UK SAR Harmonisation
Crab.
A couple of points.
Yes you do have more hours to fly because you have the second crew and other commitments than SAR. However, our units are also required to supply a second, serviceable machine. If this machine is u/s or needs maintenance then it gets worked on by the duty engineers, and off shift engineers working on overtime, who also cover the duty aircraft! Afterall, you cannot carry out maintenance on that one.
Back to my question, how many engineers/ support staff do you have and how many will good old Wastelands bring along?(More taxpayers money down the Somerset drains!)
Where do you get the idea that the engineers get paid for extra duties??
If that were the case then they would be taking home more than the Chief Pilot!
Safety Equipment servicing is carried out by approved and qualified people who use it ie. the winch crews! They are the only ones on the unit to receive extra responsibility payments! And quite rightly too!
Notams, maps and charts are the responsibility of the co-pilots and one of the winch crew, alongside their normal hectic schedule.
Oh. by the way, yes the engineers are the point of contact when the aircraft is airborne! If messages need to passed, talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey!( Not that your WAAF is a monkey he adds rapidly!)
3D
A couple of points.
Yes you do have more hours to fly because you have the second crew and other commitments than SAR. However, our units are also required to supply a second, serviceable machine. If this machine is u/s or needs maintenance then it gets worked on by the duty engineers, and off shift engineers working on overtime, who also cover the duty aircraft! Afterall, you cannot carry out maintenance on that one.
Back to my question, how many engineers/ support staff do you have and how many will good old Wastelands bring along?(More taxpayers money down the Somerset drains!)
Where do you get the idea that the engineers get paid for extra duties??
If that were the case then they would be taking home more than the Chief Pilot! Safety Equipment servicing is carried out by approved and qualified people who use it ie. the winch crews! They are the only ones on the unit to receive extra responsibility payments! And quite rightly too!
Notams, maps and charts are the responsibility of the co-pilots and one of the winch crew, alongside their normal hectic schedule.
Oh. by the way, yes the engineers are the point of contact when the aircraft is airborne! If messages need to passed, talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey!( Not that your WAAF is a monkey he adds rapidly
!)3D
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miitary SAR Manning Levels
Crab,
I agree with 3D on the manning levels issue. I have experience of both military and civilian ops, where as I think you don't. The first thing that will strike you if you are ever join a civvy unit, is the lack of people. We run 24/7 on 6 people per shift. As 3D says we are expected to look after weather info, notams, amendments, wash and clean the aircraft, SE, help with blade/engine changes etc etc etc... Have you ever hoovered the cockpit, cleaned the windows, or helped tow and re-spot the aircraft? I suspect you haven't, it is up to all those engineer chaps to sort out, which costs money.
I agree with 3D on the manning levels issue. I have experience of both military and civilian ops, where as I think you don't. The first thing that will strike you if you are ever join a civvy unit, is the lack of people. We run 24/7 on 6 people per shift. As 3D says we are expected to look after weather info, notams, amendments, wash and clean the aircraft, SE, help with blade/engine changes etc etc etc... Have you ever hoovered the cockpit, cleaned the windows, or helped tow and re-spot the aircraft? I suspect you haven't, it is up to all those engineer chaps to sort out, which costs money.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good old days
It may have been before Crab became a SARBOY but the fact is that once upon a time RAF SAR units didn't have an Ops Clerk. The duty crew were responsible for NOTAMS/CHADS/CALFS etc. When we went flying one of the ground crew used to man the Ops desk/radios/telephones etc. If you fly for 4 hours per shift there are still 20 hours remaining. What do you do with all that time?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clever Richard
A Public Sector Comparator (PSC) is not always required. Where it can be difficult (impossible?) to calculate the genuine cost of the public service, it is acceptable to construct a 'should cost model'. Don't loose sight of the fact that cost is not the only driver behind PFI, transferance of ownership and risk are also powerful attractions to the governments departments involved.
A Public Sector Comparator (PSC) is not always required. Where it can be difficult (impossible?) to calculate the genuine cost of the public service, it is acceptable to construct a 'should cost model'. Don't loose sight of the fact that cost is not the only driver behind PFI, transferance of ownership and risk are also powerful attractions to the governments departments involved.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can SAR-H Survive the Defence Cuts?
