SARH to go
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRABB,
like may others you have made some very good, and personally I think valuable opinions on here, is there any reason to jump ever-so-quickly to accuse anyone of being "crab-hating [bubble]".
Isn't this exactly the point that Pusser is trying to make in his last paragraph?
Your obviously, from your posts very passionate about the RAF, but I agree with Pusser, "Everyone does things differently, thats the point, which a few of our esteemed posters will never, ever accept" and regrettably of all the people who could have stepped up to the mark to prove his point it was you...
Everyone has their opinion, yours is very well informed, abet loyalty biased, which is fine, and admirable, but not everyone who says someone can do something better than the RAF is a crab hater.
This thread relies upon you, it wouldn't be what it is without your input, but everything is checks and balances, it's good to hear your opinion, and I agree there are opinions that are blatantly confrontational, but this isn't one of them.
like may others you have made some very good, and personally I think valuable opinions on here, is there any reason to jump ever-so-quickly to accuse anyone of being "crab-hating [bubble]".
Isn't this exactly the point that Pusser is trying to make in his last paragraph?
Your obviously, from your posts very passionate about the RAF, but I agree with Pusser, "Everyone does things differently, thats the point, which a few of our esteemed posters will never, ever accept" and regrettably of all the people who could have stepped up to the mark to prove his point it was you...
Everyone has their opinion, yours is very well informed, abet loyalty biased, which is fine, and admirable, but not everyone who says someone can do something better than the RAF is a crab hater.
This thread relies upon you, it wouldn't be what it is without your input, but everything is checks and balances, it's good to hear your opinion, and I agree there are opinions that are blatantly confrontational, but this isn't one of them.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: On the other side
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miles Gustaph
Pusser is not pointing out differences he is just trying to score points. There is no difference in procedures between any of the UK SAR services. All professional SAR crews, whether RAF, RN or civvy will use a double strop (hypothermic lift) for a casualty in the water. This casualty was not free floating in open water but clinging to rocks being washed over by waves. Ed obviously made a conscious decision not to use 2 strops but to remove the casualty from the danger expeditiously. Trying to put 2 strops on could have aggravated the situation. It is only the rescuer on scene that can make that decision.
Pusser a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Pusser is not pointing out differences he is just trying to score points. There is no difference in procedures between any of the UK SAR services. All professional SAR crews, whether RAF, RN or civvy will use a double strop (hypothermic lift) for a casualty in the water. This casualty was not free floating in open water but clinging to rocks being washed over by waves. Ed obviously made a conscious decision not to use 2 strops but to remove the casualty from the danger expeditiously. Trying to put 2 strops on could have aggravated the situation. It is only the rescuer on scene that can make that decision.
Pusser a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Miles
The sentiment is correct but is only ever offered up by those who claim they do it better/cheaper than the RAF - not one of the (especially ex-RN) others ever volunteers the position that we might just be the gold standard to which they might aspire.
I have said before that anyone can do SAR - it is just how high you set your standards that differs
"Everyone does things differently, thats the point, which a few of our esteemed posters will never, ever accept"
I have said before that anyone can do SAR - it is just how high you set your standards that differs
Originally Posted by [email protected]
not one of the (especially ex-RN) others ever volunteers the position that we might just be the gold standard to which they might aspire.
I take it that you are thereby denigrating 771 NAS, and also the recipients of last year's Prince Philip Helicopter Rescue Award
The Prince Philip Helicopter Rescue Award
For outstanding devotion to duty in search and rescue operation.
For the year 2007 the Prince Philip Rescue award was made to:
HMS GANNET SAR FLIGHT 'Rescue 177'
and
RAF CHINOOK 'BLACKOUT 26'
HMS GANNET SAR FLIGHT 'Rescue 177'
On 28 May 2007, ‘Rescue 177’ crewed by Lt Cdr Lanni (A/C Commander), Lt Cdr Ford (Observer), Lt Campbell (P2) and FS Gibson (Aircrewman), was scrambled at 2152 hrs to assist with a search for three climbers who were crag fast in the vicinity of Tower Ridge on the north side of Ben Nevis. Although during the summer season, the weather was particularly challenging with a cloud base overcast at 2,500ft and visibility of 5km, which was frequently and dramatically reduced to 500m in heavy, blowing snow. The wind was 25kts from the north east, but on scene was being funnelled and distorted to produce severe turbulence and down draughts.
