UK SAR Harmonisation
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, I am not a fan of major defence procurement projects either. Your suggestion is valid and would result in a 0-0 draw! SAR-H would appear to be double b*ggered.
HAL
HAL
Geoffers - I see where you are coming from but promoting people to their level of incompetence is hardly exclusive to the military. The flip side of the civilian world (from friends who are there) is that people in positions of power can get to stay there longer and jealously guard their jobs by stifling innovation and change. People who might bring new procedures and change just don't get interviewed or shortlisted - at least if the people are forced to change their jobs every 2 -4 years, that scenario is avoided.
The problem of handing stuff on to the next guy is far less of an issue in the non-management aviation world and tends to have far more impact at the strategic/management level - notably in the military at Wg Cdr/Gp Capt where the Peter Principle seems to appear frequently.
The reality of SARH is that it won't be a vital/synergistic/self improving system - it will meet the terms of the contract and no more. If the contract says a winchman doesn't have to do night wets more than once every 6 months then it won't happen.
Whilst some things are easier to change in the civilian world - anything that adversely affects the balance sheet is going to be difficult to sell to the management.
The problem of handing stuff on to the next guy is far less of an issue in the non-management aviation world and tends to have far more impact at the strategic/management level - notably in the military at Wg Cdr/Gp Capt where the Peter Principle seems to appear frequently.
The reality of SARH is that it won't be a vital/synergistic/self improving system - it will meet the terms of the contract and no more. If the contract says a winchman doesn't have to do night wets more than once every 6 months then it won't happen.
Whilst some things are easier to change in the civilian world - anything that adversely affects the balance sheet is going to be difficult to sell to the management.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dilbert Principle
Another amusing contribution to the debate of management techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle
Make of it what you will in these contexts. The problem with trying to apply 'general' rules of thumb is that don't fit all situations. In the FAA we used to see Mr Peter and Mr Dilbert at work at squadron level.
If you think that, in the military context, a change of strategy that costs money would automatically be taken up just because it is 'better' then you are living in a different world to the one I live in.
It's coming guys, whether we like it or not. Lets try to make the most of the situation, think positively and sueeze the very best deal we can out of the situation we find ourselves in.
G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle
Make of it what you will in these contexts. The problem with trying to apply 'general' rules of thumb is that don't fit all situations. In the FAA we used to see Mr Peter and Mr Dilbert at work at squadron level.
If you think that, in the military context, a change of strategy that costs money would automatically be taken up just because it is 'better' then you are living in a different world to the one I live in.
It's coming guys, whether we like it or not. Lets try to make the most of the situation, think positively and sueeze the very best deal we can out of the situation we find ourselves in.
G
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As we have agreed before Crab, SAR H depends on the quality of the tender document sent to hopeful contractors and the subsequent contract. Just out of interest, who sat on the committee that wrote those documents? If it was written properly, then the country will get what they deserve, regardless of profit. And do bear in mind that the contractors involved in this bid made their money independently of public money's, thereby being different from almost all other private financed contracts. These companies have got very good at keeping aircraft serviceable and they don't have to lie to do it. At the end of the day, an aircraft lying broken in the hangar is costing a fortune. You don't become a huge mulitnational company by a) taking a gash approach to serviceability and b) having a lumbering bureaucratic maintenance philosophy.
Droopy - I agree that it will come down to the contract - the tender document was, as I understand it, constructed by the MCA with assistance from the MoD in the shape of the SARH IPT. The fact that constraints were placed on the content of that tender will have shaped the bids and flawed the process from the start.
A fundamental problem throughout has been the reluctance of the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to have anything to do with the process, despite the fact that the outcome has huge implications regarding emergency services and homeland defence/security. There isn't enough left in the military pot to do the latter once you disable military SAR and such elements are not included in the SARH bids. It's your country - you decide what you think is best.
I have not said that Bristows or CHC could not run an efficient SAR operation - they have already proved that they can - we will see if civilianising our engineering (SKIOS 2) this year improves our present serviceability and demonstrates Westlands ability to deliver.
