SARH to go
Guest
Posts: n/a
Crab,
having just got off the phone, it would appear that lighting fit and lack of any height bugs are major issues.
This, coupled with the shortfalls you mention i think play a large part in the decision to stop night flying.
I agree also, that well done to the crews for saying enough is enough.
Lets just hope that those in position have learnt from this and DO NOT make the same mistake come 2012
Sante
Doc
having just got off the phone, it would appear that lighting fit and lack of any height bugs are major issues.
This, coupled with the shortfalls you mention i think play a large part in the decision to stop night flying.
I agree also, that well done to the crews for saying enough is enough.
Lets just hope that those in position have learnt from this and DO NOT make the same mistake come 2012
Sante
Doc
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just seen that Royal bank of scotland share's have fallen further today.
How does this affect the future for SAR-H as RBS are partly investing in the CHC bid.
Intresting times ahead due to the financial crisis.
How does this affect the future for SAR-H as RBS are partly investing in the CHC bid.
Intresting times ahead due to the financial crisis.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bucks
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
Might I add my congratulations on you running a provocative debate.
The point about SAR-H being a costly alternative to the present military SAR organisation might be more effectively made if the MoD truly understood the cost of operating this vital service. I would expect this calculation to include any remaining financing on these elderly machines, the cost of spares, maintenance outside the SAR bases, air & ground crew (including all overheads of employment including the very special pension arrangements), insurance, fuel, real estate costs etc etc.
Over the very lengthy contract envisaged by SAR-H, the initial cost of modern helicopters, will not be the most significant cost driver. Through life support costs, and personnel costs will be more important. Through life support does tend to be less expensive for more modern helicopters. I haven't done the sums but it might be cheaper to introduce modern helicopters rather than soldier on with old ones.
Whilst you might poo poo the benefit offered by the latest FLIR camera's, video distribution, EGPWS, TCAS, and even AIS, surely no one can really dismiss these modern devices as not assisting the modern aviator operating at the limits of capability. Otherwise I could hear you wishing for the return of the Whirlwind and disconnection of the computer (now called FADEC) when coasting out to rescue a maximum of 3 folk!
If the new helicopters are not properly equipped, and meeting availability requirements, it is entirely the fault of the customer's contract and contract enforcement. Sadly often the case with the public services.
An advantage conferred by the most modern helicopter is safety which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far. I imagine the Gnome is not quite so unreliable as it was when I worked with it in the '70's, but I doubt it has the reliability of modern engines. JAR/FAR 27/29 designed helicopters are much safer than earlier models, particularly in protecting occupants in the event of an accident. As another example I understand that the S61 (and presumably also the SK) are vertically challenged in the event of a single engine failure in the hover at much above empty weight. So the flattering press reviews, following flood rescues in 2007, might have had an entirely different spin had a Gnome packed up with a rescuee on the end of a winch cable over down-town Carlisle.
On the other hand I gathered during a merry evening in a pub with an RNLI crew, that they much regret the passing of the S61 for the AW139. I seem to recall, but it might have been a distortion in the alcoholic haze at the time, that they found civilian pilots in S61's to be more capable than military pilots in Sea Kings.
If I have to press my DSS button for real, I will be delighted to see any of you arrive.
I look forward to an aggressive reaction to some of these points.
Willantis (an ex-crab)
Might I add my congratulations on you running a provocative debate.
The point about SAR-H being a costly alternative to the present military SAR organisation might be more effectively made if the MoD truly understood the cost of operating this vital service. I would expect this calculation to include any remaining financing on these elderly machines, the cost of spares, maintenance outside the SAR bases, air & ground crew (including all overheads of employment including the very special pension arrangements), insurance, fuel, real estate costs etc etc.
Over the very lengthy contract envisaged by SAR-H, the initial cost of modern helicopters, will not be the most significant cost driver. Through life support costs, and personnel costs will be more important. Through life support does tend to be less expensive for more modern helicopters. I haven't done the sums but it might be cheaper to introduce modern helicopters rather than soldier on with old ones.