Once established in the valley at the north side of Ben Nevis, ‘R177’ took three close passes of Tower Ridge before the climbers’ position was observed. Blowing snow created extremely poor visibility and hindered initial location, but acute observation by the observer spotted a climber’s torchlight glowing at the base of the cloud. ‘R177’ attempted to achieve a winching position adjacent to the climbers, but the lowering cloudbase, together with the aircraft downwash dragging the cloud down, meant that a flyaway had to be carried out before the flying pilot lost visual references. A further attempt was made to achieve a safe transfer in an incredibly challenging location. Once again cloud was pulled down through the rotor, but now to such an extent that in order to maintain safety FS Gibson had to ‘talk’ the aircraft down the ridge until it emerged below the cloud line.
Now operating in darkening, blizzard conditions, but still undeterred and acutely aware of the predicament of the stricken climbers, the crew of ‘R177’ elected to re-assess the situation. They landed at Fort William to embark members of the Locharber Mountain Rescue Team (MRT) with the intention to deploy as close to the scene as possible in order to affect a land based rescue. The majority of the MRT were deployed on the south side of the mountain near the summit. This was in itself a difficult procedure as the severe slope necessitated Lt Cdr Lanni to place just two wheels in contact with the slope to allow the team to depart the aircraft. The remainder of the MRT was then moved to the base of Tower Ridge and deployed to a steep scree slope. Again, difficulties with severe turbulence were encountered. Now in darkness, and operating on Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Lt Cdr Lanni skillfully positioned the aircraft under the expert guidance of his rear seat crew, however, at the critical moment of converting to visual references and very close to the cliff face, Lt Cdr Lanni’s NVG suffered mechanical failure as one of the tubes became detached. Displaying outstanding airmanship, clarity of thought and calmness under extreme pressure, he maintained contact with the surface and continued with the winch deployment, knowing that his P2 could fly away on NVG if required.
‘R177’ then returned to Fort William to pick up five more MRT and replace the damaged NVG. This section of the team was deployed half way up the south side of the mountain, and in horrendous conditions, the aircraft commander decided to return to Fort William to wait for a break in the weather. At 0220 hrs the MRT on scene at the climbers’ position advised the crew that conditions had abated sufficiently for the aircraft to return and attempt a further extraction. Unfortunately, as the crew prepared for take-off, the aircraft’s moveable landing lamp failed. Nevertheless, realising the probable deteriorating condition of the casualties, the crew elected to attempt recovery utilizing secondary external light sources. However, once on scene it became rapidly apparent that the combination of poor weather and reduced lighting necessitated an abort and re-group back at Fort William.
At 0355 hrs, ‘R177’ was requested to move two further MRT from near the summit of Ben Nevis to a position closer to Tower Ridge, now in improving light as dawn approached. As the aircraft flew by the scene to investigate, the crew noticed that the climbers had moved with the MRT to an area known as Echo Wall, a complicated, technical and dangerous section of the wall. Undeterred, and seizing the opportunity of a weather break, Lt Cdr Lanni decided to attempt extraction of the casualties. The tight and difficult location necessitated a high winching position to ensure clearance. Still encountering significant turbulence, and now faced with critical fuel considerations, the crew positioned for winching. Lt Cdr Ford was deployed five times, on each occasion using in excess of 200ft of cable. The target area was 3ft by 5ft and the highest standard of crew co-operation and expert verbal directions was employed to recover three casualties and two MRT safely. ‘R177’ landed at Fort William with only 500lbs of fuel remaining. Unwilling to leave any of the rescue services on the mountain, the crew of ‘R177’ then refuelled and recovered the remainder of the MRT from the south side of Ben Nevis before returning to base where they eventually landed at 0625 hrs.
This was an extremely complicated rescue lasting more than six hours in darkness. The crew overcame a plethora of difficulties ranging from severe weather to handling equipment failure, mechanical failure as well as being fuel critical. Their mettle and moral fortitude were pushed to the absolute limit to affect improbable success through exemplary teamwork and bold decision-making. By dint of determination and sheer tenacity, the crew never gave up on their casualties or MRT colleagues, ensuring all were returned to safety.
Their performance throughout this protracted incident was exemplary and demonstrated outstanding devotion to duty. The crew of ‘R177’ is therefore awarded The Prince Philip Helicopter Rescue Award.
For outstanding devotion to duty in search and rescue operation.
