more. The MCA categorically stated at the outset of SAR Harmonisation that they would not accept a reduction in capability. Moreover, I believe any new civvy aircraft will have the technology to match anything in SAR now, civvy or mil. Its the experience of the crew that gets the most from this technology and is the essential factor in the maintenance of the capability. Undoubtedly, mil crews must be involved post-2012 to ensure this and it will generally be mil leading the civvy crews until the experience base evens out after some years. The outstanding questions are how many mil crews will there be and whose aircraft will they be flying?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
SAR has been done for many years with what kit was available, whether in a Whirlwind without a second engine, NVG or FLIR and the ability to just about lift the skin off a rice pudding or a Sea King with all sorts of kit and masses of power - but what cannot be denied is that as the technology has improved, so has the capability and the safety.
How many posters here are actually in current front line RAF SAR and know what the capabilities of the Mk3 and 3A are - not what they might have been 5 or 10 years ago.
Unless you have used our FLIR/MSS - you won't know what a leap in technology it is over the MCA kit - it may have taken 20 years to get it but it was worth the wait.
Regardless of who ends up running UKSAR, there can't afford to be a reduction in capability - neither the MCA or the govt will sanction that, so one way or another either the military will still be involved or the civvy SAR will have to raise their game.
How many posters here are actually in current front line RAF SAR and know what the capabilities of the Mk3 and 3A are - not what they might have been 5 or 10 years ago.
Unless you have used our FLIR/MSS - you won't know what a leap in technology it is over the MCA kit - it may have taken 20 years to get it but it was worth the wait.
Regardless of who ends up running UKSAR, there can't afford to be a reduction in capability - neither the MCA or the govt will sanction that, so one way or another either the military will still be involved or the civvy SAR will have to raise their game.
1. Does the Sea King have "masses of power"? I suggest you get out more!
2. Was it worth a 20 year wait to get FLIR on the Sea King Mk3/3A? Civilianisation allows equipment to be fitted quicker and cheaper as you don't have to involve all the military red tape and IPTs. The baseline version of the FLIR the Sea King uses has already been flying for several years on some civilian machines, including some leased to the UK mil.
3. You keep talking about the military, but I think you mean the RAF, as many of your comment do not apply to the RN Sea Kings.
4. Have you visited an MCA SAR base - I suggest you do
.Regards
DTD
How did the RAF cope before they haad NVG?
Incidentally, and I am not sure how the coastguard would view this (I assume exactly the same as us) there has been more than one Medevac flown by RAF Sea Kings this week, when a fixed-wing air ambulance has been physically available but not capable of doing the job, as the required incubator did not have CAA approval. There are benefits of a rescue platform (military or civilian) not having to comply with CAA rules.
Dillon - as usual you are one of those resposible for turning SAR threads into pissing contests and name calling; however, to address your pedantic points;
1. Compared to a Whirlwind the Sea King is like a space shuttle in terms of power available - compared to a Chinook it isn't - a fatuous answer to a fatuous question - who is it that needs to get out more?
2. Everyone would have liked FLIR sooner than we got it but it is a top piece of kit far more capable than that on the MCA S61s. The crap management of the Sea King fleet in the past and the appalling way long term fundings are juggled in MOD meant that it took 20 years - there is cock-all any of us can do about that, military procurement is an awful process often made worse by political interference. But - in the civilian world, unless the customer specifically requests a piece of equipment and foots the bill, no-one will fit it - the QWIP FLIR has been available for some time, why haven't Bristows fitted it to improve the S61's capability if it is so easy to do in the 'real world'?
3. Yes most of my comments apply to the RAF since the RN cabs are not to the same spec and SAR is a secondary role for both RNSAR sqns - however, if RAF SAR goes civvy I expect RNSAR will go the same way.
4. Why will visiting a MCA base improve my perspective, just because I haven't flown with them doesn't mean I don't know what they do or what their capabilities are. The MCA are doing a fine job in the face of limited training hours and old equipment and I bet they are looking forward to improved capability with new aircraft and kit.
Oh dear how did I manage to answer your post without having to include it all as a quote?
1. Compared to a Whirlwind the Sea King is like a space shuttle in terms of power available - compared to a Chinook it isn't - a fatuous answer to a fatuous question - who is it that needs to get out more?
2. Everyone would have liked FLIR sooner than we got it but it is a top piece of kit far more capable than that on the MCA S61s. The crap management of the Sea King fleet in the past and the appalling way long term fundings are juggled in MOD meant that it took 20 years - there is cock-all any of us can do about that, military procurement is an awful process often made worse by political interference. But - in the civilian world, unless the customer specifically requests a piece of equipment and foots the bill, no-one will fit it - the QWIP FLIR has been available for some time, why haven't Bristows fitted it to improve the S61's capability if it is so easy to do in the 'real world'?
