SARH to go
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab Quote:-
"How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability"
Don't go there Crab
You go on about people telling porkies when bidding for contracts well thats what your doing.
Even I can remember Black Monday when there was only one Seaking seviceable in the whole of the Military SAR fleet , Now I know thats not "ALL" but it's bloody close.
U/S SAR Seakings are a weekly occurrence at most RAF bases sometimes both are U/S
Also I would like to know why the S92 in Sumburgh would need extra tanks fitted don't they have oil rigs north ,south, east and west to refuel on or am I missing something.
Justin
"How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability"
Don't go there Crab
You go on about people telling porkies when bidding for contracts well thats what your doing.
Even I can remember Black Monday when there was only one Seaking seviceable in the whole of the Military SAR fleet , Now I know thats not "ALL" but it's bloody close.
U/S SAR Seakings are a weekly occurrence at most RAF bases sometimes both are U/S
Also I would like to know why the S92 in Sumburgh would need extra tanks fitted don't they have oil rigs north ,south, east and west to refuel on or am I missing something.
Justin
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost at Sea,
As I have already said, there is a lot of supposition about the advice given to the MCA. Unless they were obliged to take the advice then the MCA is still ultimately responsible. Has the MCA pointed the finger at the MoD/RAF/IPT? If they have grounds for complaint it seems strange that, given the press are criticising them over the introduction of these aircraft, they haven't sought to make public how they were duped.
HAL
As I have already said, there is a lot of supposition about the advice given to the MCA. Unless they were obliged to take the advice then the MCA is still ultimately responsible. Has the MCA pointed the finger at the MoD/RAF/IPT? If they have grounds for complaint it seems strange that, given the press are criticising them over the introduction of these aircraft, they haven't sought to make public how they were duped.
HAL
Old LAE - if quality experience is only available from ex-mil sources, what will happen when there is no more ex-mil. As it is the bidders recognise that without a significant number of mil crews defecting come 2012 and beyond they won't be able to crew the aircraft with the right calibre of pilot/winchman.
Whilst an ex mil pilot may bring many skills to the party, the civilian co-pilot spends his life in the LHS, does a captain's course and then magically becomes an experienced SAR Captain who has probably never done a job form RHS.
Mil Co's get stacks of RHS training, SAREXs and supervised jobs in the RHS before an Op Captaincy check.
I know that the bidders for SARH have included training plans for the future, (many modelled on what the RAF does) that explains why the bids are so expensive and why civSAR is not cheaper than mil when the playing field is level.
It all comes down to training - SAR involves a lot of skillsets which erode without constant practice - the Mil do many more times the amount of training and checks than civ do - you work out which is best.
You can provide SAR on a shoestring but it isn't likely to be very good - unfortunately it is only the difficult jobs where this will show - we train for the worst case so we are not caught out.
Justin - I'm not saying we don't have serviceability problems but Lostatsea's claim that civSAR constantly covers for our unserviceabilities is plainly untrue.
It is Stornoway that needs the long range where there are no rigs.
Lost - Bristows ran a SAR service for 20 years and told the MCA what they wanted to hear. The MCA were unable to get unbiased aviation information from industry (surprise surprise) when the contract was due for renewal which is why the military were involved.
PS you don't have arguments, you have comments on other peoples arguments - not the same thing
Whilst an ex mil pilot may bring many skills to the party, the civilian co-pilot spends his life in the LHS, does a captain's course and then magically becomes an experienced SAR Captain who has probably never done a job form RHS.
Mil Co's get stacks of RHS training, SAREXs and supervised jobs in the RHS before an Op Captaincy check.
I know that the bidders for SARH have included training plans for the future, (many modelled on what the RAF does) that explains why the bids are so expensive and why civSAR is not cheaper than mil when the playing field is level.
It all comes down to training - SAR involves a lot of skillsets which erode without constant practice - the Mil do many more times the amount of training and checks than civ do - you work out which is best.
You can provide SAR on a shoestring but it isn't likely to be very good - unfortunately it is only the difficult jobs where this will show - we train for the worst case so we are not caught out.