For the year 2007 the Prince Philip Rescue award was made to:
HMS GANNET SAR FLIGHT 'Rescue 177'
and
RAF CHINOOK 'BLACKOUT 26'
HMS GANNET SAR FLIGHT 'Rescue 177'
On 28 May 2007, ‘Rescue 177’ crewed by Lt Cdr Lanni (A/C Commander), Lt Cdr Ford (Observer), Lt Campbell (P2) and FS Gibson (Aircrewman), was scrambled at 2152 hrs to assist with a search for three climbers who were crag fast in the vicinity of Tower Ridge on the north side of Ben Nevis. Although during the summer season, the weather was particularly challenging with a cloud base overcast at 2,500ft and visibility of 5km, which was frequently and dramatically reduced to 500m in heavy, blowing snow. The wind was 25kts from the north east, but on scene was being funnelled and distorted to produce severe turbulence and down draughts.
Once established in the valley at the north side of Ben Nevis, ‘R177’ took three close passes of Tower Ridge before the climbers’ position was observed. Blowing snow created extremely poor visibility and hindered initial location, but acute observation by the observer spotted a climber’s torchlight glowing at the base of the cloud. ‘R177’ attempted to achieve a winching position adjacent to the climbers, but the lowering cloudbase, together with the aircraft downwash dragging the cloud down, meant that a flyaway had to be carried out before the flying pilot lost visual references. A further attempt was made to achieve a safe transfer in an incredibly challenging location. Once again cloud was pulled down through the rotor, but now to such an extent that in order to maintain safety FS Gibson had to ‘talk’ the aircraft down the ridge until it emerged below the cloud line.
Now operating in darkening, blizzard conditions, but still undeterred and acutely aware of the predicament of the stricken climbers, the crew of ‘R177’ elected to re-assess the situation. They landed at Fort William to embark members of the Locharber Mountain Rescue Team (MRT) with the intention to deploy as close to the scene as possible in order to affect a land based rescue. The majority of the MRT were deployed on the south side of the mountain near the summit. This was in itself a difficult procedure as the severe slope necessitated Lt Cdr Lanni to place just two wheels in contact with the slope to allow the team to depart the aircraft. The remainder of the MRT was then moved to the base of Tower Ridge and deployed to a steep scree slope. Again, difficulties with severe turbulence were encountered. Now in darkness, and operating on Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Lt Cdr Lanni skillfully positioned the aircraft under the expert guidance of his rear seat crew, however, at the critical moment of converting to visual references and very close to the cliff face, Lt Cdr Lanni’s NVG suffered mechanical failure as one of the tubes became detached. Displaying outstanding airmanship, clarity of thought and calmness under extreme pressure, he maintained contact with the surface and continued with the winch deployment, knowing that his P2 could fly away on NVG if required.
‘R177’ then returned to Fort William to pick up five more MRT and replace the damaged NVG. This section of the team was deployed half way up the south side of the mountain, and in horrendous conditions, the aircraft commander decided to return to Fort William to wait for a break in the weather. At 0220 hrs the MRT on scene at the climbers’ position advised the crew that conditions had abated sufficiently for the aircraft to return and attempt a further extraction. Unfortunately, as the crew prepared for take-off, the aircraft’s moveable landing lamp failed. Nevertheless, realising the probable deteriorating condition of the casualties, the crew elected to attempt recovery utilizing secondary external light sources. However, once on scene it became rapidly apparent that the combination of poor weather and reduced lighting necessitated an abort and re-group back at Fort William.
At 0355 hrs, ‘R177’ was requested to move two further MRT from near the summit of Ben Nevis to a position closer to Tower Ridge, now in improving light as dawn approached. As the aircraft flew by the scene to investigate, the crew noticed that the climbers had moved with the MRT to an area known as Echo Wall, a complicated, technical and dangerous section of the wall. Undeterred, and seizing the opportunity of a weather break, Lt Cdr Lanni decided to attempt extraction of the casualties. The tight and difficult location necessitated a high winching position to ensure clearance. Still encountering significant turbulence, and now faced with critical fuel considerations, the crew positioned for winching. Lt Cdr Ford was deployed five times, on each occasion using in excess of 200ft of cable. The target area was 3ft by 5ft and the highest standard of crew co-operation and expert verbal directions was employed to recover three casualties and two MRT safely. ‘R177’ landed at Fort William with only 500lbs of fuel remaining. Unwilling to leave any of the rescue services on the mountain, the crew of ‘R177’ then refuelled and recovered the remainder of the MRT from the south side of Ben Nevis before returning to base where they eventually landed at 0625 hrs.