Whilst you might poo poo the benefit offered by the latest FLIR camera's, video distribution, EGPWS, TCAS, and even AIS, surely no one can really dismiss these modern devices as not assisting the modern aviator operating at the limits of capability. Otherwise I could hear you wishing for the return of the Whirlwind and disconnection of the computer (now called FADEC) when coasting out to rescue a maximum of 3 folk!
If the new helicopters are not properly equipped, and meeting availability requirements, it is entirely the fault of the customer's contract and contract enforcement. Sadly often the case with the public services.
An advantage conferred by the most modern helicopter is safety which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far. I imagine the Gnome is not quite so unreliable as it was when I worked with it in the '70's, but I doubt it has the reliability of modern engines. JAR/FAR 27/29 designed helicopters are much safer than earlier models, particularly in protecting occupants in the event of an accident. As another example I understand that the S61 (and presumably also the SK) are vertically challenged in the event of a single engine failure in the hover at much above empty weight. So the flattering press reviews, following flood rescues in 2007, might have had an entirely different spin had a Gnome packed up with a rescuee on the end of a winch cable over down-town Carlisle.
On the other hand I gathered during a merry evening in a pub with an RNLI crew, that they much regret the passing of the S61 for the AW139. I seem to recall, but it might have been a distortion in the alcoholic haze at the time, that they found civilian pilots in S61's to be more capable than military pilots in Sea Kings.
If I have to press my DSS button for real, I will be delighted to see any of you arrive.
I look forward to an aggressive reaction to some of these points.
Willantis (an ex-crab)
Willatlantis - no need for an agressive reaction - you make some valid points.
The big problem with trying to prove that SARH is cost effective is that no-one has actually done the sums determine the cost of Military SAR. This should have been the starting point for the process because how else can you show that the new contract is value for money.
All the arguments for privatisation seem sensible but they are mostly an application of apparent common sense and are not based on hard facts.
At present the remaining bidders are trying hard to pare costs to get in under the £5bn mark which is not small potatoes when it comes to public finances especially at the moment.
As for the Gnome - we have one failure (OTG trip in the hover) in the last God knows how many 1000's of flying hours and we wouldn't do what we do without faith in the engines.
If your lifeboat crews have gone from S61 to 139 then they will be South coast guys who won't have seen a yellow SAR cab for many years and are hardly in a position to compare
The big problem with trying to prove that SARH is cost effective is that no-one has actually done the sums determine the cost of Military SAR. This should have been the starting point for the process because how else can you show that the new contract is value for money.
All the arguments for privatisation seem sensible but they are mostly an application of apparent common sense and are not based on hard facts.
At present the remaining bidders are trying hard to pare costs to get in under the £5bn mark which is not small potatoes when it comes to public finances especially at the moment.
As for the Gnome - we have one failure (OTG trip in the hover) in the last God knows how many 1000's of flying hours and we wouldn't do what we do without faith in the engines.
If your lifeboat crews have gone from S61 to 139 then they will be South coast guys who won't have seen a yellow SAR cab for many years and are hardly in a position to compare
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statement from the MCA and CHC
CHC are saying that the main points are that:
there is no issue with regard to the service as there is a contingency aircraft in place
the crew have not refused to fly at night - and it is completely inaccurate to suggest that
CHC instigated the technical and operational review, listened to its crew and pro-actively made the decision to withdraw the AW139 from night time service
A spokesperson for CHC said: "Safety is absolutely paramount to CHC. Following routine technical and operational reviews, our crew raised the issue that a restriction of certain sepcialist search and rescue technical equipment on the AW139 could pose difficulties during night time operations. CHC is working with the manufacturer to address, as a matter of urgency, these issues and, as a contingency measure, is deploying another search and rescue aircraft from its wider fleet to cover night time operations until the issue with the AW139s is fully remedied."
