UK SAR Harmonisation
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flung dung I think you could be correct! State a position, get caught out some time later in a complete 180, wriggle like a good 'en, then distort the facts. brilliant. Crabb for PM, Crabb for PM. I'll vote for you! [Bet you use that as the subject of your retort not the rest below!]
Crabb, the interim contract DID NOT lead to the formation of SAR-H! The reason it is called interim is because the IPT [it was SABR, SABR SAR then SAR-H as a stand alone] couldnt get the 2 ends to match - the MoD end and the MCA, thus the MCA needed a boost for 5 years to allow convergence! Big word I shall use it more often!
To say that the interim contract led to the formation of SAR-H is distorting the facts. At about the same time the IPTs were shuffling to brigade themeselves into a working formation. It had become obvious that SABR and SAR could not go the same way as they differed so much in requirements. Thus the decision was taken to split and rename/form as its own IPT. In parallel, the Interim contract was being used to check due process in the new IPT and, because the MCA wanted specialist help in assessing the aviation element of the bid, several elements of the SAR force were brought in to help - these being mainly RAF. Although I paraphrase, this is actually public record and the feature of at least one presentation from the IPT.
Lost at Sea. You are clearly a staff officer! Used to putting documents together flagged for your superiors attention. I salute your ability to trawl through Crabbs posts and electronically flag the 180 about turn!
Crabb, sorry old chum, the case for the prosecution does appear pretty cast iron with evidence from your own fingers.
Punishment. I fear the worst for you! You shall be sent from your haven to operate for one year with......the civies. Hung around your neck shall be a sign saying " I am Crabb@savvn I love civies"!
Crabb, the interim contract DID NOT lead to the formation of SAR-H! The reason it is called interim is because the IPT [it was SABR, SABR SAR then SAR-H as a stand alone] couldnt get the 2 ends to match - the MoD end and the MCA, thus the MCA needed a boost for 5 years to allow convergence! Big word I shall use it more often!
To say that the interim contract led to the formation of SAR-H is distorting the facts. At about the same time the IPTs were shuffling to brigade themeselves into a working formation. It had become obvious that SABR and SAR could not go the same way as they differed so much in requirements. Thus the decision was taken to split and rename/form as its own IPT. In parallel, the Interim contract was being used to check due process in the new IPT and, because the MCA wanted specialist help in assessing the aviation element of the bid, several elements of the SAR force were brought in to help - these being mainly RAF. Although I paraphrase, this is actually public record and the feature of at least one presentation from the IPT.
Lost at Sea. You are clearly a staff officer! Used to putting documents together flagged for your superiors attention. I salute your ability to trawl through Crabbs posts and electronically flag the 180 about turn!
Crabb, sorry old chum, the case for the prosecution does appear pretty cast iron with evidence from your own fingers.
Punishment. I fear the worst for you! You shall be sent from your haven to operate for one year with......the civies. Hung around your neck shall be a sign saying " I am Crabb@savvn I love civies"!
No matter how much you gang up and quote previous posts (a particularly tabloidesque pastime) the facts are simple -
1.The RAF did assist with the interim contract but only on a consultancy basis and Bristows bid was found to be significantly inferior to CHC's.
2. The CHC operation seems better than the Bristow's one (as I said), new aircraft being a significant part of that.
3. After the interim contract (though not directly linked as you think I imply) SARH came into being but with only a small RAF contingent.
Can't see a 180 position change here at all but you keep on looking if you find my work so interesting
There'll be a job with the Daily Mail for the one who manages to distort the facts the most
I'm sorry I forgot to detail all the inner workings of and the history of the formation of the IPT's but a. I couldn't be arsed and b. I didn't think anyone would care anyway
1.The RAF did assist with the interim contract but only on a consultancy basis and Bristows bid was found to be significantly inferior to CHC's.
2. The CHC operation seems better than the Bristow's one (as I said), new aircraft being a significant part of that.
3. After the interim contract (though not directly linked as you think I imply) SARH came into being but with only a small RAF contingent.