This was an extremely complicated rescue lasting more than six hours in darkness. The crew overcame a plethora of difficulties ranging from severe weather to handling equipment failure, mechanical failure as well as being fuel critical. Their mettle and moral fortitude were pushed to the absolute limit to affect improbable success through exemplary teamwork and bold decision-making. By dint of determination and sheer tenacity, the crew never gave up on their casualties or MRT colleagues, ensuring all were returned to safety.
Their performance throughout this protracted incident was exemplary and demonstrated outstanding devotion to duty. The crew of ‘R177’ is therefore awarded The Prince Philip Helicopter Rescue Award.
I'd appreciate this thread more if only one or two of the main players could take off their rose tinted spectacles
I also found an interesting site, Military search and Rescue Statistics: 2007, with also a report on the first quarter 2008 on another link.
It indicates that there are 2 RN SAR bases (Culdrose and Gannet) and 6 RAF SAR bases (RAF Boulmer, RAF Valley, RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Leconfield, RAF Chivenor and RAF Wattisham). I know that this is old data (2007), but the representation in Table 2 makes for humbling reading. That's an awful lot of responses by all concerned: an average of 5 callouts per day
It indicates that there are 2 RN SAR bases (Culdrose and Gannet) and 6 RAF SAR bases (RAF Boulmer, RAF Valley, RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Leconfield, RAF Chivenor and RAF Wattisham). I know that this is old data (2007), but the representation in Table 2 makes for humbling reading. That's an awful lot of responses by all concerned: an average of 5 callouts per day
John, you shouldn't be so quick to take offence - I was not denigrating 771 in any way shape or form - we even have a resident crab in there with them to spy and report back!
I was referring to the posters who like to take a quick pop at the RAF SARF with uneducated, ill-informed comments because they really don't understand how SAR can be done. Unfortunately it always seems to come from ex-RN guys - jealousy maybe - funny how only one of the RN exchange rearcrew that came to Chivenor ever went back to the Navy and none of the pilots have
Your data shows clearly that the RAF do more SAROPs (because we have more flights) so collectively we have more experience - it is not a coincidence that the OpCon for all SAR helos in UK is the RAFSARF Commander and that the ARCCK is an RAF organisation as well. Yet every man and his dog thinks they can do it better and/or cheaper which very greatly denigrates the dedication and professionalism of all parts of the RAFSARF.
I was referring to the posters who like to take a quick pop at the RAF SARF with uneducated, ill-informed comments because they really don't understand how SAR can be done. Unfortunately it always seems to come from ex-RN guys - jealousy maybe - funny how only one of the RN exchange rearcrew that came to Chivenor ever went back to the Navy and none of the pilots have
Your data shows clearly that the RAF do more SAROPs (because we have more flights) so collectively we have more experience - it is not a coincidence that the OpCon for all SAR helos in UK is the RAFSARF Commander and that the ARCCK is an RAF organisation as well. Yet every man and his dog thinks they can do it better and/or cheaper which very greatly denigrates the dedication and professionalism of all parts of the RAFSARF.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
funny how only one of the RN exchange rearcrew that came to Chivenor ever went back to the Navy and none of the pilots have
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: england
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My post was gentle but the reaction of members of the RAF SARF shows what I was trying to highlight. If you read my words I said the choice of 1 strop was fine, I wasn't there, it wasn't my call. I was pointing out that this was a declared 'Hypothermia' case, we all now that when the body cools,whether in the water or not, the body pools its blood supply around the vital organs to preserve them, hence double stop/stretcher lifts are considered for hypo cases to prevent gravity doing its worst, whether or not they can be achieved is another thing.
The fact of the matter is that if it was CG footage then Crab et al would WANT to find something. That was the POINT!
Guys, get over yourselves, please.
To answer the dismissive suggestion that I am an amateur then I had better clarify my experience of SAR = 19 years in the RN of which 9 was SAR followed by CG work here and abroad (16 SAR yrs total), SAR on 5 different aircraft types utilising equipment which should have been in a museum up to state of the art kit, all as a winch op/winch man. Not trying to sing about myself, just answer the typical response of 'u dont know what your doing' comment frequently seen
When I was in the RN I worked very closely to the RAF, and these were my observations at the time which probably still stand today:
1. Extremely Professional
2. The best Flying Training Regime
3. The most number of Training Hours
4. The best SAR kit
5. The best Medical Training
6. The best infrastucture and organisation to support SAR ops
The above is hard to write as an ex matelot even now, how did you think it felt at the time!! However, stark fact remains, we still got the job done! , and had more fun doing it (crab exchange winchmen comments, not mine).
