UK SAR Harmonisation
3D - you just can't see our standards from way down where you are
Saluting?? in the RAF......Are you mad??
I suspect the ARCC may have turned down the request for Culdrose because other jobs were brewing - and anyway, you are always going on about how good the 61 is - why would you need help on such a nice, easy, big deck like that?
Saluting?? in the RAF......Are you mad??
I suspect the ARCC may have turned down the request for Culdrose because other jobs were brewing - and anyway, you are always going on about how good the 61 is - why would you need help on such a nice, easy, big deck like that?
Crab,
having myself come from the mil into civvy SAR I am probably better placed (as with many people on this forum) than the out and out mil guy to pass judgement on comparing civvy and mil issues.
Crab, I dont know who you are and I really dont care but I suspect by the way you conduct yourself that you are either an old fart mil SAR driver who cannot accept change or a young wipper snapper who's maturity leads him to think that he is the only man on earth who can do the SAR job. When you eventually leave the mob and go civvy please continue with your mil only attitude as it would be a waste to let it go.
From seeing both sides of the fence I can honestly say that both civvy and mil could learn a bit from each other. The difference being that it's a lot harder to implement change in the mil. But one thing that must be corrected is that civvy standards both in and out the cockpit are no way below the mil standards. Seeing that many civvy SAR pilots are ex mil anyway I cannot understand why you go down being the **** route.
having myself come from the mil into civvy SAR I am probably better placed (as with many people on this forum) than the out and out mil guy to pass judgement on comparing civvy and mil issues.
Crab, I dont know who you are and I really dont care but I suspect by the way you conduct yourself that you are either an old fart mil SAR driver who cannot accept change or a young wipper snapper who's maturity leads him to think that he is the only man on earth who can do the SAR job. When you eventually leave the mob and go civvy please continue with your mil only attitude as it would be a waste to let it go.
From seeing both sides of the fence I can honestly say that both civvy and mil could learn a bit from each other. The difference being that it's a lot harder to implement change in the mil. But one thing that must be corrected is that civvy standards both in and out the cockpit are no way below the mil standards. Seeing that many civvy SAR pilots are ex mil anyway I cannot understand why you go down being the **** route.
Jeepys - you might like to note that the extensive use of the smilies in my posts (and 3Ds) is intended to convey the lighthearted nature of the banter in which we are engaged. This is because people like you read literally into posts which are written in a jocular way and jump to conclusions about the nature of the poster which are wholly inaccurate.
3D - can't get Brylcreem from Supply Sqn any more
3D - can't get Brylcreem from Supply Sqn any more
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a very small correction, and I think you need to consult the ITT, but the last time I looked you couldn't shut or move Portland and Lee.
Crabb. What second standby under SAR-H? Its 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call.
Said it before I'll say it again. Stop it with the Civ bashing! The rest of you, play nicely! Lets all share and get along!
Crabb. What second standby under SAR-H? Its 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call.
Said it before I'll say it again. Stop it with the Civ bashing! The rest of you, play nicely! Lets all share and get along!
SARREMF - the statement about 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call implies no seconds at all and is therefore a clear contradiction to the 'no lesser capability' requirement for SAR H.
I don't believe the basing of any of the flights is sacrosanct, however, moving will cost money and is therefore unlikely to happen.
I think you will find I haven't been 'civvy bashing' - just plain old bantering
I don't believe the basing of any of the flights is sacrosanct, however, moving will cost money and is therefore unlikely to happen.
I think you will find I haven't been 'civvy bashing' - just plain old bantering
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bases, what bases?
Just a very small correction, and I think you need to consult the ITT, but the last time I looked you couldn't shut or move Portland and Lee.
Crabb. What second standby under SAR-H? Its 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call.
Crabb. What second standby under SAR-H? Its 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call.
According to todays press, well, The Mail at least, the VT, LM, British International consortium have binned the idea of using airborne ROVs (not sure if that is the correct description) as part of their bid!
"Big Brother" will be most peed off!
"Big Brother" will be most peed off!
The big question is why, if there are going to be 12 bases each with circa 4 x 4 man crews giving a total of 192 aircrew, is the MoD funding 70% of SAR H and only getting 66 aircrew places? With the way the MoD budget is being squeezed currently it seems rather odd to throw money (£3 -5 Bn) at something you get very little benefit from, especially on a pro rata basis.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another good question is why, in the 3 additonal solutions proposals, all of which must have as a minimum 8 of the present 12 bases, the 4 present MCA bases are in that 8? Not really starting with a clean sheet or a level playing field is it? 
Sing along now "There are more questions than answers.....do be do be do etc".
Leopold - this is business ethics ie there are no ethics in business and having a level playing field is just handing the advantage to your competitors
Leopold - this is business ethics ie there are no ethics in business and having a level playing field is just handing the advantage to your competitors
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Business ethics
That's not really my point though, if we are to have a new multi billion pound SAR service why constrain the bidders by imposing restraints on them? Surely they should be allowed to come up with the solution unhindered by the legacy of the past, I thought that was what the new bidding system was all about.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its understandable that each of the present SAR "owners" wishes to have a say in which bases remain in the new service. While these vested interests are not always helpful, many of the "mandatory" bases are not neccessarily in conflict with the need to provide new SAR-H bases in those locations anyway. There may be exceptions however, and its a fact of life that our elected politicans have their vested interest too. After all - they allocate and vote for the money to be spent.
A blank piece of paper would of course been an ideal starting point, but no project of this size and scale can ever start with such a blank sheet - irritating as it is for those who might have an optimum solution in their heads!!
Cheers
A blank piece of paper would of course been an ideal starting point, but no project of this size and scale can ever start with such a blank sheet - irritating as it is for those who might have an optimum solution in their heads!!
Cheers
Maybe one of the bidders will realise that if you ignore the MoD figure of 66 military personnel and construct a bid where all the crews are military then you will have a cheaper solution with far more flexibility. Capitation rate for a Flt Lt or equivalent is 68K whether he/she be co pilot or captain - what's the going rate for a civvy SAR captain? 75K plus or thereabouts?
That is without going into things like surge and concurrent ops, respite tours for SH mates, national security and homeland defence etc etc etc.
SARH was supposed to be a 'blue sky, thinking outside the box' project but the politicians and the MoD have insisted on putting ridiculous constraints on it and we are now on a runaway train that runs the risk of going right off the rails. Maybe there is someone on high who can stop it but, as ever in Britain, we have lots of interested parties pulling in different directions with no clear guidance or vision of what could be achieved.
That is without going into things like surge and concurrent ops, respite tours for SH mates, national security and homeland defence etc etc etc.
SARH was supposed to be a 'blue sky, thinking outside the box' project but the politicians and the MoD have insisted on putting ridiculous constraints on it and we are now on a runaway train that runs the risk of going right off the rails. Maybe there is someone on high who can stop it but, as ever in Britain, we have lots of interested parties pulling in different directions with no clear guidance or vision of what could be achieved.