The Service Chiefs have been told to save £1B this year and the Defence Management Board met last week to discuss options. Given that it is likely that the number of military personnel in SAR-H will be far fewer than at present, can SAR-H survive the current drive for savings? Indeed, should it not be offered up as a saving as it, effectively, offers nothing to the military.
One argument against is likely to be that if the military pull out the money will just have to be found from another budget with a net saving to HMG of zero. Or could SAR-H be slid to the right by a number of years? Is this practical and would the OSDs of the current RAF/RN/MCA airframes allow any slippage.
Sorry, too many questions!
One argument against is likely to be that if the military pull out the money will just have to be found from another budget with a net saving to HMG of zero. Or could SAR-H be slid to the right by a number of years? Is this practical and would the OSDs of the current RAF/RN/MCA airframes allow any slippage.
Sorry, too many questions!
HAL,
The points you make are interesting - it does seem that, under current plans, the MOD will have to spend a lot of money on SAR-H for very little return.
There is, of course, a much cheaper and feasible alternative to SAR-H, which has the added benefit of delivering exactly the same level of service which the UK currently enjoys, but apparently this plan has been blown out of the water because it would upset the consortia which are currently rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of being given vast sums of money to provide a potentially inferior service...
The points you make are interesting - it does seem that, under current plans, the MOD will have to spend a lot of money on SAR-H for very little return.
There is, of course, a much cheaper and feasible alternative to SAR-H, which has the added benefit of delivering exactly the same level of service which the UK currently enjoys, but apparently this plan has been blown out of the water because it would upset the consortia which are currently rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of being given vast sums of money to provide a potentially inferior service...
Torque - you'll rot in hell for that one but I agree entirely. What will happen to the CHC bids now they have been sold?
SARowl do you mean 6 people including the 4-man aircraft crew or 6 people plus the 4 - man crew? If it is the former then you must be magicians keeping 2 aircraft 100% serviceable and flying loads of training and jobs with just 2 engineers - either that or some corners are being cut somewhere.
HAL - the simple answer is a PFI to provide the existing SAR service providers with new aircraft and then we just crack on using existing basing and crewing. Have a 139 and a S92 at each flight so you can use whichever aircraft you feel is suitable for the SARop (just like in Hong Kong) and have all the crews dual qualified.
but I agree entirely. What will happen to the CHC bids now they have been sold?SARowl do you mean 6 people including the 4-man aircraft crew or 6 people plus the 4 - man crew? If it is the former then you must be magicians keeping 2 aircraft 100% serviceable and flying loads of training and jobs with just 2 engineers - either that or some corners are being cut somewhere.
HAL - the simple answer is a PFI to provide the existing SAR service providers with new aircraft and then we just crack on using existing basing and crewing. Have a 139 and a S92 at each flight so you can use whichever aircraft you feel is suitable for the SARop (just like in Hong Kong) and have all the crews dual qualified.
Crab.
Why do you always assume that the civvy world is cutting corners?? I gave you the figures in an earlier post but to go over them one last time.... 4 crew in the aircraft, two engineers per shift! Plus Chief Engineer and labourer on days. I personally take great offence in your suggestion that corners are being cut, anywhere!! Safety is the watchword! Even we cannot achieve 100% serviceability and I don't think it has ever been claimed that we do!If one of the aircraft is u/s then generally no training is carried out until it is fixed! If it is u/s for a major component change then the off shift engineers come in on overtime to help! What is difficult and under hand there??
As for CHC's bid, hmm, time will tell!! The final two bidders are due to be announced at the end of March, early April I think so we won't have to wait too long?
139&92 on each base? Would it be that simple? I don't think so!
SARowl do you mean 6 people including the 4-man aircraft crew or 6 people plus the 4 - man crew? If it is the former then you must be magicians keeping 2 aircraft 100% serviceable and flying loads of training and jobs with just 2 engineers - either that or some corners are being cut somewhere.
I gave you the figures in an earlier post but to go over them one last time.... 4 crew in the aircraft, two engineers per shift! Plus Chief Engineer and labourer on days. I personally take great offence in your suggestion that corners are being cut, anywhere!! Safety is the watchword! Even we cannot achieve 100% serviceability and I don't think it has ever been claimed that we do!If one of the aircraft is u/s then generally no training is carried out until it is fixed! If it is u/s for a major component change then the off shift engineers come in on overtime to help! What is difficult and under hand there??As for CHC's bid, hmm, time will tell!! The final two bidders are due to be announced at the end of March, early April I think so we won't have to wait too long?