Justin - I'm not saying we don't have serviceability problems but Lostatsea's claim that civSAR constantly covers for our unserviceabilities is plainly untrue.
It is Stornoway that needs the long range where there are no rigs.
Lost - Bristows ran a SAR service for 20 years and told the MCA what they wanted to hear. The MCA were unable to get unbiased aviation information from industry (surprise surprise) when the contract was due for renewal which is why the military were involved.
PS you don't have arguments, you have comments on other peoples arguments - not the same thing
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The military did not get involved in the MCA Interim contract because industry would not provide unbiased aviation information. As already stated, the MCA retains the services of an unbiased aviation consultant (who was also involved in the acceptance of the Interim contract by the MCA). This company openly advertises that they advise the MCA on SAR helicopters, on their website Consultavia - Aviation advice and consultancy services for helicopter users and operators
The joint MCA/MOD IPT was to have been formed solely for the SARH Contract. When MOD programme delays slipped the project to the right then the resources of the joint MCA/MOD IPT were assigned to the writing and evaluation of the MCA Interim contract. Acceptance and oversight of the MCA Interim contract was, and is, an MCA matter.
In addition to late delivery of the aircrfat, Sirkorsky have had 'certification' issues with the long range tanks in the S92. Any contractual implications in this delay in achieving full operating capability is again, a matter for the MCA, CHC and Sikorsky.
The joint MCA/MOD IPT was to have been formed solely for the SARH Contract. When MOD programme delays slipped the project to the right then the resources of the joint MCA/MOD IPT were assigned to the writing and evaluation of the MCA Interim contract. Acceptance and oversight of the MCA Interim contract was, and is, an MCA matter.
In addition to late delivery of the aircrfat, Sirkorsky have had 'certification' issues with the long range tanks in the S92. Any contractual implications in this delay in achieving full operating capability is again, a matter for the MCA, CHC and Sikorsky.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
without wishing to stir any hornets nests again, why hasn't the 139 started ops at Lee yet? or has it now? I heard that crews were being trained on it but it seems to have taken a long time and the Portland 139 has been operating for some time now.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Newcastle Uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanish waltzer Quote:
"why hasn't the 139 started ops at Lee yet? or has it now? I heard that crews were being trained on it but it seems to have taken a long time and the Portland 139 has been operating for some time now"
They went live 30th of last month
.
Crab quote:
"I'm not saying we don't have serviceability problems but Lostatsea's claim that civSAR constantly covers for our unserviceabilities is plainly untrue".
So if your unserviceable and the civSAR is not covering you who is ? maybe it's the Sea Scouts
"why hasn't the 139 started ops at Lee yet? or has it now? I heard that crews were being trained on it but it seems to have taken a long time and the Portland 139 has been operating for some time now"
They went live 30th of last month
.Crab quote:
"I'm not saying we don't have serviceability problems but Lostatsea's claim that civSAR constantly covers for our unserviceabilities is plainly untrue".
So if your unserviceable and the civSAR is not covering you who is ? maybe it's the Sea Scouts
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lee on Solent
The Lee on Solent crews went 'live' on the 139 on the 1st April. Because the Portland crews had to go to Italy for training it was quite wisely decided that the Lee crews should cover Portland whilst gaining experience on the aircraft, systems and procedures.
As of 30th June both Lee and Portland went 'live' with the 139.
As of 30th June both Lee and Portland went 'live' with the 139.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost - Bristows ran a SAR service for 20 years and told the MCA what they wanted to hear.
The MCA were unable to get unbiased aviation information from industry (surprise surprise) when the contract was due for renewal which is why the military were involved.
PS you don't have arguments, you have comments on other peoples arguments - not the same thing
Max Con - the Consultavia company appears to be a one-man band who has no modern SAR experience - this is probably why the Military were asked.
Lost at Sea - I made the point that Bristows ran the SAR operation not the MCA, the MCA had operational control of the 4 flights. With no aviation expertise, the MCA would have little choice but to accept that whatever the contractors told them was the true state of affairs - you said they lied not me but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps.
