SARH to go
Pennyroyal - your version of SAR engineering at Valley must be viewed through rose tinted specs because it doesn't match what the rest of the world sees. When you had 7 airframes (and that was only briefly) why was it? Possibly because all the ones you were supposed to fix were still U/S with the flt and the OCU crying out for even one serviceable Sea King.
BTW whose poor availability drags the rest of the SARF down? Oh yes a place in N Wales.
My suggestion to start at Valley is because if the new contractors can make that work, everything else will be easy.
Ironchefflay - the problem with the 139 hasn't been about availability, rather about how it was introduced into service without meeting the spec required for night overwater ops.
BTW whose poor availability drags the rest of the SARF down? Oh yes a place in N Wales.
My suggestion to start at Valley is because if the new contractors can make that work, everything else will be easy.
Ironchefflay - the problem with the 139 hasn't been about availability, rather about how it was introduced into service without meeting the spec required for night overwater ops.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North East
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'However, it makes sense to convert the Mk 3 flights first becaause the aircraft are older and more knackered - the 3As have better avionics/autopilot and are more serviceable.'
Sound familiar? Perhaps the Mk3As could go to Valley to help them out!
Sound familiar? Perhaps the Mk3As could go to Valley to help them out!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for info, the minimum CIVIL experience to hold a Part 66 B1 or B2 engineering license is 5 years. This can be mitigated by doing an approved ab-initio course which will reduce the experience requirement down to 1 or 2 years (normally the duration of the course). As far as I am aware no credit is given for military experience under EASA rules. If an ab-initio route is followed there will be no certification rights issued until a year after the issue of a license.
As can be seen there is no easy route to 'open a box of engineers'
An interesting problem for the 2 companies.
As can be seen there is no easy route to 'open a box of engineers'
An interesting problem for the 2 companies.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so....................has a decision been made??? I'm sure a few pages ago someone said the announcement was due this week............
and there's me getting my hopes up that for once in this project a deadline would be kept.......
Whoever is making the decision sure isn't making it easy for the winning bidder to deliver on time. Days are ticking by and 2012 aint that far away for delivering such a massive contract. Cant see how they can be penalised for not delivering when the decision makers haven't kept to their own deadline!
Sincerely hope this is not a sign of things to come....
SW
and there's me getting my hopes up that for once in this project a deadline would be kept.......
Whoever is making the decision sure isn't making it easy for the winning bidder to deliver on time. Days are ticking by and 2012 aint that far away for delivering such a massive contract. Cant see how they can be penalised for not delivering when the decision makers haven't kept to their own deadline!
Sincerely hope this is not a sign of things to come....
SW
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Geordie,
Thanks for the info, I knew the CAA used to (got some myself) but I also know a couple of guys that didnt get any credit recently (EASA, the CAA dont have any teeth now lol). Maybe their experience was not as relevant, I am not sure of the exact circumsatnces. Do you still have to wait a year after gaining the license to be able to certify? Difficult to see how guys can take even 1 year out from their SKIOS jobs to train and then do type courses etc.
I hope all of this has been factored in, interesting times ahead!!
Thanks for the info, I knew the CAA used to (got some myself) but I also know a couple of guys that didnt get any credit recently (EASA, the CAA dont have any teeth now lol). Maybe their experience was not as relevant, I am not sure of the exact circumsatnces. Do you still have to wait a year after gaining the license to be able to certify? Difficult to see how guys can take even 1 year out from their SKIOS jobs to train and then do type courses etc.
I hope all of this has been factored in, interesting times ahead!!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 55 degrees north ish.
Age: 53
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UKV, I know of guys who have done type rating courses within that first years civil experience, sent basic application off with type rating course + experience and been certifying on type 3 weeks later...
It all depends on the quantity (and maybe quality) of the civil experience logsheets you send to the CAA. (Plus some other bits of 'playing the game')
PM me if you like, as we are drifting from the OPs topic somewhat.
Getting back on topic, what date is the announcement due to be made?
22nd Jan or 28th?
It all depends on the quantity (and maybe quality) of the civil experience logsheets you send to the CAA. (Plus some other bits of 'playing the game')
PM me if you like, as we are drifting from the OPs topic somewhat.
Getting back on topic, what date is the announcement due to be made?
22nd Jan or 28th?
Buccaneer Bill - we did that when the engineering output there was classed as not meeting airworthiness standards - it didn't do any good and they ignored all the advice our Chiv engineers who were seconded up there, gave them - they knew better apparently, possibly why they are still in a mess. The big problem for SKIOS there is the ex-RN heavy management who have formed a clique and oppose any ex-crab input about how best to engineer the aircraft.
Moving the 3As there would mean moving the 3A engineers and that isn't going to happen - they are working well where they are because they are happy and settled - it wouldn't be so at Valley.
Spanish - end of next week allegedly but who knows, the bidders don't seem to have been told either.
Moving the 3As there would mean moving the 3A engineers and that isn't going to happen - they are working well where they are because they are happy and settled - it wouldn't be so at Valley.
