SARH to go
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour has it that Bristow were heavily involved with Lehman Bank, perhaps they pulled out because the future is a little uncertain.
Last edited by Brom; 7th Oct 2008 at 14:13. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Second star on the left
Posts: 124
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that the Mil guys cannot strike, therefore we should not have a problem maintaining SAR cover in UK (assuming the aircraft and crews are available). What would happen if an operation was conducted mainly by a civilian operator, would the government/ company be held to ransom by the threat of industrial action? or am I looking on the dark side of things.
Before you bite guys, this is not a repeat of the Mil versus Civy slanging match.
Heads down, look out for the flack.
Before you bite guys, this is not a repeat of the Mil versus Civy slanging match.
Heads down, look out for the flack.
Crab.
"Melting drive shaft covers." Now that is a bit dramatic!
Delaminating maybe, melting, no. I wonder where you got that little pearl from???
Your other points are valid!
Not all the Bristow 61s have gone west. The Louis Newmark machines and one or two non coupled ones are still around.
3D
"Melting drive shaft covers." Now that is a bit dramatic!
Delaminating maybe, melting, no. I wonder where you got that little pearl from??? Your other points are valid!Not all the Bristow 61s have gone west. The Louis Newmark machines and one or two non coupled ones are still around.
3D
3D - Melting or delaminating, whatever you call it the designers clearly need to modify something on the aircraft to make it fit for purpose. Or maybe add another limit 'no hovering for more than 2 minutes at a time' or something equally useful for a SAR helicopter
I believe the nose-up hover attitude is not that popular with the rearcrew either - they have to work in a small cabin that slopes as well!!
I have also heard that vibration in the hover is causing avionics issues.
As to my sources...well I know people that know people that know...
What is the truth in the rumour that CHC will have to find more crews in order to comply with EU working time directives that now state you have to count half your overnight standby time if you are not called out and all of it if you are?
Great timing, just as we are going down to 4 crews per flight!
I believe the nose-up hover attitude is not that popular with the rearcrew either - they have to work in a small cabin that slopes as well!!
I have also heard that vibration in the hover is causing avionics issues.
As to my sources...well I know people that know people that know...
What is the truth in the rumour that CHC will have to find more crews in order to comply with EU working time directives that now state you have to count half your overnight standby time if you are not called out and all of it if you are?
Great timing, just as we are going down to 4 crews per flight!
I've just noticed that Jungly AEO has deleted his posts about Carson blades and all the nasty things he said about me....I claim the moral high ground on that one then
Not even four crews per flight now....
http://www.western-isles.info/page2109.html
A temporary deal has been reached which will allow the Coastguard rescue helicopter to keep flying.
The Stornoway service is facing a dispute over working hours similar to the row which resulted in a walkout at Shetland.
The Shetland coastguard rescue helicopter was grounded after crew members refused to fly as some are very near to the limit of their maximum working hours.
The Stornoway aircraft responded to an emergency airlift today though crews at the CHC operator awaited clarification over working hours.
However, the Shetland helicopter did not handle potential emergencies this afternoon and cover had to be provided by the RAF Rescue 137 helicopter at Lossiemouth.
As civilians the crews of the coastguard aircraft are not expected to be on-duty for more than around 200 hours monthly while the working time directive places a maximum limit of 2000 hours per year.
However crews spend a lot of time on standby which apparently is being counted towards their total hours resulting in a potential breach of the allowable limit and inviting possible censure from the Civil Aviation Authority.
Private Canadian company CHC operates the helicopter service under contract to the UK government.
A spokesman confirmed that Shetland crew members ceased active flying duties today.
A CHC spokesperson added: "CHC has recently been in discussions with regulatory agencies regarding the application of the Working Time Directive to the Search and Rescue operation in the UK.
"The operation at Sumburgh was suspended for a short period today
pending clarification of specific legislative points. Following discussions with
key parties concerned, full operational services have now been resumed.
"We remain totally committed to providing a robust, safe and efficient
service to the customer."
How long can the MCA and CHC keep this up? Bristows flew here for years without this never ending list of foul-ups!
A temporary deal has been reached which will allow the Coastguard rescue helicopter to keep flying.
The Stornoway service is facing a dispute over working hours similar to the row which resulted in a walkout at Shetland.
The Shetland coastguard rescue helicopter was grounded after crew members refused to fly as some are very near to the limit of their maximum working hours.
The Stornoway aircraft responded to an emergency airlift today though crews at the CHC operator awaited clarification over working hours.
However, the Shetland helicopter did not handle potential emergencies this afternoon and cover had to be provided by the RAF Rescue 137 helicopter at Lossiemouth.