139&92 on each base? Would it be that simple? I don't think so!
Just like that.
So you don't actually run the outfit with 6 people, you have 2 extra in on days and then extra engineers when more servicing is required...now if you ran the whole thing all the time with just 6 on shift that would be impressive but as ever the headline claim is undermined by the detail and the devil is always in the detail
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torque of the Devil,
Do elaborate on your last post. Was the option you allude to considered at the Initial Gate point (has the project reached initial gate)? I am familiar with SMART Acquisition but not the details of SAR-H in particular. I would suggest that in the current climate if there is a cheaper option that delivers the capability required it should be taken or, at the very least, properly assessed. In fact, it would be criminal if it wasn't as the money saved could provide badly needed kit for our deployed forces. I'm afraid that whenever I have heard the phrase 'it isn't that simple' in the past it has been that simple. What is difficult is getting the project team to manoeuvre out of the rut they are driving in. This is usually due to the time, effort and intellectual capital they have invested in chasing a white elephant.
Do elaborate on your last post. Was the option you allude to considered at the Initial Gate point (has the project reached initial gate)? I am familiar with SMART Acquisition but not the details of SAR-H in particular. I would suggest that in the current climate if there is a cheaper option that delivers the capability required it should be taken or, at the very least, properly assessed. In fact, it would be criminal if it wasn't as the money saved could provide badly needed kit for our deployed forces. I'm afraid that whenever I have heard the phrase 'it isn't that simple' in the past it has been that simple. What is difficult is getting the project team to manoeuvre out of the rut they are driving in. This is usually due to the time, effort and intellectual capital they have invested in chasing a white elephant.
I'm a gambling man so I'm going to put fwd MY suggestion as to what'll happen and see how close my "guess" got to the real McCoy when the results are advertised.
Remember it's MY idea and not anyone elses that I'm related to at the mo':
CHC, or First Investment Bank (whoever owns them now) win the contract. S92's go to the bigger sites doing long range SAR and 139's go to the sites doing close in work, like south coast etc. No mixing of a/c at sites, no double quals. One of the existing mil airbases becomes a centre of excellence for ALL UK SAR training utilising S92 and AW139's. There will be groundschool for joint ops (Mil/civvy/police/MCA etc) command and control exercises. CRM courses. Paramedic training for winchmen/divers, dunker trng et al.
There will also be a simulator for the S92 (other than the one at Farnboro). Possibly (50/50) another sim [AW139] to absorb extraneous work from rotorsim in Milan who are fully booked and the only other 139 sim in western europe (I believe).
The 139 will replace the Griffin in SARTU in due course and prepare the ground for basic flying trng SAR, UK.
The 2 x RAF SAR-H crews and the 1 x RN SAR-H crew, will live alongside the rest of the civvy SAR-H crews for "x" period before jumping ship and becoming civvies on twice their salary, leaving the mil unable to support SAR-H front line. This will signal the end of mil involvement SAR Uk ops forever.
CHC will make millions during the 25yr contract and a consolidated industry will prevail offering multi agency co-operation on a scale previously unheard of.
I lied about the last sentence
Remember it's MY idea and not anyone elses that I'm related to at the mo':
CHC, or First Investment Bank (whoever owns them now) win the contract. S92's go to the bigger sites doing long range SAR and 139's go to the sites doing close in work, like south coast etc. No mixing of a/c at sites, no double quals. One of the existing mil airbases becomes a centre of excellence for ALL UK SAR training utilising S92 and AW139's. There will be groundschool for joint ops (Mil/civvy/police/MCA etc) command and control exercises. CRM courses. Paramedic training for winchmen/divers, dunker trng et al.
There will also be a simulator for the S92 (other than the one at Farnboro). Possibly (50/50) another sim [AW139] to absorb extraneous work from rotorsim in Milan who are fully booked and the only other 139 sim in western europe (I believe).
The 139 will replace the Griffin in SARTU in due course and prepare the ground for basic flying trng SAR, UK.