Spanish - end of next week allegedly but who knows, the bidders don't seem to have been told either.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North East
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it would be relatively simple to train up anyone on the mysteries of the SN500 and the HF - which I believe are the significant differences twixt 3 and 3A? Accepting that is doable - what is the answer to my original question - why are the 3As where they are and why could they not operate from anywhere else - including MPC?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BB
Quite simple - when intro'ed to service in 95 there was only sufficent Mk3as to equip 2 bases and also provide 1 extra/spare ac when available for training and backup.
Chiv and Watisham were chosen as 2 of the 3 22 Sqn flts to reequip with the SK at the time so Valley took some older Mk3s. The venerable Wessex then left UK SAR service
The differences in the autopilot (which are in many ways considerable), the nav system and at the time the digital radar (now equiping all RAF SKs) meant that aircrew (and groundcrew) training were specific enough to be considered as a seperate evolution with no instant cross over to the Mk3 without relevant cross over training. The handling characteristics in the hover in particular can be very different and the AFCS procedures can vary a great deal too. Clearly the winchmen and some groundcrew trades could swap over and this was done regularly. Otherwise pilots and radops did not swap bases in the early years to keep the shift roster going and needed a short refamil course with the Mk3 before swapping back to the Mk3 and/or going on detachment to the FI. Other than short term detachments the differences in the Mk3a were considered big enough to mean that a permanent move to another base would not be without expense.
We can discuss endlessly the potetnial safety management challenges of having pilots (and radops) multitype rated - but suffice to say that the duplex Mk3a autopilt/AFCS is very good and a major safety improvement over that fitted to all other UK SKs - good as that was at the time.
Cheers
Quite simple - when intro'ed to service in 95 there was only sufficent Mk3as to equip 2 bases and also provide 1 extra/spare ac when available for training and backup.
Chiv and Watisham were chosen as 2 of the 3 22 Sqn flts to reequip with the SK at the time so Valley took some older Mk3s. The venerable Wessex then left UK SAR service
The differences in the autopilot (which are in many ways considerable), the nav system and at the time the digital radar (now equiping all RAF SKs) meant that aircrew (and groundcrew) training were specific enough to be considered as a seperate evolution with no instant cross over to the Mk3 without relevant cross over training. The handling characteristics in the hover in particular can be very different and the AFCS procedures can vary a great deal too. Clearly the winchmen and some groundcrew trades could swap over and this was done regularly. Otherwise pilots and radops did not swap bases in the early years to keep the shift roster going and needed a short refamil course with the Mk3 before swapping back to the Mk3 and/or going on detachment to the FI. Other than short term detachments the differences in the Mk3a were considered big enough to mean that a permanent move to another base would not be without expense.
We can discuss endlessly the potetnial safety management challenges of having pilots (and radops) multitype rated - but suffice to say that the duplex Mk3a autopilt/AFCS is very good and a major safety improvement over that fitted to all other UK SKs - good as that was at the time.
Cheers
At the moment a full engineers helicopter B1 course (theory only) with one of the UK major training providers takes about 6 months and costs around GBP 9,000 plus transport, accomodation, meals and wages per head. So not a cheap option. Then there is type training on top. At least another 6 weeks. Then there would be OJT of another 2 weeks.
So about 8 months in total throw in some leave and time for the CAA to reject the paperwork
maybe about a year from start to finish.
Total cost
9000 basic, 5000 type, wages 30000, hotels transport e.t.c ???????
my guess not much change out of 65 grand
Obviously training a lot of people in block would reduce the cost, but then you have to have a block of people you can do without for a least 8 months.
So about 8 months in total throw in some leave and time for the CAA to reject the paperwork
maybe about a year from start to finish.
Total cost
9000 basic, 5000 type, wages 30000, hotels transport e.t.c ???????
my guess not much change out of 65 grand
Obviously training a lot of people in block would reduce the cost, but then you have to have a block of people you can do without for a least 8 months.
Last edited by ericferret; 24th Jan 2010 at 11:16.
Bill - the problems at Valley are not because they have 3s instead of 3As - it is all about ethos, pay and experience. Initially AW convinced themselves they could run a SAR flt and an OCU with a third less people than the RAF did - they couldn't and had to recruit more people but not before confidence had been lost in the engineering management. The pay is not sufficient to attract the desired level of capability and there are only a certain number of people who want to work at Valley - the same guys jump from FW contract to RW and back depending on who is offering the best deal. Then end result is that whilst many of the engineers might be good chaps, the management is often found wanting and there is a lack of the work ethic essential for SAR - handbagging snags to the next shift is almost de rigeur there and trying to pull the wool over the SAR captain's eyes to avoid having to do work on the aircraft is not unusual.
The 3As are more reliable and have far fewer avionic snags but they are still Sea Kings and break just as often but Chivenor's excellent availability is all down to superb engineers and management - we were extremely lucky that so many good guys transferred and stayed there.
Post SARH there will be fewer engineers required because that seems to be the industry standard but the whole SAR force will need experienced quality engineers and the contractor will have to pay appropriately for them.
The 3As are more reliable and have far fewer avionic snags but they are still Sea Kings and break just as often but Chivenor's excellent availability is all down to superb engineers and management - we were extremely lucky that so many good guys transferred and stayed there.