3. Yes most of my comments apply to the RAF since the RN cabs are not to the same spec and SAR is a secondary role for both RNSAR sqns - however, if RAF SAR goes civvy I expect RNSAR will go the same way.
4. Why will visiting a MCA base improve my perspective, just because I haven't flown with them doesn't mean I don't know what they do or what their capabilities are. The MCA are doing a fine job in the face of limited training hours and old equipment and I bet they are looking forward to improved capability with new aircraft and kit.
Oh dear how did I manage to answer your post without having to include it all as a quote?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Crab, let's not denegrate the RN heroes of 771 and Gannet by calling them secondary roles merchants!? 771 may technically have a different primary role but SAR is the meat and bones of Sqn. Gannet is most assuredly a SAR operation - the clue's in the name: GANNET SAR FLIGHT. Mil SAR types need solidarity in the face of some trying times ahead.
Gents, 2012 will bring some big changes but you can bet your 5% thrust margin that life will still go on, whether us stick-in-the-mud mil boys are driving the cabs or not.
We all want the gold plated solution - the mil understandably want to keep the staus quo, it's a great job and you get all the perks of being a military employee (and the down sides of course). Meanwhile the civs are doing their bit just as well as us and quite rightly see an expansion of their remit as a natural evolution.
It's a massively subjective argument to keep military SAR as is. We do a great job, no bones about it, but money is the driver of all things sadly. As I've said before, any service is better than none - and that's how the MOD/Treasury will see it when it comes to decision time.
I'll personally be sad to see the demise of mil SAR but even a staunch supporter like me good self can't realistically see an alternative to a greater civvy and greatly shrunken mil SAR effort.
Gents, 2012 will bring some big changes but you can bet your 5% thrust margin that life will still go on, whether us stick-in-the-mud mil boys are driving the cabs or not.
We all want the gold plated solution - the mil understandably want to keep the staus quo, it's a great job and you get all the perks of being a military employee (and the down sides of course). Meanwhile the civs are doing their bit just as well as us and quite rightly see an expansion of their remit as a natural evolution.
It's a massively subjective argument to keep military SAR as is. We do a great job, no bones about it, but money is the driver of all things sadly. As I've said before, any service is better than none - and that's how the MOD/Treasury will see it when it comes to decision time.
I'll personally be sad to see the demise of mil SAR but even a staunch supporter like me good self can't realistically see an alternative to a greater civvy and greatly shrunken mil SAR effort.
Scottish Beefer - I am not denigrating 771 or Gannet (I do hate that SAR heroes bollox) but if 771 and Gannet had not been set up with different primary roles (I am led to believe Gannet was originally about submarine escort and rescue) they would not have been established as stand alone SAR sqns/flts.
22 and 202 Sqn have only one role, SAR - that's it.
I agree that we need to provide a united front but SAR Harmonisation hasn't changed anything so far.
My lords and masters keep saying that the RAF will continue to have a major presence in UKSAR and they do seem serious about it - whether or not that holds any sway with the treasury I don't know, I can only hope but the economic writing would seem to be on the wall.
22 and 202 Sqn have only one role, SAR - that's it.
I agree that we need to provide a united front but SAR Harmonisation hasn't changed anything so far.
My lords and masters keep saying that the RAF will continue to have a major presence in UKSAR and they do seem serious about it - whether or not that holds any sway with the treasury I don't know, I can only hope but the economic writing would seem to be on the wall.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - tongue in cheek fella, tongue in cheek.
From personal experience I can tell you that the RN SAR boys have a fair bit of experience in doing the job and they do it right well. I wouldn't want anyone from either unit reading these posts to think they aren't as much a part of the force as the RAF or MCA. (Not that they would!)
From personal experience I can tell you that the RN SAR boys have a fair bit of experience in doing the job and they do it right well. I wouldn't want anyone from either unit reading these posts to think they aren't as much a part of the force as the RAF or MCA. (Not that they would!)
Thoroughly concur SB.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Sea
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why will visiting a MCA base improve my perspective, just because I haven't flown with them doesn't mean I don't know what they do or what their capabilities are. The MCA are doing a fine job in the face of limited training hours and old equipment
You claim you know all about civil SAR and yet in a previous posting in another thread you claimed they didn't have standby aircraft which anyone with even the smallest interest in it knows that not to be true. So what is your knowledge of their training procedures or is it just another case of insulting the civvy's with innuendo?
You posted commercial in confidence contract information on the internet which you and your merry band had been casually discussing in the crew room - so not much discretion there. You have constantly made anti Bristow postings and openly rejoiced when they lost the contract. So you are hardly an unbiased or even handed commentator on this issue.
Why not just come out and say that you hate civil SAR, wish it never happened and have no respect for those that do it. Every comment you makes knocks it although I admit you do it very cleverly and very sneakily.