This is where so many posters on this forum are trying to come from but are immediately jumped on. My post was borne from frustration not malice against the RAF.
Crab i actually feel sorry for you, so so much of what you say (sometimes preach!) is true and solid yet you then blow it. You are so tightly wound up the release of tension must be something to behold, just hope it's not in the cockpit, could get messy
The fact of the matter is that if it was CG footage then Crab et al would WANT to find something. That was the POINT!
Guys, get over yourselves, please.To answer the dismissive suggestion that I am an amateur then I had better clarify my experience of SAR = 19 years in the RN of which 9 was SAR followed by CG work here and abroad (16 SAR yrs total), SAR on 5 different aircraft types utilising equipment which should have been in a museum up to state of the art kit, all as a winch op/winch man. Not trying to sing about myself, just answer the typical response of 'u dont know what your doing' comment frequently seen
When I was in the RN I worked very closely to the RAF, and these were my observations at the time which probably still stand today:
1. Extremely Professional
2. The best Flying Training Regime
3. The most number of Training Hours
4. The best SAR kit
5. The best Medical Training
6. The best infrastucture and organisation to support SAR ops
The above is hard to write as an ex matelot even now, how did you think it felt at the time!! However, stark fact remains, we still got the job done! , and had more fun doing it (crab exchange winchmen comments, not mine).
This is where so many posters on this forum are trying to come from but are immediately jumped on. My post was borne from frustration not malice against the RAF.
Crab i actually feel sorry for you, so so much of what you say (sometimes preach!) is true and solid yet you then blow it. You are so tightly wound up the release of tension must be something to behold, just hope it's not in the cockpit, could get messy
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pusser,
Your original post was inflammatory and you were hoping for a reaction. Well done, you got it.
I think this thread should be archived for consultation post the introduction of SAR-H. Then we will be able to compare the promises with what was actually delivered. I wonder which camp will be saying, "I told you so"?
Still no news from Senior Trooper with an update on the question I raised about the level of SAR provision provided by Lee and Portland. Is he AWOL or MIA? It is this sort of thing that makes Crab and others so wary of the constant promises of jam tomorrow whilst cutting costs.
Regards to all.
CD
Your original post was inflammatory and you were hoping for a reaction. Well done, you got it.
I think this thread should be archived for consultation post the introduction of SAR-H. Then we will be able to compare the promises with what was actually delivered. I wonder which camp will be saying, "I told you so"?
Still no news from Senior Trooper with an update on the question I raised about the level of SAR provision provided by Lee and Portland. Is he AWOL or MIA? It is this sort of thing that makes Crab and others so wary of the constant promises of jam tomorrow whilst cutting costs.
Regards to all.
CD
Pusser - a couple of small points - re the rescue, it wasn't a declared hypothermia case, it was a rescue of an angler in danger who was subsequently treated for hypothermia as a precaution en route to the hospital - therefore all your recently googled knowledge regarding the treatment of the casualty is irrelevant.
In your highly experienced position of authority, did you not consider that Ed might have taken 2 strops, not because he needed to do a double lift from the water, but because it was highly possible the angler had suffered injuries in the washing cycle that might require such a lift?
Second, your attitude that you 'got the job done anyway' is exactly what will scupper SAR provision in the future - unless the highest standards are demanded of the contractor in the first place, the result will be mediocrity brought about by cutting costs and reducing training. I think the British public deserves better than that.
I don't need your sympathy, nor am I tightly wound but don't let me stop you patronising me if it makes you feel better about starting this spat in the first place.
Two-step - yes I gather the vessel was some 700nm out so much support and refuelling will be required - good luck fellas
Airborne artist - perhaps I should have qualified that as being in my time at Chiv (since 2001)
In your highly experienced position of authority, did you not consider that Ed might have taken 2 strops, not because he needed to do a double lift from the water, but because it was highly possible the angler had suffered injuries in the washing cycle that might require such a lift?
Second, your attitude that you 'got the job done anyway' is exactly what will scupper SAR provision in the future - unless the highest standards are demanded of the contractor in the first place, the result will be mediocrity brought about by cutting costs and reducing training. I think the British public deserves better than that.
I don't need your sympathy, nor am I tightly wound but don't let me stop you patronising me if it makes you feel better about starting this spat in the first place.