Can't see a 180 position change here at all but you keep on looking if you find my work so interesting
There'll be a job with the Daily Mail for the one who manages to distort the facts the mostI'm sorry I forgot to detail all the inner workings of and the history of the formation of the IPT's but a. I couldn't be arsed and b. I didn't think anyone would care anyway
Crab
How do you work that out then?
Four new aircraft up north, which you seem pretty good at slagging off, (lack of range etc.) but still crewed by mainly ex Bristow people!
The southern bases are still in the process of transition, using Bristow owned S61s at Lee until at least July. The 139 is not yet up to all weather standard and won't be for some time yet. Less endurance than the 61 as well. Oh. No icing clearance either!
So how is that better??
Yes agreed, Bristow took their eyes off the ball with this contract but I bet that won't happen again!
Who do you think gives the MCA their information then?
3D
The CHC operation seems better than the Bristow's one (as I said), new aircraft being a significant part of that
Four new aircraft up north, which you seem pretty good at slagging off, (lack of range etc.) but still crewed by mainly ex Bristow people!
The southern bases are still in the process of transition, using Bristow owned S61s at Lee until at least July. The 139 is not yet up to all weather standard and won't be for some time yet. Less endurance than the 61 as well. Oh. No icing clearance either!
So how is that better??
Yes agreed, Bristow took their eyes off the ball with this contract but I bet that won't happen again!
As for CHC - they are providing a good service - it's just that some of the claims made regarding the platform's capability have not been substantiated - this is probably because the MCA do the press releases and don't quite understand the issues
3D
3D - as I understand it, there are significantly more ex-RAF peeps working for CHC now, both front and rear crew - so of course the operation must be better
Maybe you should be taking a loyalty pill as you cross to CHC or the thought police will have you!!
I'm allowed to make fun of the poor range of the S92 but I'd still like a shiny new helicopter to do my job in.
If CHC are giving the MCA the press releases then they should probably sack their PR firm
I gather the original design for the 139 in SAR role had no means of getting from the cabin to the cockpit internally or vice versa - please don't tell me this is on the production SAR aircraft. Does the 1000kg aux fuel tank stuck at the aft end of the cabin cause C of G problems?
Maybe you should be taking a loyalty pill as you cross to CHC or the thought police will have you!!
I'm allowed to make fun of the poor range of the S92 but I'd still like a shiny new helicopter to do my job in.
If CHC are giving the MCA the press releases then they should probably sack their PR firm
I gather the original design for the 139 in SAR role had no means of getting from the cabin to the cockpit internally or vice versa - please don't tell me this is on the production SAR aircraft. Does the 1000kg aux fuel tank stuck at the aft end of the cabin cause C of G problems?
Crab
You are correct to a degree. There is the centre console to clamber over. But why would you want to go from back to front anyway? or vice versa?
C of G problem? What C of G problem?
PR firm? Now that has got be the best joke this year!
WT
There will be harmony. We will all kiss and make up at the end of the day. (That's an order BTW!)
3D
I gather the original design for the 139 in SAR role had no means of getting from the cabin to the cockpit internally or vice versa - please don't tell me this is on the production SAR aircraft
C of G problem? What C of G problem?
PR firm? Now that has got be the best joke this year!
WT
There will be harmony. We will all kiss and make up at the end of the day. (That's an order BTW!)
3D
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a bug - it's a feature
I gather the original design for the 139 in SAR role had no means of getting from the cabin to the cockpit internally or vice versa
3D - I guess no-one at your end has thought what you will do if the winchman is incapacitated, either in the aircraft or on the ground/deck/in the sea and the co-pilot needs to start earning his money by either winchopping or winchmanning to save lives. Or, what if you have multiple casualties requiring CPR/restraint/TLC and the co is needed.
I didn't say there was a C of G problem, I asked if there was one - shoving 1000kgs of fuel way aft of the rotor mast usually causes problems in helicopters but I notice the cockpit is a long way forward of the mast - a couple of fat pilots should sort any load and balance problems
Leopold - there will be harmony when everyone is doing it our way
I didn't say there was a C of G problem, I asked if there was one - shoving 1000kgs of fuel way aft of the rotor mast usually causes problems in helicopters but I notice the cockpit is a long way forward of the mast - a couple of fat pilots should sort any load and balance problems
Leopold - there will be harmony when everyone is doing it our way
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crabb.
