SARH to go
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sapper,
I think you will find this is the second submission so less than 3 is OK. Not ideal, but OK.
Tonka. I believe years ago you would have been correct about the pitch angle. However, I thnk you will find the new long nose - with additional "Mr Burns" added blimp - brings the C of G forward - not by much but enough to make a difference. I talked to the chaps in Spain who have this configuration having watched them perform a series of SAR demos. I am pretty certain this is not the configuration of the machines on the South Coast - but icould be wrong. I believe the point they made was that people order different things. Some are good, some are excellent.
I think you will find this is the second submission so less than 3 is OK. Not ideal, but OK.
Tonka. I believe years ago you would have been correct about the pitch angle. However, I thnk you will find the new long nose - with additional "Mr Burns" added blimp - brings the C of G forward - not by much but enough to make a difference. I talked to the chaps in Spain who have this configuration having watched them perform a series of SAR demos. I am pretty certain this is not the configuration of the machines on the South Coast - but icould be wrong. I believe the point they made was that people order different things. Some are good, some are excellent.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Away with the Fairies
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that the IPT hasn't made the decision, it's been made for them, making the process more likely to end up with the best of a bad lot. More like "This is what you're gonna get", rather than "This is what we want".
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Away with the Fairies
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, Max, but with the sort of mega bucks being played with you'd want to get your monies worth!
And to be honest, several of the guys studying the bids are quite disillussioned, so maybe the writings on the wall.
And to be honest, several of the guys studying the bids are quite disillussioned, so maybe the writings on the wall.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Vote, I was having a cheap joke at your handle, no stick=no vote.
In terms of getting what you/we want, that work should have already been done with the writing of the technical specification. A technically compliant bid should therefore provide an technically acceptable solution.
In terms of value for money, competition is the best way but comparison against a 'should cost' model and scrutiny by the National Audit Office are other safeguards in place.
If guys are studying the bids already then they have some pretty good spies!
In terms of getting what you/we want, that work should have already been done with the writing of the technical specification. A technically compliant bid should therefore provide an technically acceptable solution.
In terms of value for money, competition is the best way but comparison against a 'should cost' model and scrutiny by the National Audit Office are other safeguards in place.
If guys are studying the bids already then they have some pretty good spies!
So it’s the Nutmeg State verses those with a penchant for bouillabaisse on the platform stakes.
Aside from the merits of each platform, you have a well known Civil Helicopter and SAR operator (Not forgetting Thales) with plenty of experience, verses a Government & Military Support Services Contractor and Systems Integrator with plenty of clout and money, so it will be interesting to see the final outcome as I suspect it’s not as straightforward as one might imagine.
Aside from the merits of each platform, you have a well known Civil Helicopter and SAR operator (Not forgetting Thales) with plenty of experience, verses a Government & Military Support Services Contractor and Systems Integrator with plenty of clout and money, so it will be interesting to see the final outcome as I suspect it’s not as straightforward as one might imagine.
a well known Civil Helicopter and SAR operator
Very professional, not!!!
3D
I've just read on the MCA news pages that the second S92 from Shetland is going South to Lee, providing 24 Hour cover until the 139 is sorted and that the Mil is providing backup for Shetland.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They, CHC and the MCA just lurch from crisis to another! So what happens if, and I say if, the 139 trials don't solve the night flying issues? Note the plural!!
How long can crews be expected to man two bases?
3D
How long can crews be expected to man two bases?
3D
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scotch Land
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who wants a SAR crew job in Portland?
3D
Rumour on the streets has it that they are placing a great deal of time and expense into providing ongoing solutions to restore service. Are you willing to bring a fairly capable aircraft back into play and move things forward, or are you all too militant to attempt limited night ops. You have had crews in a LIMSAR S61 doing your job. Now the S92's up North and their lipstick drivers are on the way to do your job according to the MCA press office. The embarrassment alone should encourage you into going back to the LIMSAR ops that were in place at night, prior to the Portland crews coming on line and throwing their toys out the cot. Do you all have parties around at Mr Kirby’s house to cry about the good ole days with the 61 and how sh1t the new machine is?? He seems to be on TV every other week doing your bidding with you lot hiding under his coat.
No one has ever produced a perfect aircraft and systems tailored to a role, it will take some time to improve a new type in its new role. You are being unrealistic and unfair to your employer and the public. By not using you experience to move forward, develop SOP’s and safe procedures, to balance your aircraft crews remit of Risk Vs Task, you are doing all those working hard to make a success of Civilian SAR – Fail!
Even the most committed SAR-H team, (and even if was the MOD run by Crab@ himself) will not get it completely right straight away, if fact that will never happen. Too many variables, the last contract provider used 20+ years and nibbled away with on the S61 handing out improvements to keep the client sweet. Yet those aircraft were far from being as great as they could have! The same is true of the MOD Sea Kings.