AS part of its contract witht the MCA, CHC operates three AW139 search and rescue helicopters from MCA bases at Lee-on-Solent and Portland. The two aircraft at Lee-on-Solent operate on a 24 hour basis while the aircraft at Portland operates on a 12 hour (9am until 9pm) basis only.
The MCA are saying...
"The MCA contractor responsible for providing coastguard SAR helicopters has restricted night time flying of the AW139 aircraft at Lee on Solent and Portland due to issues around the operation of some of the specialist equipment which are awaiting resolution by the manufacturer.
"Arrangements are being made for additional helicopters with a full night time capability to be stationed at Lee on Solent while these problems are being resolved.
"The AW139s are entirely safe to operate for all daytime and non-specialist nighttime activities. The issues relate to specialist search and rescue activity, such as night time search and rescue. Daytime flying is unaffected. Search and Rescue missions will continue to be effectively undertaken by the AW139s during daylight hours."
The MCA have also issued the following answers to actual and expected questions raised:-
1. How long have you known about this technical difficulty?
The MCA were informed of the full extent of the issues on the morning of 10th October following a series safety meetings between the aircrew and CHC flight safety manager
2. Why has nothing been done about this before?
Action was taken as soon as the full extent of the issues were known
3. When did this technical breakdown happen?
The aircraft were not delivered to the MCA as contracted. The MCA has been working hard with the service provider to rectify the issues
4. How long before it's sorted out?
We expect the modifications to the aircraft to be in place in December, with the crews fully trained by March 2009
5. How are the coastguard going to perform night-time search and rescue without these helicopters?
The transition aircraft are being brought in to cover the night shift from Lee-on-the-Solent
6. Why don't you use S92s for all your SAR cover?
The AW139s are used on the south coast in line with the operational requirement where the majority of jobs are close to the coast and are to rescue a small number of people.
7. What penalties are you going to impose on CHC?
An incentivisation scheme is in place with CHC which allows for deductions to be made for non-performance, which will be used in this respect [avoid the use of penalisation as this is against DfT/Treasury guidance]
8. Are you going to end the contract with CHC?
CHC are contracted to provide the service until 2012. We have no plans to end the contract before this. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures under the force majure conditions which allow, as a last resort, the termination of the contract.
9. Are lives at risk?
The service will continue to be provided in a professional, safe way without compromising the life saving capability of the UK SAR service.
there is no issue with regard to the service as there is a contingency aircraft in place
the crew have not refused to fly at night - and it is completely inaccurate to suggest that
CHC instigated the technical and operational review, listened to its crew and pro-actively made the decision to withdraw the AW139 from night time service
A spokesperson for CHC said: "Safety is absolutely paramount to CHC. Following routine technical and operational reviews, our crew raised the issue that a restriction of certain sepcialist search and rescue technical equipment on the AW139 could pose difficulties during night time operations. CHC is working with the manufacturer to address, as a matter of urgency, these issues and, as a contingency measure, is deploying another search and rescue aircraft from its wider fleet to cover night time operations until the issue with the AW139s is fully remedied."
AS part of its contract witht the MCA, CHC operates three AW139 search and rescue helicopters from MCA bases at Lee-on-Solent and Portland. The two aircraft at Lee-on-Solent operate on a 24 hour basis while the aircraft at Portland operates on a 12 hour (9am until 9pm) basis only.
The MCA are saying...
"The MCA contractor responsible for providing coastguard SAR helicopters has restricted night time flying of the AW139 aircraft at Lee on Solent and Portland due to issues around the operation of some of the specialist equipment which are awaiting resolution by the manufacturer.
"Arrangements are being made for additional helicopters with a full night time capability to be stationed at Lee on Solent while these problems are being resolved.