The SAR H IPT is a mix of Mil, civ and MCA and therefore there is knowledge of CivSAR and direct consultation is very likely to have taken place.
You clearly don't understand the process since the (4 now 3) bidders are the ones to decide basing, aircraft types, training, manning etc, not the IPT. The consortia are made up from various companies, all of whom have a very clear working knowledge of modern SAR technology.
Interestingly, the RAF were not offered the chance to construct an all-mil bid by way of a comparison.
Now the bids have been submitted (several by each consortium to cover different options) the IPT uses all manner of subject matter experts to score the bids - the technical issues regarding aircraft capability have been assessed by current RAF SAR operators (mainly SAR Standards).
Once the scoring is completed then the winning bidder shoud emerge.
Is that clear and propaganda-free enough for you?
My argument is that UK SAR should stay military (or the 2/3 that it is at the moment) for all of the reasons I have detailed in many posts - what exactly is your argument (other than you just don't like my attitude)?
Lost at Sea - I made the point that Bristows ran the SAR operation not the MCA, the MCA had operational control of the 4 flights. With no aviation expertise, the MCA would have little choice but to accept that whatever the contractors told them was the true state of affairs - you said they lied not me but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps.
The SAR H IPT is a mix of Mil, civ and MCA and therefore there is knowledge of CivSAR and direct consultation is very likely to have taken place.
You clearly don't understand the process since the (4 now 3) bidders are the ones to decide basing, aircraft types, training, manning etc, not the IPT. The consortia are made up from various companies, all of whom have a very clear working knowledge of modern SAR technology.
Interestingly, the RAF were not offered the chance to construct an all-mil bid by way of a comparison.
Now the bids have been submitted (several by each consortium to cover different options) the IPT uses all manner of subject matter experts to score the bids - the technical issues regarding aircraft capability have been assessed by current RAF SAR operators (mainly SAR Standards).
Once the scoring is completed then the winning bidder shoud emerge.
Is that clear and propaganda-free enough for you?
My argument is that UK SAR should stay military (or the 2/3 that it is at the moment) for all of the reasons I have detailed in many posts - what exactly is your argument (other than you just don't like my attitude)?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldlae,
SAR engineering is now done by AW/VT so, unless a cheaper contractor can be found, there are no engineering savinds to be made with full civilianisation of SAR.
Justintime80,
It was the MCA that claimed, in an official press release, that both the AW139 and S92 could fly further than the aircraft they replaced.
MaxCon, Thank you for that rarest of treats on this thread, an informed and unbiased post.
Still some Crab baiting going on because some people don't seem to like some of what he has been saying coming true. Having read Crab's posts, I cannot recall him directly criticising the actual civ crews with his target being the senior management. In the interests of balance he also has a regular pop at the MoD/IPT/RAF.
I can never understand UK civ SAR slagging off the military. It was, after all, the military that recruited, selected and trained the vast majority of those now in civvy street.
hal
SAR engineering is now done by AW/VT so, unless a cheaper contractor can be found, there are no engineering savinds to be made with full civilianisation of SAR.
Justintime80,
It was the MCA that claimed, in an official press release, that both the AW139 and S92 could fly further than the aircraft they replaced.
MaxCon, Thank you for that rarest of treats on this thread, an informed and unbiased post.
Still some Crab baiting going on because some people don't seem to like some of what he has been saying coming true. Having read Crab's posts, I cannot recall him directly criticising the actual civ crews with his target being the senior management. In the interests of balance he also has a regular pop at the MoD/IPT/RAF.
I can never understand UK civ SAR slagging off the military. It was, after all, the military that recruited, selected and trained the vast majority of those now in civvy street.
hal
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
Nice to see you're coming back to a more reasoned argument. I was a bit concerned about you and was beginning to think you were about to become the RAF equivalent of a hysterical religious zealot with your mad claims about the whole aviation industry unable to offer unbiased information to the MCA. Perhaps you and your mate Hal could have started a your own cult where you sit in your broken down yellow sea kings with your backwards facing radar decrying the evil infidel (civy sar) and their march towards UK SAR domination. So welcome back to reality!