Bitch slapping complete!
Rumour on the streets has it that they are placing a great deal of time and expense into providing ongoing solutions to restore service. Are you willing to bring a fairly capable aircraft back into play and move things forward, or are you all too militant to attempt limited night ops. You have had crews in a LIMSAR S61 doing your job. Now the S92's up North and their lipstick drivers are on the way to do your job according to the MCA press office. The embarrassment alone should encourage you into going back to the LIMSAR ops that were in place at night, prior to the Portland crews coming on line and throwing their toys out the cot. Do you all have parties around at Mr Kirby’s house to cry about the good ole days with the 61 and how sh1t the new machine is?? He seems to be on TV every other week doing your bidding with you lot hiding under his coat.
No one has ever produced a perfect aircraft and systems tailored to a role, it will take some time to improve a new type in its new role. You are being unrealistic and unfair to your employer and the public. By not using you experience to move forward, develop SOP’s and safe procedures, to balance your aircraft crews remit of Risk Vs Task, you are doing all those working hard to make a success of Civilian SAR – Fail!
Even the most committed SAR-H team, (and even if was the MOD run by Crab@ himself) will not get it completely right straight away, if fact that will never happen. Too many variables, the last contract provider used 20+ years and nibbled away with on the S61 handing out improvements to keep the client sweet. Yet those aircraft were far from being as great as they could have! The same is true of the MOD Sea Kings.
Bitch slapping complete!
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 14th Nov 2008 at 22:11. Reason: Remove personal attack
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crabette
I am sorry to have to tell you that your assessment of the situation is entertaining but considerably wide of the mark.
I am told that the crews had no particular attachment to the previous operator or aircraft.
The simple fact was that there was an enormous pride in being able to carry out any task at any time and in virtually any weather and it was widely recognised by the Coastguards, press and public alike.
I sincerely believe that all the crews have found the affair one in which they would have done anything to avoid.
To the present operator’s credit, over the months they encouraged full and open reporting from the crews on the difficulties being experienced in managing to achieve limited SAR.
Again to their credit, the operator eventually sent in some “grown ups” and decided that even though the aircraft was acceptable for Public Transport the aircraft ticked one too many of the unsafe boxes for SAR.
The CAA independently even placed limits on it during the day.
There has indeed recently been a great deal of work by the operator although there are only a few fixes being presently added due to certification timings.
Whether these fixes are enough to tick the right boxes remains to be seen.
I feel you have been grossly unfair to the crews who may have been tempted just to keep quiet, provide a limited service and hope no one suffers in the mean time.
The crews should be congratulated on putting their heads above the parapet so trying to sort this out sooner rather than later especially as the poorer weather approaches.
Remember these are not the usual problems that most of the crews have seen before when changing aircraft types/equipment fit both in civvy and military street.
I am afraid that the “word on the street” as you put it, was that this was all a bit of an experiment in the run up to SARH.
This affair will hopefully result in a much better service and mitigate to some extent the weakness all along which was that the aircraft/fit was clearly selected by those inexperienced in such matters.
I would be very interested to see if it has been presented as an option by any of the bidders on SARH.
Does anyone know?
Regards
Marty
I am sorry to have to tell you that your assessment of the situation is entertaining but considerably wide of the mark.
I am told that the crews had no particular attachment to the previous operator or aircraft.
The simple fact was that there was an enormous pride in being able to carry out any task at any time and in virtually any weather and it was widely recognised by the Coastguards, press and public alike.
I sincerely believe that all the crews have found the affair one in which they would have done anything to avoid.
To the present operator’s credit, over the months they encouraged full and open reporting from the crews on the difficulties being experienced in managing to achieve limited SAR.
Again to their credit, the operator eventually sent in some “grown ups” and decided that even though the aircraft was acceptable for Public Transport the aircraft ticked one too many of the unsafe boxes for SAR.
The CAA independently even placed limits on it during the day.
There has indeed recently been a great deal of work by the operator although there are only a few fixes being presently added due to certification timings.
Whether these fixes are enough to tick the right boxes remains to be seen.
I feel you have been grossly unfair to the crews who may have been tempted just to keep quiet, provide a limited service and hope no one suffers in the mean time.
The crews should be congratulated on putting their heads above the parapet so trying to sort this out sooner rather than later especially as the poorer weather approaches.
Remember these are not the usual problems that most of the crews have seen before when changing aircraft types/equipment fit both in civvy and military street.
I am afraid that the “word on the street” as you put it, was that this was all a bit of an experiment in the run up to SARH.
This affair will hopefully result in a much better service and mitigate to some extent the weakness all along which was that the aircraft/fit was clearly selected by those inexperienced in such matters.
I would be very interested to see if it has been presented as an option by any of the bidders on SARH.
Does anyone know?
Regards
Marty
Last edited by Marty H; 15th Nov 2008 at 09:01. Reason: Grammar