The 2 x RAF SAR-H crews and the 1 x RN SAR-H crew, will live alongside the rest of the civvy SAR-H crews for "x" period before jumping ship and becoming civvies on twice their salary, leaving the mil unable to support SAR-H front line. This will signal the end of mil involvement SAR Uk ops forever.
CHC will make millions during the 25yr contract and a consolidated industry will prevail offering multi agency co-operation on a scale previously unheard of.
I lied about the last sentence
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 28th Feb 2008 at 16:27.
TC - I think the last sentence should be
'MoD, having lost all interest in UK SAR, stops paying 70% of the bill leaving the treasury to use up all the profits Northern Rock will have made by then to fund the shortfall. Then in 20 years the NAO asks why we didn't just leave it military and buy some new aircraft instead. Meanwhile having got the £5Bn contract, First Reserve asset-strips CHC selling off the UKSAR as a going concern to a French utilities company who renegotiate the contract bumping up the cost to the taxpayer so they can give their directors and shareholders big dividends.'
'MoD, having lost all interest in UK SAR, stops paying 70% of the bill leaving the treasury to use up all the profits Northern Rock will have made by then
to fund the shortfall. Then in 20 years the NAO asks why we didn't just leave it military and buy some new aircraft instead. Meanwhile having got the £5Bn contract, First Reserve asset-strips CHC selling off the UKSAR as a going concern to a French utilities company who renegotiate the contract bumping up the cost to the taxpayer so they can give their directors and shareholders big dividends.'
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now your talking! Common Sense at last! i knew it would take a time but come on Crabb get with the programme! the only thing you missed was the ability to change service provider in case the charges were raised! Oh, and a well know supermarket to move in on the act after its 3 rd year.
Well thats SAR-H done! Shall we move on to FRES!
Well thats SAR-H done! Shall we move on to FRES!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shift Manning
Crab
You seem fixated on the idea that a huge number of engineers are required to sustain a SAR Shift. You assume that a smaller number of people will not produce a good result. The numbers employed by the RAF are just not sustainable. Lots of civvy organistions run aircraft very successfully with lots fewer engineers. It is an economic reality old boy.
Is it a crime to call in extra engineers from off shift to get the job done?
Visit a civvy SAR unit and you will see a clean, smart well looked after ac.
You seem fixated on the idea that a huge number of engineers are required to sustain a SAR Shift. You assume that a smaller number of people will not produce a good result. The numbers employed by the RAF are just not sustainable. Lots of civvy organistions run aircraft very successfully with lots fewer engineers. It is an economic reality old boy.
Is it a crime to call in extra engineers from off shift to get the job done?
Visit a civvy SAR unit and you will see a clean, smart well looked after ac.
No - a large number of engineers are required to maintain a SAR shift when the aircraft has to be maintained iaw RAF procedures and flys twice the amount of a civilian SAR flt.
I don't know how often S61's have gearbox problems but we have had a spate of changes recently, all completed on the flight which wouldn't be possible with 2 engineers per shift.
It's not rocket science to determine that the less an aircraft flys, the less servicing it requires and therefore the fewer engineers are needed.
At the moment our servicing is a disaster area - the move to calendar servicing meant more servicing on the front line and DARA's failure to deliver has put huge delays into the system resulting in massive extensions on most of the fleet. There is a way to service SAR helicopters but it is not what we are doing at the moment.
AW and VT are taking over our servicing top to bottom and strangely they haven't said it can be done with 2 engineers per shift either.
I don't know how often S61's have gearbox problems but we have had a spate of changes recently, all completed on the flight which wouldn't be possible with 2 engineers per shift.
It's not rocket science to determine that the less an aircraft flys, the less servicing it requires and therefore the fewer engineers are needed.
At the moment our servicing is a disaster area - the move to calendar servicing meant more servicing on the front line and DARA's failure to deliver has put huge delays into the system resulting in massive extensions on most of the fleet. There is a way to service SAR helicopters but it is not what we are doing at the moment.
AW and VT are taking over our servicing top to bottom and strangely they haven't said it can be done with 2 engineers per shift either.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: AW and VT are taking over our servicing top to bottom and strangely they haven't said it can be done with 2 engineers per shift either.
Is that because they are also having to service/ maintain iaw RAF procedures?