Now to the bit you hate – me showing the rest of the forum the inconsistencies and spin in your argument.
Here we go again... nice spin but not true. I asked you the question "Are you saying Bristows lied to the MCA?" That's a question not a statement. The clue was the question mark at the end.
Well, if they didn't surely the RAF technical advice on offer would have spotted it?????
Really...... perhaps you don't know as much as you claim.
Yes well after wasting £3 billion on Nimrods and Chinooks they're hardly to be trusted with taxpayers money.
A fine argument... I mean if it goes Civy and you stay with the RAF you might have to move house and fly somewhere else!!!
And now to your 'mini me' HAL.
Your a bit mixed up old fellow... that'll be your hero Crab slagging off the Civy's but a nice attempt at spin but your not quite up to Crab's standards!
I suggest you reread this thread I have already proven that Crab's argument has changed from heralding the new provider of Civy SAR (thanks to MOD involvement) to slagging it off (now things aren't going well) .... and the RAF only walked past the MCA HQ that afternoon 3 years they never offered any technical advice at all... its all the evil Civy's fault.. and so on.
Yes it was. Which is exactly why Civy SAR is as professional and dedicated as it is. Something you and Crab should remember.
And finally.....
Crab, your right... I don't like your attitude. I think it stinks. For years you have attempted to damage me and my former colleagues in Civy SAR through half truths, outright lies and snide unpleasant remarks. You seem to relish any opportunity to knock them and take an unpleasant delight when things go wrong whilst blatantly ignoring the problems and expense of your own service.
The only reason I post on this site is because I hate to see your biased propaganda going unanswered. I want to show the forum how you twist information by quoting your arguments and showing the inconsistencies in them. Personally I don't care about whether SAR-H happens or not but I will continue to take you to task on everything you say. We live in a democracy (thanks to the military) and listening to one extreme opinion is unhealthy so I am providing an opposite opinion so hopefully we will cancel each other out and a more sane and level headed debate will carry on in the middle. Oh and feel free to call me 'mental' again I really don't mind!
Nice to see you're coming back to a more reasoned argument. I was a bit concerned about you and was beginning to think you were about to become the RAF equivalent of a hysterical religious zealot with your mad claims about the whole aviation industry unable to offer unbiased information to the MCA. Perhaps you and your mate Hal could have started a your own cult where you sit in your broken down yellow sea kings with your backwards facing radar decrying the evil infidel (civy sar) and their march towards UK SAR domination. So welcome back to reality!
Now to the bit you hate – me showing the rest of the forum the inconsistencies and spin in your argument.
you said they lied not me
Here we go again... nice spin but not true. I asked you the question "Are you saying Bristows lied to the MCA?" That's a question not a statement. The clue was the question mark at the end.
but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps
The SAR H IPT is a mix of Mil, civ and MCA and therefore there is knowledge of CivSAR and direct consultation is very likely to have taken place.
Interestingly, the RAF were not offered the chance to construct an all-mil bid by way of a comparison.
My argument is that UK SAR should stay military
And now to your 'mini me' HAL.
I can never understand UK civ SAR slagging off the military.
Still some Crab baiting going on because some people don't seem to like some of what he has been saying coming true.
It was, after all, the military that recruited, selected and trained the vast majority of those now in civvy street.
And finally.....
Crab, your right... I don't like your attitude. I think it stinks. For years you have attempted to damage me and my former colleagues in Civy SAR through half truths, outright lies and snide unpleasant remarks. You seem to relish any opportunity to knock them and take an unpleasant delight when things go wrong whilst blatantly ignoring the problems and expense of your own service.
The only reason I post on this site is because I hate to see your biased propaganda going unanswered. I want to show the forum how you twist information by quoting your arguments and showing the inconsistencies in them. Personally I don't care about whether SAR-H happens or not but I will continue to take you to task on everything you say. We live in a democracy (thanks to the military) and listening to one extreme opinion is unhealthy so I am providing an opposite opinion so hopefully we will cancel each other out and a more sane and level headed debate will carry on in the middle. Oh and feel free to call me 'mental' again I really don't mind!
