SARH to go
And here we are with two full crews and two serviceable aircraft in the South Atlantic defending penguins
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
If a particularly attractive looking sheep should wander up to the Tiger lounge asking for me, would you do me a favour and tell her I was shot down and killed somewhere. Thanks mate
If a particularly attractive looking sheep should wander up to the Tiger lounge asking for me, would you do me a favour and tell her I was shot down and killed somewhere. Thanks mate
Max - I've only been here 2 weeks and all the sheep are looking attractive
Cab le Cutter - started the new job yet?
Cab le Cutter - started the new job yet?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just going back a bit. I understood from an individual way above the pay grades of those of us on this forum, that Bristows were divested of the SAR contract as at the contract meeting only a single individual came smartly but casually dressed. CHC turned up with the 'suits' and promised the world. At which point the civil service individuals then turned around and said lets have a change for changes sake. Clearly they were bored again that year and without much to do.
An all S92 fleet rapidly changed into a S92 north and 139 south arrangement. I think it was commonly acknowledged that the 139 was a pilots dream and crewmans and by default role disaster waiting to happen. When an Agusta TP turns to you and says over a drink 'its not the aircraft for you' - you know something is up.
I suggest that a very real and insidious problem we face and continue to face is the quality or lack there of of civil servant within the MCA. They are to a very worryingly large extent the very worst the civil service has to offer and without denegrating the efforts of those at the coal face or the minority of good, job not career orientated servants and managers we are now seeing the result of those efforts.
We do a lot of infighting here - well, perhaps more than neccessary, sadly a poor quality of civil servant who we should expect far better of and in the case of CHC an unsound management leave us with a very tarnished reputation. If that is allowed to continue then whether you are civil or military we will end up with nothing at all. If the amount of effort that goes in here name calling went into more constructive effort to make a better working environment for ourselves then we would all, military and civl end up providing a far better service in our vocation of service to others when they need our help.
I would propose a most vociferous voicing of concerns at the highest level, alternatively and sadly perhaps, a root and branch clearance of those civl servants within the MCA who have not and continue not to ably demonstrate an ability to perform their jobs effectively and for the benefit of the role. Or perhaps both. Their reaction to the current problem is to penalise CHC, very clever, another way of saying lets rob ourselves of ourselves.
I would suggest on my blackest days, naming and shaming those individuals responsible for this 'non event' as one of them said to me the other week; and I mean literally naming, civil servant Joe Plumber who decided with his vast experience that the pitch angle in hover on the 139 wouldn't be a problem when getting casualties in the cabin, especially when TP 'X' from Agusta was saying years ago, - 'it will be awkward getting a litter in the cabin in the hover' - Italian accent to suit!
If I was the head of the civil service I would be ashamed of the many responsible to me letting down the few so ably trying to do their best. As it is I fear that before too long we will see the loss of further SAR crew fixed or rotary, military or civil resultant from systemic and personnel failings of the civil service and management failings we see today.
As an aside, might we remember fixed wing CG pilots James Beagley and Sophie Hastings, both killed in the Coventry mid air collision in August. We haven't forgotten them, nor will we.
An all S92 fleet rapidly changed into a S92 north and 139 south arrangement. I think it was commonly acknowledged that the 139 was a pilots dream and crewmans and by default role disaster waiting to happen. When an Agusta TP turns to you and says over a drink 'its not the aircraft for you' - you know something is up.
I suggest that a very real and insidious problem we face and continue to face is the quality or lack there of of civil servant within the MCA. They are to a very worryingly large extent the very worst the civil service has to offer and without denegrating the efforts of those at the coal face or the minority of good, job not career orientated servants and managers we are now seeing the result of those efforts.
We do a lot of infighting here - well, perhaps more than neccessary, sadly a poor quality of civil servant who we should expect far better of and in the case of CHC an unsound management leave us with a very tarnished reputation. If that is allowed to continue then whether you are civil or military we will end up with nothing at all. If the amount of effort that goes in here name calling went into more constructive effort to make a better working environment for ourselves then we would all, military and civl end up providing a far better service in our vocation of service to others when they need our help.
I would propose a most vociferous voicing of concerns at the highest level, alternatively and sadly perhaps, a root and branch clearance of those civl servants within the MCA who have not and continue not to ably demonstrate an ability to perform their jobs effectively and for the benefit of the role. Or perhaps both. Their reaction to the current problem is to penalise CHC, very clever, another way of saying lets rob ourselves of ourselves.