The sad thing is, is that your postings do more damage to military SAR then anyone else’s. It shows you to be short sighted, stuck in your ways, unwilling to advance further and embrace new ideas and clinging to the past. You’re just too opinionated to see it.
I have flown with military crews and I thank god that none of them are the slightest bit as ignorant as you. Your attitude and postings do you nor your service you purport to represent any favors at all. I feel sorry for you. Still I’ll get over it and move on.... can you?
Return to Sender - On previous threads it has been agreed by those in civil SAR that they don't have anything like as many training hours as we do - cost prohibits it, yet they still get the job done well.(you said coping, I said doing a fine job, somewhat different I think).
I said they had old kit (so have we) - you said it was crap not me.
Do the MCA flights have a declared second standby aircraft and crew available at RS 60? No.
I admitted that I made a mistake ref the contractor info - don't you ever make mistakes.
I don't hate civil SAR - what I do hate is when petty minded and uninformed individuals start knocking military SAR for being too expensive when they haven't got a clue about a. what it costs or b. what you actually get for your money.
As ever, posters like yourself have to resort to name calling and playground insults rather than reasoned and logical debate. But I'll get over it.....
I said they had old kit (so have we) - you said it was crap not me.
Do the MCA flights have a declared second standby aircraft and crew available at RS 60? No.
I admitted that I made a mistake ref the contractor info - don't you ever make mistakes.
I don't hate civil SAR - what I do hate is when petty minded and uninformed individuals start knocking military SAR for being too expensive when they haven't got a clue about a. what it costs or b. what you actually get for your money.
As ever, posters like yourself have to resort to name calling and playground insults rather than reasoned and logical debate. But I'll get over it.....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
.
Do the MCA flights have a declared second standby aircraft and crew available at RS 60? No.
Do the MCA flights have a declared second standby aircraft and crew available at RS 60? No.
After all RCC tells them when we are unserviceable so it's not as if they don't know and yes they could tell the rest off the country.
I Agree with Return to Sender when he says "your postings do more damage to military SAR"
Justin
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Sea
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admitted that I made a mistake ref the contractor info - don't you ever make mistakes.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to do this but I'm fed up with [email protected] throwing mud at the MCA crews.
About 2 weeks ago Lossie went off state because the crew had done two 5 hour jobs and were fatigued. Good work and a good call to take the rest.
But Crab where was your standby aircraft and crew then????
But that is exactly what you do to civil SAR.
NW
Do the MCA flights have a declared second standby aircraft and crew available at RS 60? No.
But Crab where was your standby aircraft and crew then????
what I do hate is when petty minded and uninformed individuals start knocking military SAR for being too expensive when they haven't got a clue about a. what it costs or b. what you actually get for your money.
NW
Night Watchman, I would be interested in the details of the two 5-hour jobs at Lossie and going off state for fatigue. If it's what I think then could you please tell the whole story?
If you want to have a go at Crab then fine, but I would be grateful if you did not twist the story to make a point at Lossie's expense.
Thanks
If you want to have a go at Crab then fine, but I would be grateful if you did not twist the story to make a point at Lossie's expense.
Thanks
Last edited by SAR Bloke; 22nd Apr 2006 at 18:11.
Oh dear incoming again...
RTS - do you really think anything I said or did influenced the contract award in any way shape or form - shows how little you really do know about the real world. CHC won the contract because they offered the MCA the best package - don't blame me for Bristow's shortcomings, blame them.
Dillon - if nobody knows the true cost then how come so many are convinced that contractorisation will be cheaper?
Justin - why is stating the truth that MCA don't have declared seconds 'slagging them off'? I never said our seconds standby serviceability was great, it goes in peaks and troughs because the aircraft are old and tired. We can all look at the RCS and sometimes it makes for very poor reading. Do you think this might be why the whole idea of contracting out SAR was even considered by the military?
Night Watchman - I'm trying to see what your point is - are you saying that an MCA flight wouldn't go off state if the crew were unfit to fly? Sometimes one flight gets hit hard with a series of jobs and the crew is fatigued. If there was not a second standby crew available then it would have been for a very good reason. I have never criticised the MCA crews or their professionalism - only their employers.
RTS - do you really think anything I said or did influenced the contract award in any way shape or form - shows how little you really do know about the real world. CHC won the contract because they offered the MCA the best package - don't blame me for Bristow's shortcomings, blame them.
Dillon - if nobody knows the true cost then how come so many are convinced that contractorisation will be cheaper?
Justin - why is stating the truth that MCA don't have declared seconds 'slagging them off'? I never said our seconds standby serviceability was great, it goes in peaks and troughs because the aircraft are old and tired. We can all look at the RCS and sometimes it makes for very poor reading. Do you think this might be why the whole idea of contracting out SAR was even considered by the military?