Frankly Lost - I think that anyone with more than one brain cell can see that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag - your constant cut, paste and fatuous comment technique is a masterclass in confused thinking and deformed logic.
For example, your conclusion that because the procurement system made errors with the Nimrod and Chinook 3 the RAF should therefore not be allowed to make a bid for SARH is childish logic to say the least.
Another example of your inability to see what is before you - your reply to my comments about the MCA not knowing about the difference in aircraft capability was to snipe at the RAF technical advice on offer - the period we are talking about is your last 20 glorious years of Bristow/MCA SAR where no RAF technical advice was sought or given. Another great expose argument debunked!
Most of the rest of your 'arguments' follow the same ridiculous pattern - the only one you got right was about Bristows lying - I was just having some fun with that one
The rest of your post is the same drivel - you really are delusional if you think that you have demonstrated inconsistencies and spin in my arguments by making ill thought out, uninformed and embarassingly wild accusations about topics you have little knowledge of.
BTW is there a new law that you can't live where you work?
For example, your conclusion that because the procurement system made errors with the Nimrod and Chinook 3 the RAF should therefore not be allowed to make a bid for SARH is childish logic to say the least.
Another example of your inability to see what is before you - your reply to my comments about the MCA not knowing about the difference in aircraft capability was to snipe at the RAF technical advice on offer - the period we are talking about is your last 20 glorious years of Bristow/MCA SAR where no RAF technical advice was sought or given. Another great expose argument debunked!
Most of the rest of your 'arguments' follow the same ridiculous pattern - the only one you got right was about Bristows lying - I was just having some fun with that one
The rest of your post is the same drivel - you really are delusional if you think that you have demonstrated inconsistencies and spin in my arguments by making ill thought out, uninformed and embarassingly wild accusations about topics you have little knowledge of.
BTW is there a new law that you can't live where you work?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
I think you should just let Lost at Sea have the last word and move on. As you say, he has no argument but just continues to produce his tedious little analyses of posts.
The debate about the advice offered to SAR-H by the MoD/IPT/RAF was ended with Max Con's comments. The MCA is to blame for the mess it is in and nobody else. By the way, has the MCA settled the industrial action that has been rumbling on for ages. This has seen its most senior people having to man the ops desks/phones etc. Another good advert for giving the whole of UK SAR to a civvy organisation. Once privatised, this essential service can be held to ransom by the unions just like the fire 'service'.
Bring it on!
HAL
I think you should just let Lost at Sea have the last word and move on. As you say, he has no argument but just continues to produce his tedious little analyses of posts.
The debate about the advice offered to SAR-H by the MoD/IPT/RAF was ended with Max Con's comments. The MCA is to blame for the mess it is in and nobody else. By the way, has the MCA settled the industrial action that has been rumbling on for ages. This has seen its most senior people having to man the ops desks/phones etc. Another good advert for giving the whole of UK SAR to a civvy organisation. Once privatised, this essential service can be held to ransom by the unions just like the fire 'service'.
Bring it on!
HAL
Hal - concur
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab and HAL,
Nice rants but again more spin and misleading drivel.
Although I found both of them quite funny. The RAF have obviously started formation PPRUNE posting!
But you know what they say - if you can't win an argument ignore it!!!
Never mind, keep trying.
Nice rants but again more spin and misleading drivel.
Although I found both of them quite funny. The RAF have obviously started formation PPRUNE posting!But you know what they say - if you can't win an argument ignore it!!!
Never mind, keep trying.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: on state - ops only
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab and HAL,
Nice rants but again more spin and misleading drivel. Although I found both of them quite funny. The RAF have obviously started formation PPRUNE posting!
Nice rants but again more spin and misleading drivel.
Although I found both of them quite funny. The RAF have obviously started formation PPRUNE posting!
But you know what they say - if you can't win an argument ignore it!!!
Never mind, keep trying.
Never mind, keep trying.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally 100% serviceability 
Ya ok
see this video
BBC NEWS | UK | Chinook rescues helicopter
What do you say now Crab
Ya ok
see this video
BBC NEWS | UK | Chinook rescues helicopter
What do you say now Crab