The Bulkhead is an option which has been removed on most SAR cabs so I am told! Oh, the auxillary tank is 400kgs not 1000kgs.
To be honest though, is it me or is this thread getting a bit tiresome? Same old same old going backwards and forwards! We could always stop posting for a time, wait and see how CHC does over say .... 6 months. Then start again?
Yep, Ok where is the fun in that!
The Bulkhead is an option which has been removed on most SAR cabs so I am told! Oh, the auxillary tank is 400kgs not 1000kgs.
To be honest though, is it me or is this thread getting a bit tiresome? Same old same old going backwards and forwards! We could always stop posting for a time, wait and see how CHC does over say .... 6 months. Then start again?
Yep, Ok where is the fun in that!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab, whilst your understanding of the whole SAR-H process is at best questionable and your obvious bias towards the 'military' way of thinking is blinding, may I suggest that you take the time to realise that things will change.
What will happen in 2012 will be anyones guess but I can guarantee that everyone who contributes or reads this forum who is a SAR professional like yourself, will know that when the time comes we will do our jobs and we will do them damn well, and that the UK will continue to have the finest SAR service in the world and we will all play our respectives roles.
What will happen in 2012 will be anyones guess but I can guarantee that everyone who contributes or reads this forum who is a SAR professional like yourself, will know that when the time comes we will do our jobs and we will do them damn well, and that the UK will continue to have the finest SAR service in the world and we will all play our respectives roles.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Over the rainbow
Age: 51
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then lets see who comes forward with his begging bowl looking for a job then! And yes there are ex RAF doing the job and Navy and Army too plus the pure civilian SAR trained guys/girls. All working well together.
Nah, I'm waiting for SARREMF to offer me a job when he realises there aren't that many current A2 SAR QHIs with 2000 hrs Lynx around 400kgs eh - ah well duff gen from my sources then.
SARCO - I suspect I have a great deal more knowledge of the SARH procedure than you give me credit for - I just don't choose to post it in this forum.
Based on how long it has taken CHC to set up its operations under the interim contract, I think we will be waiting a lot longer than 2012 for miltary SAR to be subsumed into the next setup - the full handover is unlikely to be complete before 2017 even if the MoD agree to pay the 65 to 70% of the costs.
400kgs eh - ah well duff gen from my sources then.SARCO - I suspect I have a great deal more knowledge of the SARH procedure than you give me credit for - I just don't choose to post it in this forum.
Based on how long it has taken CHC to set up its operations under the interim contract, I think we will be waiting a lot longer than 2012 for miltary SAR to be subsumed into the next setup - the full handover is unlikely to be complete before 2017 even if the MoD agree to pay the 65 to 70% of the costs.
Crab
I think you are probably right on that one!
Multiple casualties??? We are talking about a 139 in SAR mode! You'll be lucky to get 2 bent divers in and on the floor, plus buddies, let alone multiples!!!
SARREMF
Don't spoil my fun. This the only thing that keeps me off the plonk. Also keeps me out of the way of "She who must be obeyed".
At the end of the day, nothing any of us say on here will make an iota of differance to the selection process. We will all just get on with it in 2012-2016, with whatever heap of c
p we are given. My money is on secondhand 101's and 149's.
3D
I guess no-one at your end has thought what you will do if the winchman is incapacitated,
Multiple casualties??? We are talking about a 139 in SAR mode! You'll be lucky to get 2 bent divers in and on the floor, plus buddies, let alone multiples!!!
SARREMF
Don't spoil my fun. This the only thing that keeps me off the plonk. Also keeps me out of the way of "She who must be obeyed".