A fundamental problem throughout has been the reluctance of the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to have anything to do with the process, despite the fact that the outcome has huge implications regarding emergency services and homeland defence/security. There isn't enough left in the military pot to do the latter once you disable military SAR and such elements are not included in the SARH bids. It's your country - you decide what you think is best.
I have not said that Bristows or CHC could not run an efficient SAR operation - they have already proved that they can - we will see if civilianising our engineering (SKIOS 2) this year improves our present serviceability and demonstrates Westlands ability to deliver.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any News?
HAL9000 asked for a list of successful PFIs to support the optimism that some hold for SAR-H. Just thought I would bring this topic back to the top of the list to see if there was any news.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a list (and by no means comprehensive!)
AWE (Aldermarston)
DHFS
Brunei
84 sqn Cyprus
DFTS (all MoD comms)
MoD white Fleet
HMS Clyde
Flagship
LAFT
Tucano/Linton
Not all strictly PFIs but all having many of the principle ingredients.
I will now retire to the bunker now - as some measure success in many different ways!
PS - An Mod (RAF) officer/pilot drafted the operational requirements not the MCA - although clearly they are stakeholders (along with the RN), and the wider bid requirements were covered by specialists in commercial, legal, infrastructure etc etc etc - it ain't just about airframes!!
AWE (Aldermarston)
DHFS
Brunei
84 sqn Cyprus
DFTS (all MoD comms)
MoD white Fleet
HMS Clyde
Flagship
LAFT
Tucano/Linton
Not all strictly PFIs but all having many of the principle ingredients.
I will now retire to the bunker now - as some measure success in many different ways!
PS - An Mod (RAF) officer/pilot drafted the operational requirements not the MCA - although clearly they are stakeholders (along with the RN), and the wider bid requirements were covered by specialists in commercial, legal, infrastructure etc etc etc - it ain't just about airframes!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab wrote "I'm not sure the MCA are ready to manage all the inland jobs (50% of our tasking)."
The MCA is already working inland and something tells me that their 17 MRCCs might just be able to cope with your inland work.
Afterall, many MRTs are now working with them, plus, consider the % of the MCA work that doesnt involve MIL SAR aircraft.
Oh, there is also the small if not slightly hot topic that is forever following this project around...............ARCCK and one of the 17 MRCCs being on a joint location
The MCA is already working inland and something tells me that their 17 MRCCs might just be able to cope with your inland work.
Afterall, many MRTs are now working with them, plus, consider the % of the MCA work that doesnt involve MIL SAR aircraft.
Oh, there is also the small if not slightly hot topic that is forever following this project around...............ARCCK and one of the 17 MRCCs being on a joint location
Last edited by skyepup; 14th Feb 2008 at 01:22.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the contract says a winchman doesn't have to do night wets more than once every 6 months then it won't happen.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revenge
Clearly anyone wishing to get back at the rear crew community might just slip the pen and put down every 6 days for night wets! Trouble is they would love it!
I do believe Tall SAR has a point! The airframe requirement is just one small part of the total package required by the competition. To say its MCA or its MOD just isn't true. What you can say is that it covers all the areas the current service does and, depending on choice of platforms made by the bidders, could cover a lot more too.
Crabb always assumes that the bidder will give the least amount? With 3 bidders still in the race, something has to put blue water between them so that eventually one gets selected. With a 30 year PFI, doing night wets every 10 days or 20 days will not alter the price of fish much! So, some will offer services that exceed the contract and offer value-for-money. That's a competition. The clever bit is getting the IPT to turn that into a contract so the higher level service is delivered for the lower level money! I think thats why its taking such a long time!
I do believe Tall SAR has a point! The airframe requirement is just one small part of the total package required by the competition. To say its MCA or its MOD just isn't true. What you can say is that it covers all the areas the current service does and, depending on choice of platforms made by the bidders, could cover a lot more too.
Crabb always assumes that the bidder will give the least amount? With 3 bidders still in the race, something has to put blue water between them so that eventually one gets selected. With a 30 year PFI, doing night wets every 10 days or 20 days will not alter the price of fish much! So, some will offer services that exceed the contract and offer value-for-money. That's a competition. The clever bit is getting the IPT to turn that into a contract so the higher level service is delivered for the lower level money! I think thats why its taking such a long time!