"The AW139s are entirely safe to operate for all daytime and non-specialist nighttime activities. The issues relate to specialist search and rescue activity, such as night time search and rescue. Daytime flying is unaffected. Search and Rescue missions will continue to be effectively undertaken by the AW139s during daylight hours."
The MCA have also issued the following answers to actual and expected questions raised:-
1. How long have you known about this technical difficulty?
The MCA were informed of the full extent of the issues on the morning of 10th October following a series safety meetings between the aircrew and CHC flight safety manager
2. Why has nothing been done about this before?
Action was taken as soon as the full extent of the issues were known
3. When did this technical breakdown happen?
The aircraft were not delivered to the MCA as contracted. The MCA has been working hard with the service provider to rectify the issues
4. How long before it's sorted out?
We expect the modifications to the aircraft to be in place in December, with the crews fully trained by March 2009
5. How are the coastguard going to perform night-time search and rescue without these helicopters?
The transition aircraft are being brought in to cover the night shift from Lee-on-the-Solent
6. Why don't you use S92s for all your SAR cover?
The AW139s are used on the south coast in line with the operational requirement where the majority of jobs are close to the coast and are to rescue a small number of people.
7. What penalties are you going to impose on CHC?
An incentivisation scheme is in place with CHC which allows for deductions to be made for non-performance, which will be used in this respect [avoid the use of penalisation as this is against DfT/Treasury guidance]
8. Are you going to end the contract with CHC?
CHC are contracted to provide the service until 2012. We have no plans to end the contract before this. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures under the force majure conditions which allow, as a last resort, the termination of the contract.
9. Are lives at risk?
The service will continue to be provided in a professional, safe way without compromising the life saving capability of the UK SAR service.
the crew have not refused to fly at night - and it is completely inaccurate to suggest that CHC instigated the technical and operational review
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bertie,
Thats how I read it the first time but I believe CHC instigated the technical and operational review is actually a new sentence.
...of course you knew that really and were just winding Leopold up... and I fell for it
Thats how I read it the first time but I believe CHC instigated the technical and operational review is actually a new sentence.
...of course you knew that really and were just winding Leopold up... and I fell for it
So then CHC and the MCA are the way forward for UK SAR - and neither of them thought having no lights under the aircraft might be a safety issue for night rescues
Nice to see both parties trying to put their positive spin on what is frankly a disaster:
- brand new contract with brand new aircraft which should be the blueprint for the future of UKSAR
- aircraft delivered not up to full spec but pushed into service anyway because they thought they could get away with it during the short nights of Summer.
- Winter draws in and the crews realise the management and manufacturers are not really trying to rectify the situation.
- crews cry foul since it is their asses on the line and force an embarrassing climbdown by management
- everyone shouts at everyone else, especially the A part of AW.
What a fantastic advertisement for SARH - not!
Nice to see both parties trying to put their positive spin on what is frankly a disaster:
- brand new contract with brand new aircraft which should be the blueprint for the future of UKSAR
- aircraft delivered not up to full spec but pushed into service anyway because they thought they could get away with it during the short nights of Summer.
- Winter draws in and the crews realise the management and manufacturers are not really trying to rectify the situation.
- crews cry foul since it is their asses on the line and force an embarrassing climbdown by management
- everyone shouts at everyone else, especially the A part of AW.
What a fantastic advertisement for SARH - not!
Reminds me of the 412 coming into service in Cyprus with insufficient lighting and a host of other contractual issues. Of course that was provided by FBH, which is Bristows spelt differently...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interesting fact here is that the previous operator who ran Civil SAR successfully for 20 years told the MCA that these aircraft weren't ready for SAR.
Good to see Crab and his cronies in full rightous mode but then you should remember they form part of an organisation which wasted £2.5 billion of taxpayers money on failed projects and a organisation who Crab himself has described as suffering from "systemic incompetence " and "Our serviceability problems are the stuff of legend"!!! So don't have any faith in their ability to provide in the future.
Crab has also admitted that "MoD were asked for guidance and expertise in examining the interim contract".