As civilians the crews of the coastguard aircraft are not expected to be on-duty for more than around 200 hours monthly while the working time directive places a maximum limit of 2000 hours per year.
However crews spend a lot of time on standby which apparently is being counted towards their total hours resulting in a potential breach of the allowable limit and inviting possible censure from the Civil Aviation Authority.
Private Canadian company CHC operates the helicopter service under contract to the UK government.
A spokesman confirmed that Shetland crew members ceased active flying duties today.
A CHC spokesperson added: "CHC has recently been in discussions with regulatory agencies regarding the application of the Working Time Directive to the Search and Rescue operation in the UK.
"The operation at Sumburgh was suspended for a short period today
pending clarification of specific legislative points. Following discussions with
key parties concerned, full operational services have now been resumed.
"We remain totally committed to providing a robust, safe and efficient
service to the customer."
How long can the MCA and CHC keep this up? Bristows flew here for years without this never ending list of foul-ups!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the woods
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not even four crews per flight now....
The reason why Bristows were never seen to have these kind of 'foul ups' is that they paid lip service to issues like WTDs, readiness states etc (RS15 with a gearbox on the hangar floor?)
The issue is, with a recent change from ninteen to twenty-four hour duty period, most crews are over their 2000 hour limit. The question is are they legal to fly and in the event of an accident, would they be covered or hung out to dry?
The issue is, with a recent change from ninteen to twenty-four hour duty period, most crews are over their 2000 hour limit. The question is are they legal to fly and in the event of an accident, would they be covered or hung out to dry?
I take your point on Bristows operating 'methods', but CHC management and pilots must have seen the clock ticking towards 2000 hours- why not get some sort of solution in place that didn't involve grounding a SAR machine for 5(?) hours.
At least one crew in Stornoway have the right attitude, a pat on the back for them, lets hope it doesn't turn into a knife in the back from pencilpushers!
At least one crew in Stornoway have the right attitude, a pat on the back for them, lets hope it doesn't turn into a knife in the back from pencilpushers!
According to the Aberdeen Press and Journal this morning, the poor CHC SAR crews are exceeding 2000 flying hours per year. No wonder they are tired and strike-happy!
HC
HC
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: not here
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTD - 2000hr
This has been waiting in the wings for the past 18 months. HMG again brought in legislation without thinking how it would affect all the safety services. The 2000hr limit applies to Doctors, nurses, fire services, police and of course SAR. The DfT are looking at legislation which allows essential services to continue as before - ie count standby time as half, but as with everything the wheel turns slowly. More crews then and less time at work
Oh dear, this really couldn't have come at a worse time for the SARH process but it does highlight another limitation of civilian SAR compared to military
Max and Branhuie - it is strange that when I mentioned dodgy Bristows operating practices in other SAR threads I was immediately flamed by all and sundry and told I was making it up - not so it would seem, ne c'est pas?
Maybe not so much has changed - the RCS tote showed Sumburgh off state yesterday due to 'crew sickness' - not quite the transparency expected from a new and better contractor!
What will happen post 2012 when you have to do lots more night flying to keep current NVG overland? 6 crews per flight???
Max and Branhuie - it is strange that when I mentioned dodgy Bristows operating practices in other SAR threads I was immediately flamed by all and sundry and told I was making it up - not so it would seem, ne c'est pas?
Maybe not so much has changed - the RCS tote showed Sumburgh off state yesterday due to 'crew sickness' - not quite the transparency expected from a new and better contractor!
What will happen post 2012 when you have to do lots more night flying to keep current NVG overland? 6 crews per flight???
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab I love the way you twist everything I guess it is fortunate most readers of this forum understand your play with words, even so it must be great to be so clever. The 2000 hours is duty time not a limitation of how long you can fly within those duty hours so yes please bring on the NVG training most of the crews will welcome that and remember many of them are your old pals. How long do you give them before they become amateurs incapable of SAR after leaving the RAF? My experience is they are good and just continue to get better in the role even as a civvy.
Ref: 2000 hours it has been in situ since 2004 and Bristows did stick to the rules with a lot of moving people around the country to catch up with the problem. It was difficult initially but was achieved. More difficult now with two aircraft types especially being new types and not an abundance of crews type rated, but it will be sorted.
Ref: the 139 I understand like you, with many contacts carrying out the role it is probably not suitable for UK SAR, but please remember who selected it, there was only one MCA member on that SAR H Team no matter how much you try to blame it all on the MCA.
Ref: 2000 hours it has been in situ since 2004 and Bristows did stick to the rules with a lot of moving people around the country to catch up with the problem. It was difficult initially but was achieved. More difficult now with two aircraft types especially being new types and not an abundance of crews type rated, but it will be sorted.