Or, is the RAF stipulating how many engineers they must have to cover a shift?
Is that because they are also having to service/ maintain iaw RAF procedures?
Or, is the RAF stipulating how many engineers they must have to cover a shift?
Crab
We have carried out back to back MGB changes on the same aircraft in the past using the engineers on shift plus two off shift! They were worn out at the end of it but the jobs were done safely and reasonably quickly!
Thankfully, gearbox problems are not that common,(now that's done it!) but when one is needing changing,or any other major component, then as I have said more than once, two of the off shift engineers come in on overtime to help the on shift engineers. That is how it works, like it or not, and quite frankly, I am getting a bit fed up with your assertion that we are doing anything underhand.
I can't quite get your thinking behind needing more engineers because you fly more hours!(The hours bit I do not dispute.) But, the checks need doing no matter what, 10 hours, 20 hours whatever. You can only get one set of hands on a Chip detector or grease gun. The checks just come up a bit more often! And you still haven't enlightened us to just how many support staff you have/had/will have on your unit!
Why would Wastelands/VT want to put in less engineers than the RAF? More people means they can rip off HMG even more than they are already!!
As AH says, get yourself out of Chivenor and visit a civvy base before you throw any more stones.
I don't know how often S61's have gearbox problems but we have had a spate of changes recently, all completed on the flight which wouldn't be possible with 2 engineers per shift.
Thankfully, gearbox problems are not that common,(now that's done it!)
but when one is needing changing,or any other major component, then as I have said more than once, two of the off shift engineers come in on overtime to help the on shift engineers. That is how it works, like it or not, and quite frankly, I am getting a bit fed up with your assertion that we are doing anything underhand. I can't quite get your thinking behind needing more engineers because you fly more hours!(The hours bit I do not dispute.) But, the checks need doing no matter what, 10 hours, 20 hours whatever. You can only get one set of hands on a Chip detector or grease gun.
The checks just come up a bit more often! And you still haven't enlightened us to just how many support staff you have/had/will have on your unit! Why would Wastelands/VT want to put in less engineers than the RAF? More people means they can rip off HMG even more than they are already!!
As AH says, get yourself out of Chivenor and visit a civvy base before you throw any more stones.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Newcastle Uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote" As AH says, get yourself out of Chivenor and visit a civvy base before you throw any more stones"
Crab isn't throwing stones he getting desperate he's throwing bricks now he know's in 4 years time he might be one of those banging on someone's door asking if he can keep his job in Chivenor and the people he's been throwing those same stones/bricks at might have other more open minded pilots in mind for the job.
Crab isn't throwing stones he getting desperate he's throwing bricks now
he know's in 4 years time he might be one of those banging on someone's door asking if he can keep his job in Chivenor and the people he's been throwing those same stones/bricks at might have other more open minded pilots in mind for the job.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes doing a gearbox change on the SAR 61 DOES need more than two engineers, as does much of the works that require that aircraft to go offline. When that happens the standby aircraft is put online and engineers not on shift will come in on overtime to assist on those jobs, so it isn't just the two on shift engineers doing the job.
There are obviously two side to the "discussion" on Harmonisation, and both have their valid points. However, Crab you have either been misinformed as to how we "Civvies" do things, or you are purposefully baiting people. If you are unsure as to how things are done why not stop the arguiing and go visit Lee or Portland. If you don't want to do that then you are obviously baiting people, and others like me can simply discount your rants as nonsense.
For my part I am very much hoping to learn from the RAF/Navy, as well as civvy crews, when harmonisation comes round. I have learnt much from those who I have already flown with, and I hope I can bring something that will be of use to those I meet in the future, both civvy and Military.
There are obviously two side to the "discussion" on Harmonisation, and both have their valid points. However, Crab you have either been misinformed as to how we "Civvies" do things, or you are purposefully baiting people. If you are unsure as to how things are done why not stop the arguiing and go visit Lee or Portland. If you don't want to do that then you are obviously baiting people, and others like me can simply discount your rants as nonsense.
For my part I am very much hoping to learn from the RAF/Navy, as well as civvy crews, when harmonisation comes round. I have learnt much from those who I have already flown with, and I hope I can bring something that will be of use to those I meet in the future, both civvy and Military.