And finally Crab posted on 2 July.....
So who's to blame......perhaps Crab you need to look a little closer to home! 
Good to see Crab and his cronies in full rightous mode but then you should remember they form part of an organisation which wasted £2.5 billion of taxpayers money on failed projects and a organisation who Crab himself has described as suffering from "systemic incompetence " and "Our serviceability problems are the stuff of legend"!!! So don't have any faith in their ability to provide in the future.
Crab has also admitted that "MoD were asked for guidance and expertise in examining the interim contract".
And finally Crab posted on 2 July.....
the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job
Last edited by Lost at Sea; 22nd Oct 2008 at 11:56.
The interesting fact here is actually that the 139 would have been fit for purpose had it been equipped as promised - it wasn't!
But between CHC, AW and the MCA (most definitely nothing at all to do with the MoD) it was delivered without the promised kit and then pressed into service hoping the upgrades wouldn't be too long.
I believe SARTU will get properly equipped 139s so it will be interesting to compare.
Lost - no matter which way you try and spin it, this c*ckup has nothing to do with the RAF or MoD - you need to look closer to home I think.
BTW your re-running of my past comments looks even more desperate this time round - you have even less to bring to the discussion than before.
If you don't like the way the MoD budget is spent the write to your MP instead of dripping here but since much of defence procurement keeps AW and BAE in business I don't suppose you will get much support.
But between CHC, AW and the MCA (most definitely nothing at all to do with the MoD) it was delivered without the promised kit and then pressed into service hoping the upgrades wouldn't be too long.
I believe SARTU will get properly equipped 139s so it will be interesting to compare.
Lost - no matter which way you try and spin it, this c*ckup has nothing to do with the RAF or MoD - you need to look closer to home I think.
BTW your re-running of my past comments looks even more desperate this time round - you have even less to bring to the discussion than before.
If you don't like the way the MoD budget is spent the write to your MP instead of dripping here but since much of defence procurement keeps AW and BAE in business I don't suppose you will get much support.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC SAR in the South
UK: Maritime and Coastguard Agency issue statement regarding AW139 in night operations
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has issued the following statement to Rotorhub.com following press reports late yesterday (such as this one on BBC News) which stated that the AW139 was being temporarily withdrawn from night operations. Their statement clears a number of questions which have been asked on online chat forums etc, and the MCA advised us that the safety issues concern the auto-hover and Nightsun equipment in particular and that the safety review stated that the AW139s should only fly at night "from lit airfield to lit airfield", obviously no help for offshore SAR work. The statement reads as below:-
Rotorhub.com Editorial Team
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHC are saying that the main points are that:
there is no issue with regard to the service as there is a contingency aircraft in place
the crew have not refused to fly at night - and it is completely inaccurate to suggest that
CHC instigated the technical and operational review, listened to its crew and pro-actively made the decision to withdraw the AW139 from night time service
A spokesperson for CHC said: "Safety is absolutely paramount to CHC. Following routine technical and operational reviews, our crew raised the issue that a restriction of certain sepcialist search and rescue technical equipment on the AW139 could pose difficulties during night time operations. CHC is working with the manufacturer to address, as a matter of urgency, these issues and, as a contingency measure, is deploying another search and rescue aircraft from its wider fleet to cover night time operations until the issue with the AW139s is fully remedied."
AS part of its contract witht the MCA, CHC operates three AW139 search and rescue helicopters from MCA bases at Lee-on-Solent and Portland. The two aircraft at Lee-on-Solent operate on a 24 hour basis while the aircraft at Portland operates on a 12 hour (9am until 9pm) basis only.
The MCA are saying...
"The MCA contractor responsible for providing coastguard SAR helicopters has restricted night time flying of the AW139 aircraft at Lee on Solent and Portland due to issues around the operation of some of the specialist equipment which are awaiting resolution by the manufacturer.