Ref: the 139 I understand like you, with many contacts carrying out the role it is probably not suitable for UK SAR, but please remember who selected it, there was only one MCA member on that SAR H Team no matter how much you try to blame it all on the MCA.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
With reference to your comment that the Sea King has a far greater range than the S92, even without removing extra kit:
The S92 has a still air radius of action of 250 nm with 30 minutes on scene, 10% contingency and IFR minimum landing fuel. And that is without removing any extra kit. We can also remove kit as quickly as you can to give an even better range.
What is the Sea King RoA with equivalent time on scene?
Regards,
Calli
With reference to your comment that the Sea King has a far greater range than the S92, even without removing extra kit:
The S92 has a still air radius of action of 250 nm with 30 minutes on scene, 10% contingency and IFR minimum landing fuel. And that is without removing any extra kit. We can also remove kit as quickly as you can to give an even better range.
What is the Sea King RoA with equivalent time on scene?
Regards,
Calli
Calli - the RAF Sea King RoA is 250nm with 30 mins on scene and a 10% reserve - that is what is declared on the ARCCK RCS every day of the year.
If your claim for the S92 is true then why is it not declared as such? It is toted as 205 nm. Do remember we are talking about the S92 as in use at Sumburgh and Stornoway.
Oh by the way, what is IFR min landing fuel? Do you mean min landing fuel, diversion fuel or some other random figure?
Budget 1 - hardly twisting words...the SARH bids are affected by this legislation and so is the CHC Operation at the MCA flights. The Military is not.
SARH had nothing to do with the interim contract and CHC are big enough players to know what is and isn't a suitable aircraft.
If your claim for the S92 is true then why is it not declared as such? It is toted as 205 nm. Do remember we are talking about the S92 as in use at Sumburgh and Stornoway.
Oh by the way, what is IFR min landing fuel? Do you mean min landing fuel, diversion fuel or some other random figure?
Budget 1 - hardly twisting words...the SARH bids are affected by this legislation and so is the CHC Operation at the MCA flights. The Military is not.
SARH had nothing to do with the interim contract and CHC are big enough players to know what is and isn't a suitable aircraft.
Budget1 - you also misunderstand my comments re NVG; at the moment the MCA crews do a certain amount of night flying training for currency which probably doesn't affect the 2000 WTD since when it gets dark early and you are deemed to be inside your 'daytime' duty period. But as the nights get shorter and more night flying training (for NVG) is required, some of this training burden will start to impinge on the 'night duty period' and therefore count the same as being called out at night ie the whole period goes towards the 2000 hr WTD figure.
Post SAR H - if a service 'no less capable than at present' is to be maintained then the training hours of civ SAR crews will have to ramp up, whether they are ex-mil or not since the CAA, who have resisted legalising civvy NVG ops for so long, are likely to impose strict training and currency requirements when they finally capitulate to the overwhelming pressure.
Post SAR H - if a service 'no less capable than at present' is to be maintained then the training hours of civ SAR crews will have to ramp up, whether they are ex-mil or not since the CAA, who have resisted legalising civvy NVG ops for so long, are likely to impose strict training and currency requirements when they finally capitulate to the overwhelming pressure.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
The whole 24 hr duty counts to the WTD regardless of whether the crew are called out at night or not, so any increased night flying would have no effect on their duty hours.
I have no idea what is portrayed on the RCS or why, since I have no access to it.
IFR minima was a bit misleading, I didn't mean diversion fuel - min landing fuel plus some for holding/positioning for IFR approach.
So the S92 is in the same ball park as the Sea King for RoA, but it will get there much quicker.....
Regards,
Calli
The whole 24 hr duty counts to the WTD regardless of whether the crew are called out at night or not, so any increased night flying would have no effect on their duty hours.
I have no idea what is portrayed on the RCS or why, since I have no access to it.
IFR minima was a bit misleading, I didn't mean diversion fuel - min landing fuel plus some for holding/positioning for IFR approach.
So the S92 is in the same ball park as the Sea King for RoA, but it will get there much quicker.....
Regards,
Calli
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I am wrong it is not a play with words it is downright misrepresentation. SAR H had nothing to do with the interim contract indeed. As for the duty hours it is likely that all the hours will count in a 24 hour shift and if that is the case you are right more crews will be required but not to the levels you portrayed and additional training for NVG’s will be no problem within the 2000 hours.
If you say on one hand that CHC are big enough players to know which aircraft types are right for SAR then why is it you never miss an opportunity to highlight the S92 problems and you have already mentioned a few of the 139 problems gained from your many contacts some of those used to be your pals but do not agree with your views.