Two-step - yes I gather the vessel was some 700nm out so much support and refuelling will be required - good luck fellas
Airborne artist - perhaps I should have qualified that as being in my time at Chiv (since 2001)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Far far away
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds me of another discussion:
My father is stronger than your father.
Of course, you get what you pay for, and I don't think that the interim UK SAR with the S-92 has anything to be ashamed of, on the contrary.
CHCE Management? They are doing the best they can to sustain business, SAR included. If anyone is telling me that that RAF is doing a better job at managing, I'll be laughing the rest of the day.
Inland SAR with NVG?? Not magic. The Norwegian Air Ambulance Service (civilian) has been using this for years in cooperation with the Norwegian integrated rescue services that includes the RNOAF 330 Sqdn which Crab probably is very familiar with. (The squadron I mean).
Everything can be learned. I don't worry about that this capability will be lost when the RAF gets something else to to with their wonderful 50 year old helicopters and magnificent crews.
If the UK government wants to get NVG and mountain rescue capability- they will get it. However they will have to pay for it, excactly as they are doing now, but this time maybe cheaper.
My father is stronger than your father.
Of course, you get what you pay for, and I don't think that the interim UK SAR with the S-92 has anything to be ashamed of, on the contrary.
CHCE Management? They are doing the best they can to sustain business, SAR included. If anyone is telling me that that RAF is doing a better job at managing, I'll be laughing the rest of the day.
Inland SAR with NVG?? Not magic. The Norwegian Air Ambulance Service (civilian) has been using this for years in cooperation with the Norwegian integrated rescue services that includes the RNOAF 330 Sqdn which Crab probably is very familiar with. (The squadron I mean).
Everything can be learned. I don't worry about that this capability will be lost when the RAF gets something else to to with their wonderful 50 year old helicopters and magnificent crews.
If the UK government wants to get NVG and mountain rescue capability- they will get it. However they will have to pay for it, excactly as they are doing now, but this time maybe cheaper.
Last edited by L2driver; 26th Jun 2009 at 15:14. Reason: misprint and added text
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: england
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - ref Patronising i think the phrase that comes to mind is 'Pot, Kettle'
My google ref was to humour VSF, but he seems to have gone missing, but always does once you join the fray, must be a rank thing??
Hope all (THREE) SAR service providers have a good weekend
TTFN
My google ref was to humour VSF, but he seems to have gone missing, but always does once you join the fray, must be a rank thing??
Hope all (THREE) SAR service providers have a good weekend
TTFN
At the behest of Senior Pilot, I will refrain from making further unconstructive comments in reply.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Crab - it's also just possible that the RN appointer knew they wouldn't be coming back, and that's why he sent them there.....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 73
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings to the forum from a long term lurker who has the utmost respect for all SAR crews. Could I, as a humble first post PPRuNe probationer, ask Crab why you think that Opcon for all SAR helos in the UK is in the SARF Commander. Surely the SARF Commander does not have OpCon of the 4 MCA flights and the 2 Jigsaw ones ?
A genuine query – not intended to light a fire
A genuine query – not intended to light a fire
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Far far away
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me: I am not into all these fancy abbreviations - what is Opcon??? We do actually have the writing space on these pages to spell out what we really mean. And this is not the first time I brought this up. Not all of us are from the UK environment, Very small place BTW
After long considerations and scrabble: could it mean Operational Control??
Man - sometimes I feel smart!!!
, Very small place BTWAfter long considerations and scrabble: could it mean Operational Control??
Man - sometimes I feel smart!!!
Last edited by L2driver; 26th Jun 2009 at 18:49.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Far far away
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
At the behest of Senior Pilot, I will refrain from making further unconstructive comments in reply.
Spencer Davis Group ....Nudge... nudge...
Bluenose 50-
From the (good old?) days of the S61:
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/uksar.pdf
Kinloss cannot speak direct to the S92 on HF anymore, as the S92 disnae have one, now they rely on a satphone when out of VHF range.
edit- or top cover from a Nimrod! (RAF!)
From the (good old?) days of the S61:
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/uksar.pdf
Under an agreement between the MCA and the MoD, tasking of these assets is normally undertaken through ARCC, RAF Kinloss. Exceptionally, when helicopter assistance is necessary for immediate lifesaving, the MCA can task the helicopters direct and then notify the ARCC as soon as possible afterwards.
edit- or top cover from a Nimrod! (RAF!)
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 26th Jun 2009 at 23:15. Reason: sort out fonts