"Arrangements are being made for additional helicopters with a full night time capability to be stationed at Lee on Solent while these problems are being resolved.
"The AW139s are entirely safe to operate for all daytime and non-specialist nighttime activities. The issues relate to specialist search and rescue activity, such as night time search and rescue. Daytime flying is unaffected. Search and Rescue missions will continue to be effectively undertaken by the AW139s during daylight hours."
The MCA have also issued the following answers to actual and expected questions raised:-
1. How long have you known about this technical difficulty?
The MCA were informed of the full extent of the issues on the morning of 10th October following a series safety meetings between the aircrew and CHC flight safety manager
2. Why has nothing been done about this before?
Action was taken as soon as the full extent of the issues were known
3. When did this technical breakdown happen?
The aircraft were not delivered to the MCA as contracted. The MCA has been working hard with the service provider to rectify the issues
4. How long before it's sorted out?
We expect the modifications to the aircraft to be in place in December, with the crews fully trained by March 2009
5. How are the coastguard going to perform night-time search and rescue without these helicopters?
The transition aircraft are being brought in to cover the night shift from Lee-on-the-Solent
6. Why don't you use S92s for all your SAR cover?
The AW139s are used on the south coast in line with the operational requirement where the majority of jobs are close to the coast and are to rescue a small number of people.
7. What penalties are you going to impose on CHC?
An incentivisation scheme is in place with CHC which allows for deductions to be made for non-performance, which will be used in this respect [avoid the use of penalisation as this is against DfT/Treasury guidance]
8. Are you going to end the contract with CHC?
CHC are contracted to provide the service until 2012. We have no plans to end the contract before this. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures under the force majure conditions which allow, as a last resort, the termination of the contract.
9. Are lives at risk?
The service will continue to be provided in a professional, safe way without compromising the life saving capability of the UK SAR service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has issued the following statement to Rotorhub.com following press reports late yesterday (such as this one on BBC News) which stated that the AW139 was being temporarily withdrawn from night operations. Their statement clears a number of questions which have been asked on online chat forums etc, and the MCA advised us that the safety issues concern the auto-hover and Nightsun equipment in particular and that the safety review stated that the AW139s should only fly at night "from lit airfield to lit airfield", obviously no help for offshore SAR work. The statement reads as below:-
Rotorhub.com Editorial Team
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHC are saying that the main points are that:
there is no issue with regard to the service as there is a contingency aircraft in place
the crew have not refused to fly at night - and it is completely inaccurate to suggest that
CHC instigated the technical and operational review, listened to its crew and pro-actively made the decision to withdraw the AW139 from night time service
A spokesperson for CHC said: "Safety is absolutely paramount to CHC. Following routine technical and operational reviews, our crew raised the issue that a restriction of certain sepcialist search and rescue technical equipment on the AW139 could pose difficulties during night time operations. CHC is working with the manufacturer to address, as a matter of urgency, these issues and, as a contingency measure, is deploying another search and rescue aircraft from its wider fleet to cover night time operations until the issue with the AW139s is fully remedied."
AS part of its contract witht the MCA, CHC operates three AW139 search and rescue helicopters from MCA bases at Lee-on-Solent and Portland. The two aircraft at Lee-on-Solent operate on a 24 hour basis while the aircraft at Portland operates on a 12 hour (9am until 9pm) basis only.
The MCA are saying...
"The MCA contractor responsible for providing coastguard SAR helicopters has restricted night time flying of the AW139 aircraft at Lee on Solent and Portland due to issues around the operation of some of the specialist equipment which are awaiting resolution by the manufacturer.
"Arrangements are being made for additional helicopters with a full night time capability to be stationed at Lee on Solent while these problems are being resolved.
"The AW139s are entirely safe to operate for all daytime and non-specialist nighttime activities. The issues relate to specialist search and rescue activity, such as night time search and rescue. Daytime flying is unaffected. Search and Rescue missions will continue to be effectively undertaken by the AW139s during daylight hours."