SARREMF - I hope it won't be the cheapest bid but in order to offer more and make the package attractive (and high scoring on the review) there may be a temptation to skimp on the core issues (platform, training etc) and window dress with some other fashionable elements.
One reason for the legth of time taken is that each bidder can put in one main bid and 3 further subsidiary bids making a total of 12 to wade through and evaluate.
Sadly there isn't an MOD bid in the pot as it would make for interesting comparison and might put to bed the myth that contracting will be cheaper and better.
One reason for the legth of time taken is that each bidder can put in one main bid and 3 further subsidiary bids making a total of 12 to wade through and evaluate.
Sadly there isn't an MOD bid in the pot as it would make for interesting comparison and might put to bed the myth that contracting will be cheaper and better.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
You say there is no MoD bid in. However, my understanding of the acquisition process for programmes of this size is that there has to be a Public Sector Cost Comparator (I might have the terminology slightly wrong). The function of this is to ensure value for money by making sure it can't be done cheaper by the public sector (eg the RAF assume responsibility for all UK SAR).
If the SAR-H IPT has not done this comparison it is in serious breach of regulations and the whole programme is on thin ice. Can you shed any light on this matter?
You say there is no MoD bid in. However, my understanding of the acquisition process for programmes of this size is that there has to be a Public Sector Cost Comparator (I might have the terminology slightly wrong). The function of this is to ensure value for money by making sure it can't be done cheaper by the public sector (eg the RAF assume responsibility for all UK SAR).
If the SAR-H IPT has not done this comparison it is in serious breach of regulations and the whole programme is on thin ice. Can you shed any light on this matter?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just found this definition of Public Sector Comparator (PSC):
Definition of the term: A comparator is a benchmark against which value for money is assessed. A PSC is constructed on the assumption that the procurement is undertaken through conventional funding and that significant managerial responsibility and exposure to risk is retained by the public sector.
Definition of the term: A comparator is a benchmark against which value for money is assessed. A PSC is constructed on the assumption that the procurement is undertaken through conventional funding and that significant managerial responsibility and exposure to risk is retained by the public sector.
All good management type speak but as far as I am aware (and I have no contact with the IPT), the actual costs of running the SARF by the MoD have never been established let alone any proposed costs for taking on all UK SAR.
One inequality, I suggest, is that of locations - ie all the mil SAR flights are on mil land which is subject to huge depreciations because of the way the accountants see things. That cost is presently borne by the MoD but if the contractor takes over the exisiting bases, they may pay some ground rent but won't have the full cost of the sites to bear, this will still be met from MoD budget.
The SARF Cdr has written a paper suggesting a military solution which looks very good (apart from the shutting Chivenor and keeping Culdrose option) but it won't be part of the SARH selection.
All we really needed was a PFI to get us some new aircraft so we could crack on with our jobs.
I know there are those who robustly defend the practice of contractorising and civilianising the military but, just like Maggie Thatcher's belief that competition drives down prices and improves service, the dogma doesn't actually deliver (see supermarkets or utilities as examples) since the only way to reduce costs is to cut quality or manpower or both (as they are inextricably linked).
One inequality, I suggest, is that of locations - ie all the mil SAR flights are on mil land which is subject to huge depreciations because of the way the accountants see things. That cost is presently borne by the MoD but if the contractor takes over the exisiting bases, they may pay some ground rent but won't have the full cost of the sites to bear, this will still be met from MoD budget.
The SARF Cdr has written a paper suggesting a military solution which looks very good (apart from the shutting Chivenor and keeping Culdrose option) but it won't be part of the SARH selection.
All we really needed was a PFI to get us some new aircraft so we could crack on with our jobs.
I know there are those who robustly defend the practice of contractorising and civilianising the military but, just like Maggie Thatcher's belief that competition drives down prices and improves service, the dogma doesn't actually deliver (see supermarkets or utilities as examples) since the only way to reduce costs is to cut quality or manpower or both (as they are inextricably linked).
Crab.