My view is the S92 will go on to prove a good SAR aircraft and the 139 should never have been selected in the first place, but to say SAR H had nothing to do with that choice is wrong, they were advising the MCA, even on the interim contract.
If you say on one hand that CHC are big enough players to know which aircraft types are right for SAR then why is it you never miss an opportunity to highlight the S92 problems and you have already mentioned a few of the 139 problems gained from your many contacts some of those used to be your pals but do not agree with your views.
My view is the S92 will go on to prove a good SAR aircraft and the 139 should never have been selected in the first place, but to say SAR H had nothing to do with that choice is wrong, they were advising the MCA, even on the interim contract.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTD
When the WTD 2004 was implemented, Bristow increased the number of crews at each of its SAR bases, passing on the cost to MCA. Certainly before the implementation date, some Bristow SAR crews were above 2000 hrs duty: that included the night standby time, which was counted at half rate (with full approval from the CAA). Stornoway had the greatest problem with hours, as they were called out at night more than the other bases, and when called out, all the night hours have to counted in full.
I take exception to Maxallup-Master's insinuations that Bristow paid lip service to the WTD limits. After the problem was pointed out to the management by the BALPA company council, the extra crews were found and NO-ONE exceeded the limits. At NO time was the SAR service compromised, as it has been this week by CHC. If CHC claim that tis problem has 'just crept up on them', then they are lying. The plain and simple truth of the matter is that CHC knew all about the 2000 hours limit under the WTD when they made their bid for UK SAR some years ago.
And before anyone asks, I was not a SAR driver with Bristow! But why let the truth get in the way of a baseless rumour!
bondu
I take exception to Maxallup-Master's insinuations that Bristow paid lip service to the WTD limits. After the problem was pointed out to the management by the BALPA company council, the extra crews were found and NO-ONE exceeded the limits. At NO time was the SAR service compromised, as it has been this week by CHC. If CHC claim that tis problem has 'just crept up on them', then they are lying. The plain and simple truth of the matter is that CHC knew all about the 2000 hours limit under the WTD when they made their bid for UK SAR some years ago.
And before anyone asks, I was not a SAR driver with Bristow! But why let the truth get in the way of a baseless rumour!
bondu
Calli - the RCS displays the availability of all SAR assets to the ARCCK and helps them decide who to send on a job. Therefore whatever RoA is declared by the operator should be accurate. I know that the MCA flt don't have access to it so your local MRCC must be responsible for it.
For many months the S 92 RoA has been toted at 205 nm although today Stornoway are toting 250 and Sumburg 205 - which is the correct figure or is one just a typo. You could always post the max fuel, fuel burn and Vmax figures and I could work it out myself You are the only one who has contested the 205 nm RoA, do you know somethingthe others don't?
Budget - as much as you might want to blame the RAF for your woes you can't do it. The MCA and CHC are responsible for the level of service provision and the choice of aircraft not us. It may be the 139 was the best of a bad bunch available but it doesn't seem well suited to the job. Would you want to do a long range sea job in an aircraft (S92) that has no run-dry capability or ELS system on the MRGB?
So according to bondu, CHC are the new bad boys in SAR, not being entirely truthful about the WTD - could this be due to worries over profit perhaps? More crews = less profit, so reduce availibility to keep the costs down - is this really the way forward for the whole of UK SAR?
For many months the S 92 RoA has been toted at 205 nm although today Stornoway are toting 250 and Sumburg 205 - which is the correct figure or is one just a typo. You could always post the max fuel, fuel burn and Vmax figures and I could work it out myself
You are the only one who has contested the 205 nm RoA, do you know somethingthe others don't?Budget - as much as you might want to blame the RAF for your woes you can't do it. The MCA and CHC are responsible for the level of service provision and the choice of aircraft not us. It may be the 139 was the best of a bad bunch available but it doesn't seem well suited to the job. Would you want to do a long range sea job in an aircraft (S92) that has no run-dry capability or ELS system on the MRGB?
So according to bondu, CHC are the new bad boys in SAR, not being entirely truthful about the WTD - could this be due to worries over profit perhaps? More crews = less profit, so reduce availibility to keep the costs down - is this really the way forward for the whole of UK SAR?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
So I'm the only one that has contested the 205nm, except of course, your RCS which also says RoA of 250nm!!!
Nobody is lying or making things up. What you have written on your RCS for Stornoway and Sumburgh is the truth in both cases.
Kindest regards,
Calli
So I'm the only one that has contested the 205nm, except of course, your RCS which also says RoA of 250nm!!!
Nobody is lying or making things up. What you have written on your RCS for Stornoway and Sumburgh is the truth in both cases.
Kindest regards,
Calli