The MCA have also issued the following answers to actual and expected questions raised:-
1. How long have you known about this technical difficulty?
The MCA were informed of the full extent of the issues on the morning of 10th October following a series safety meetings between the aircrew and CHC flight safety manager
2. Why has nothing been done about this before?
Action was taken as soon as the full extent of the issues were known
3. When did this technical breakdown happen?
The aircraft were not delivered to the MCA as contracted. The MCA has been working hard with the service provider to rectify the issues
4. How long before it's sorted out?
We expect the modifications to the aircraft to be in place in December, with the crews fully trained by March 2009
5. How are the coastguard going to perform night-time search and rescue without these helicopters?
The transition aircraft are being brought in to cover the night shift from Lee-on-the-Solent
6. Why don't you use S92s for all your SAR cover?
The AW139s are used on the south coast in line with the operational requirement where the majority of jobs are close to the coast and are to rescue a small number of people.
7. What penalties are you going to impose on CHC?
An incentivisation scheme is in place with CHC which allows for deductions to be made for non-performance, which will be used in this respect [avoid the use of penalisation as this is against DfT/Treasury guidance]
8. Are you going to end the contract with CHC?
CHC are contracted to provide the service until 2012. We have no plans to end the contract before this. Should the problems escalate and progress is not forthcoming we will be seeking measures under the force majure conditions which allow, as a last resort, the termination of the contract.
9. Are lives at risk?
The service will continue to be provided in a professional, safe way without compromising the life saving capability of the UK SAR service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotia - that is the same info that Leopold Bloom posted earlier - it's just a denial of responsibility by CHC and MCA.
Out of interest, does anyone know what the interim contract cost the taxpayer?
Out of interest, does anyone know what the interim contract cost the taxpayer?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Up to my axles
Age: 61
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD = right first time, every time!
Lost at Sea,
I think that it is rather impertinent to suggest that RAF advice has any part to play in this saga. As Crab says, if they had been specced as promised, they would have been fit for purpose.
And we all know that the clout of the military ensures that aircraft are always delivered on time, on budget and fully functioning. Just look at the smooth introduction to service of the Nimrod, Typhoon, latest Chinook and many others that I am sure that he will be happy to crow about on this forum.
TD
I think that it is rather impertinent to suggest that RAF advice has any part to play in this saga. As Crab says, if they had been specced as promised, they would have been fit for purpose.
And we all know that the clout of the military ensures that aircraft are always delivered on time, on budget and fully functioning. Just look at the smooth introduction to service of the Nimrod, Typhoon, latest Chinook and many others that I am sure that he will be happy to crow about on this forum.
TD
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
I know you hate it when I bring up your past comments particularly when it shows how your arguments constantly change and how you continually contridict yourself, which is generally why I do it. You see if you are going to take the moral high ground on these issues you have to be consistent in your train of thought which you continually fail to do.
It was after all you that said things would be better this time round thanks to the involvement of the RAF!
It's also rather hypocritical to keep going on about the cost of the interim contract to the taxpayer when the RAF wastes billions of pounds of taxpayers money on failed RAF projects.
If you don't like the way the MCA budget is spent then write to your MP instead of dripping on here!! 
You can't have it both ways! 
Anyway, no doubt you'll just insult me now.
I know you hate it when I bring up your past comments particularly when it shows how your arguments constantly change and how you continually contridict yourself, which is generally why I do it. You see if you are going to take the moral high ground on these issues you have to be consistent in your train of thought which you continually fail to do.
It was after all you that said things would be better this time round thanks to the involvement of the RAF!
It's also rather hypocritical to keep going on about the cost of the interim contract to the taxpayer when the RAF wastes billions of pounds of taxpayers money on failed RAF projects.
If you don't like the way the MoD budget is spent the write to your MP instead of dripping here
You can't have it both ways! Anyway, no doubt you'll just insult me now.