Night Watchman - I'm trying to see what your point is - are you saying that an MCA flight wouldn't go off state if the crew were unfit to fly? Sometimes one flight gets hit hard with a series of jobs and the crew is fatigued. If there was not a second standby crew available then it would have been for a very good reason. I have never criticised the MCA crews or their professionalism - only their employers.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab, sorry to quote you again:
"I don't hate civil SAR - what I do hate is when petty minded and uninformed individuals start knocking military SAR for being too expensive when they haven't got a clue about a. what it costs or b. what you actually get for your money".
You imply that you do know what it costs - if you don't then why do you imply that you give value for money and that you are better trained than the "secondary role" RN SAR crews and the MCA crews?
DtD
"I don't hate civil SAR - what I do hate is when petty minded and uninformed individuals start knocking military SAR for being too expensive when they haven't got a clue about a. what it costs or b. what you actually get for your money".
You imply that you do know what it costs - if you don't then why do you imply that you give value for money and that you are better trained than the "secondary role" RN SAR crews and the MCA crews?
DtD
DtD - see my post re: circa £50 million per annum - that wasn't a figure just plucked from the air but stated by a senior officer who should know.
How can we ever hope to give value for money when we don't aim to make a profit out of doing our job?
Enough MCA guys have agreed that they would love to have more training hours - we get them so shouldn't that mean we are better trained? And just to clarify, I don't mean better professionally at SAR but better trained over a wider range of disciplines.
I certainly haven't said or implied that we are better trained than the RN crews - I do know that the exchange winchmen and pilots we get at Chivenor are impressed with how the RAF do SAR.
Now which bit of this post will get quoted, misinterpreted and maligned?
How can we ever hope to give value for money when we don't aim to make a profit out of doing our job?
Enough MCA guys have agreed that they would love to have more training hours - we get them so shouldn't that mean we are better trained? And just to clarify, I don't mean better professionally at SAR but better trained over a wider range of disciplines.
I certainly haven't said or implied that we are better trained than the RN crews - I do know that the exchange winchmen and pilots we get at Chivenor are impressed with how the RAF do SAR.
Now which bit of this post will get quoted, misinterpreted and maligned?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
I try not to misquote you, nor malign you, but it does seem that anybody who disagrees with you (it is not just me) is accused of starting a pi$$ing contest as you start to tantrum. Now please read my comments below and respond in an adult manner, perhaps after reading about Transactional Analysis in your CRM notes.
The trouble with the Defence Vote is that many of the costs are buried, does that precise figure of "circa £50 million" include all the civil servants supporting the MOD, or is it just the day-to-day running figure of the 6 RAF SAR flights? If it is the latter then the true cost is much greater than "circa £50 million". A lot of time and money is wasted by the MOD during the procurement process, especially by the incompetents at Abbey Wood and elsewhere; for example the Nimrod fiascos, Typhoon over budget and years late, Chinook Mk2 FADEC, Chinook Mk3 unable to fly IMC and latterly the Apache coming into service without crews to fly it. In the end the front line suffers, such as you taking 20 years to get FLIR. In the civil world there is an element of Darwinism, if you screw up you lose money and get sacked - you don't get promoted and moved onto the next job. See link below, paragraph 27 is particularly relevant:
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../386/38607.htm
As far as your comments go on training, you may be better trained over a wider range of disciplines, by which I presume you mean things like tactical flying and I agree that is relevant for a military pilot. However, as far as civil SAR goes such extra training is irrelevant although good fun for the crews!
btw Where is Crabette?
DtD
I try not to misquote you, nor malign you, but it does seem that anybody who disagrees with you (it is not just me) is accused of starting a pi$$ing contest as you start to tantrum. Now please read my comments below and respond in an adult manner, perhaps after reading about Transactional Analysis in your CRM notes.
The trouble with the Defence Vote is that many of the costs are buried, does that precise figure of "circa £50 million" include all the civil servants supporting the MOD, or is it just the day-to-day running figure of the 6 RAF SAR flights? If it is the latter then the true cost is much greater than "circa £50 million". A lot of time and money is wasted by the MOD during the procurement process, especially by the incompetents at Abbey Wood and elsewhere; for example the Nimrod fiascos, Typhoon over budget and years late, Chinook Mk2 FADEC, Chinook Mk3 unable to fly IMC and latterly the Apache coming into service without crews to fly it. In the end the front line suffers, such as you taking 20 years to get FLIR. In the civil world there is an element of Darwinism, if you screw up you lose money and get sacked - you don't get promoted and moved onto the next job. See link below, paragraph 27 is particularly relevant:
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../386/38607.htm
As far as your comments go on training, you may be better trained over a wider range of disciplines, by which I presume you mean things like tactical flying and I agree that is relevant for a military pilot. However, as far as civil SAR goes such extra training is irrelevant although good fun for the crews!
btw Where is Crabette?
DtD