Sorry, I have to disagree there,(now there's a surprise).
Manpower can be reduced on SAR without any degradation in quality by simply looking at how a flight is supported. Agreed, you cannot reduce the amount of people who are required to crew the aircraft,(please don't start the second standby thing again, we have done that to death!) But just how many engineers and support staff do you need to support the unit? A civvy 24hr. SAR unit will run with 9/10 total. (Well at least when the transition phase of the current shambles sorts itself out anyway!)
I am not having a go there, the way military servicing is carried out and signed off is different to the way it is done in the civvy world. The engineers also cover various other aspects of day to day stuff, from fuel management to being CAA approved fire crews to being storemen. Again not a dig but how many engineers and other staff, WAAF making the coffee etc., (I really enjoyed mine by the way, coffee that is,) are at sunny Chivenor? Translate that into salaries and there are your savings, quite a lot across the SAR force I would imagine.
I am surprised that no one has established a cost for miltary SAR. We had at least two visits from high ranking RAF(not she whos' name must not be mentioned) and MOD officers in the two years before the harmonisation project was announced! They were allegedly costing both Civvy and Military SAR. In fact they had just come from Leconfield. So what was that all about then!
3D
the only way to reduce costs is to cut quality or manpower or both (as they are inextricably linked).
Manpower can be reduced on SAR without any degradation in quality by simply looking at how a flight is supported. Agreed, you cannot reduce the amount of people who are required to crew the aircraft,(please don't start the second standby thing again, we have done that to death!
) But just how many engineers and support staff do you need to support the unit? A civvy 24hr. SAR unit will run with 9/10 total. (Well at least when the transition phase of the current shambles sorts itself out anyway!) I am not having a go there, the way military servicing is carried out and signed off is different to the way it is done in the civvy world. The engineers also cover various other aspects of day to day stuff, from fuel management to being CAA approved fire crews to being storemen. Again not a dig but how many engineers and other staff, WAAF making the coffee etc., (I really enjoyed mine by the way, coffee that is,) are at sunny Chivenor? Translate that into salaries and there are your savings, quite a lot across the SAR force I would imagine.
I am surprised that no one has established a cost for miltary SAR. We had at least two visits from high ranking RAF(not she whos' name must not be mentioned) and MOD officers in the two years before the harmonisation project was announced! They were allegedly costing both Civvy and Military SAR. In fact they had just come from Leconfield. So what was that all about then!
3D
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post3915870
Does this narrow the choice for SAR-H by at least one aircraft type/company or, and this should come as no surprise to anybody, will AW still be in the running?
Does this narrow the choice for SAR-H by at least one aircraft type/company or, and this should come as no surprise to anybody, will AW still be in the running?
3D - we are about to find out if civilianisation works as all the SARF engineering will be supplied by AW/VT contract. AW have a vested interest in making it work but are rumoured to have said they will accept a loss of profit on the contract before a loss of face (ie failure to meet availability). They are the provider of the spares and the Design Authority for the aircraft so whatever goes wrong is their fault!
Your flying hours are less than ours which means we have more servicing to do and therefore more people needed - add to that the fact that we do have a remit to supply 2 aircraft on standby and you start to see the need for more engineers. If you had the same engineering task, you would need more engineers as well.
Yes we have dedicated storemen and safety equippers - you just pay guys extra for the extra duties, which rather implies they are not busy enough in their primary duties
The WAAF making the coffee runs the ops desk and is responsible for keeping all the flight info, maps and charts, notams etc up to date and is the main point of contact when the crew are airborne - I guess your engineers do this as well
Your flying hours are less than ours which means we have more servicing to do and therefore more people needed - add to that the fact that we do have a remit to supply 2 aircraft on standby and you start to see the need for more engineers. If you had the same engineering task, you would need more engineers as well.
Yes we have dedicated storemen and safety equippers - you just pay guys extra for the extra duties, which rather implies they are not busy enough in their primary duties
The WAAF making the coffee runs the ops desk and is responsible for keeping all the flight info, maps and charts, notams etc up to date and is the main point of contact when the crew are airborne - I guess your engineers do this as well