I would suggest on my blackest days, naming and shaming those individuals responsible for this 'non event' as one of them said to me the other week; and I mean literally naming, civil servant Joe Plumber who decided with his vast experience that the pitch angle in hover on the 139 wouldn't be a problem when getting casualties in the cabin, especially when TP 'X' from Agusta was saying years ago, - 'it will be awkward getting a litter in the cabin in the hover' - Italian accent to suit!
If I was the head of the civil service I would be ashamed of the many responsible to me letting down the few so ably trying to do their best. As it is I fear that before too long we will see the loss of further SAR crew fixed or rotary, military or civil resultant from systemic and personnel failings of the civil service and management failings we see today.
As an aside, might we remember fixed wing CG pilots James Beagley and Sophie Hastings, both killed in the Coventry mid air collision in August. We haven't forgotten them, nor will we.
Last edited by Tonka Toy; 6th Nov 2008 at 22:15.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, On a role tonight! - whilst talking of night cover, technically there is night cover in the channel without rotary. Coastguard Echo November, and the Channel Island Rescue Service. Its amazing what you can do with a couple of shaggy old Islanders!!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonka,
You point about penalty clauses is a good one.
One the one side, you could argue that the contractor was well aware of the clauses and potential costs and accepted that risk when they signed on the contract. On the other, paying penalties takes money away from more operationally important aspects, potentially reducing performance.
I would imagine that SARH will have similar clauses. Now a 25 year contract could run to some horrendous bills for a poorly performing contractor. So much so I think that SARH may well be a company killer. So where would that leave the government - no SAR contractor and no other contractor able to take over the job?
You point about penalty clauses is a good one.
One the one side, you could argue that the contractor was well aware of the clauses and potential costs and accepted that risk when they signed on the contract. On the other, paying penalties takes money away from more operationally important aspects, potentially reducing performance.
I would imagine that SARH will have similar clauses. Now a 25 year contract could run to some horrendous bills for a poorly performing contractor. So much so I think that SARH may well be a company killer. So where would that leave the government - no SAR contractor and no other contractor able to take over the job?
The comment on the poor managemnet at MCA is well said...I recall the past departed head at a conference making it pretty clear that he thought he was the bees knees when it came to SAR/EMS/Law Enforcement etc...some would call it empire building.
The Coastguard "volunteers" on the ground aren't too happy either,especuially since they have just been told to dispose of all their flares for health and safety reasons and to use mobile phones in future !!!
The Coastguard "volunteers" on the ground aren't too happy either,especuially since they have just been told to dispose of all their flares for health and safety reasons and to use mobile phones in future !!!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Coast
Age: 79
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the MCA/MOD are supposedly due to open the tender documents this coming Thursday, (13 Nov) but there are only 2 remaining bidders, where a minimum of 3 is required. What happens now????????
Why a minimum of 3?
Was it not the intention of the IPT to down-select to 2 in the coming months anyway, so surely UKAR withdrawing has made the decision process easier.
Was it not the intention of the IPT to down-select to 2 in the coming months anyway, so surely UKAR withdrawing has made the decision process easier.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easier decision?
Let's have a look at the situation:
The current contractor is according to this thread not doing so well.
The other remaining contractor is untried in this specific field.
The only contractor with specific experience has pulled out. (and that alone should be sending alarm bells to both other bidders and the CG).
Who would you like to get your hard earned taxes?
Let's have a look at the situation:
The current contractor is according to this thread not doing so well.
The other remaining contractor is untried in this specific field.
The only contractor with specific experience has pulled out. (and that alone should be sending alarm bells to both other bidders and the CG).
Who would you like to get your hard earned taxes?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Coast
Age: 79
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hilife
My very basic understanding for Government contracts of this size & magnitude is a legal requirment, for ideally 5 with a minimum of 3, for the first leg of the tendering process, then reducing to 2.
Please don't ridicule the messenger if the above is found to be way off track, just trying to help.
My very basic understanding for Government contracts of this size & magnitude is a legal requirment, for ideally 5 with a minimum of 3, for the first leg of the tendering process, then reducing to 2.
Please don't ridicule the messenger if the above is found to be way off track, just trying to help.