At the end of the day, nothing any of us say on here will make an iota of differance to the selection process. We will all just get on with it in 2012-2016, with whatever heap of c
p we are given. My money is on secondhand 101's and 149's.3D
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Newcastle Uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab Quote:- 3D - as I understand it, there are significantly more ex-RAF peeps working for CHC now, both front and rear crew - so of course the operation must be better
Emmmm not sure where your getting your info from but I can only think of one RAF Pilot that has joined CHC We many more Ex-Navy Pilots that have joined and some Ex-German SAR pilots, I can't think of any rear Ex-RAF aircrew that have joined since CHC took over the contract but I might be wrong. Hope that helps
Also can you explain what you mean by this statement
"Based on how long it has taken CHC to set up its operations under the interim contract"
They are on schedule as agreed with the Coastguard when they won the Interim contract
Emmmm not sure where your getting your info from but I can only think of one RAF Pilot that has joined CHC We many more Ex-Navy Pilots that have joined and some Ex-German SAR pilots, I can't think of any rear Ex-RAF aircrew that have joined since CHC took over the contract but I might be wrong. Hope that helps
Also can you explain what you mean by this statement
"Based on how long it has taken CHC to set up its operations under the interim contract"
They are on schedule as agreed with the Coastguard when they won the Interim contract
Last edited by Rescue1; 25th Mar 2008 at 22:39.
"They are on schedule as agreed with the Coastguard when the won the Interim contract"
The machines may be on schedule as far as being in position, but are they 'fit for purpose' yet? (not a dig at crew, by the way)
The machines may be on schedule as far as being in position, but are they 'fit for purpose' yet? (not a dig at crew, by the way)
Rescue 1 - what I meant was that although the contract changed in 2007, the full implemenatation of that changeover has yet to be completed and this is just for 4 bases that were already MCA - therefore there will not be the instant change in 2012 that some seem to expect if the mil bases are to be taken over. I am led to believe that the MoD can't afford to pay the full 65-70% in 2012 anyway which is why the full handover wouldn't be completed until 2017. I was not having a dig at CHC (for a change)
As for personnel, I know of 2 recent RAF pilots on the S92 and 3 ex RAF winchmen who have since become the rearcrew trainers because they are so well qualified (and top chaps to boot).
3D - you only need 2 casualties requring CPR to overload and tire winch op and winchman if there is any distance to hospital, therefore the co would be very useful. If your winchop is winchopping and your winchman is on the deck/land/sea and the first casualty needs urgent treatment, you will need the co again. I know plenty of pilots who have had to venture aft of the cockpit bulkhead in order to help out.
As for personnel, I know of 2 recent RAF pilots on the S92 and 3 ex RAF winchmen who have since become the rearcrew trainers because they are so well qualified (and top chaps to boot).
3D - you only need 2 casualties requring CPR to overload and tire winch op and winchman if there is any distance to hospital, therefore the co would be very useful. If your winchop is winchopping and your winchman is on the deck/land/sea and the first casualty needs urgent treatment, you will need the co again. I know plenty of pilots who have had to venture aft of the cockpit bulkhead in order to help out.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Up North
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
Think you will find the ex-RAF rearcrew you talk about are all with the Transition team. As far as I am aware there is only one ex-RAF crewman with CHC and he came from Bristows but despite that he is an alround good guy! Know him well
Think you will find the ex-RAF rearcrew you talk about are all with the Transition team. As far as I am aware there is only one ex-RAF crewman with CHC and he came from Bristows but despite that he is an alround good guy! Know him well
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn. Damn. Damn! Got to agree with Crabb in one area - having had to go down the back and help a casualty myself once [and send the co-pilot down the back a couple of times] - you do need access to the rear so to speak!
So, its lucky that you can do this on all the types offered for SAR-H or Interim by ALL the OEM's.
Give you a job Crabb? I dont know what you mean!
So, its lucky that you can do this on all the types offered for SAR-H or Interim by ALL the OEM's.
Give you a job Crabb? I dont know what you mean!
Crab.
Co pilot in the back, agreed, occasionally required.(bloody hell, two of us agreeing with Crab!
)
Not sure I would like to climb though the gap in a 139 though!
3D
Co pilot in the back, agreed, occasionally required.(bloody hell, two of us agreeing with Crab!
)Not sure I would like to climb though the gap in a 139 though!
3D