Post SARH there will be fewer engineers required because that seems to be the industry standard but the whole SAR force will need experienced quality engineers and the contractor will have to pay appropriately for them.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the management is often found wanting and there is a lack of the work ethic essential for SAR - handbagging snags to the next shift is almost de rigeur there and trying to pull the wool over the SAR captain's eyes to avoid having to do work on the aircraft is not unusual.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crabs comments ring true as the standard norm for civvy street, something he has yet to experience.
The work ethos of military serving engineers over those that work as civillians is second to none.
The work ethos of military serving engineers over those that work as civillians is second to none.
Winch-c.
I have stayed out of this lately for reasons known to a few.... but you talk absolute b****x!!!!!!! Most of the engineers now civvie, are ex-forces. The pride of being part of a Search and Rescue Unit is not confined to aircrew!!!!!! And if someone is not proud of that then they should get the **** out.
Sorry, a bit angry now so time to go and have some calming down juice!!
3D
I have stayed out of this lately for reasons known to a few.... but you talk absolute b****x!!!!!!!
Most of the engineers now civvie, are ex-forces. The pride of being part of a Search and Rescue Unit is not confined to aircrew!!!!!! And if someone is not proud of that then they should get the **** out. Sorry, a bit angry now so time to go and have some calming down juice!!
3D
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engineering argument is simple to settle. Will engineers be allowed to run engineers, aircraft, AMO, planning etc with a set budget OR WILL THEY HAVE TO ANSWER TO AND/OR BEG BEAN COUNTERS, SPENT HALVE THEIR DAY JUSTIFYING THEIR EXISTANCE WITH TIMESHEETS iNSTEAD OF GETTING SPARES AND JUST WORKING?
I have seen too many times happy engineering companies with the best serviceability and safety records being taken over by management which means the bean counters and within a month you have negativity, low serviceability etc. Also i have seen companies introducing say a pilot or non engineering type for Quality and Safety management-only engineers understand engineering and should be judging each other and introduce ongoing improovements-they see things differently and thus need different solutions. Imagine us as pilots and/or engineers trying to tell a heart surgeon how to do his next operation and iaw what?
?I have seen too many times happy engineering companies with the best serviceability and safety records being taken over by management which means the bean counters and within a month you have negativity, low serviceability etc. Also i have seen companies introducing say a pilot or non engineering type for Quality and Safety management-only engineers understand engineering and should be judging each other and introduce ongoing improovements-they see things differently and thus need different solutions. Imagine us as pilots and/or engineers trying to tell a heart surgeon how to do his next operation and iaw what?
My criticisms of Valley are not a mil v civvy rant, they are specific to the setup at Valley and are certainly not without foundation. Unfortunately it became clear after the transition that the mil engineering there hadn't been that clever either - little things like the comp wash rig being U/S in the hangar for months so no comp washes were done and the engines were in a poor state. So poor practices were handed on from mil to civ and not gripped by the new civ management who were out of their depth with a relatively inexperienced workforce both on type and in role. SAR engineering requires a certain mindset that conflicts with the 'union-rules' type of individual who can't be flexible. Sadly many ex-mil heli engineers have worked on large RN squadrons where there is little interaction between aircrew and groundcrew which then fosters an 'us and them' attitude which is entirely counter-productive.
I highlight the quality of the engineers at Chiv because they were good engineers in the mil and equally good as civvies (if not better because they are not waiting to be posted or f*8ked around by Innsworth). It all comes down to good management because the work ethic and ethos starts there and filters down to all.
I highlight the quality of the engineers at Chiv because they were good engineers in the mil and equally good as civvies (if not better because they are not waiting to be posted or f*8ked around by Innsworth). It all comes down to good management because the work ethic and ethos starts there and filters down to all.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: in my house
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have to disagree there crab.
i have experience of millitary and civ engineering, fixed and rotary, line and base, SAR and commercial. The mind set is the same whatever you are doing, its merely the goals that change. we have to have the same flexibility and ability to think on our feet to run a commercial line or SAR. its just a question of what you as an individual and as a team are willing to do to get the job done. outcome of SAR may be more important, but getting aircraft and passengers away is still a job that needs to be done, or the job no longer exists!
i have experience of millitary and civ engineering, fixed and rotary, line and base, SAR and commercial. The mind set is the same whatever you are doing, its merely the goals that change. we have to have the same flexibility and ability to think on our feet to run a commercial line or SAR. its just a question of what you as an individual and as a team are willing to do to get the job done. outcome of SAR may be more important, but getting aircraft and passengers away is still a job that needs to be done, or the job no longer exists!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineering
Crab
Your statement that engineering at Valley was not that clever is a model of understatement!!! No comp washes for months? If a failure of one of the poor state engines had led to a loss of life would that have been corporate manslaughter?
I am not sure I would support your view that SAR engineering requires a special ethos. In fact there are many commercial organisations that operate aircraft all round the world in all climates on a 24/7 basis. They in many cases have excellent engineering organisations that support them very effectivley in this regard. They are not hinbound by union rules.
I do agree with you that it will all rely on good management though. That however does not require it to be military.
I have been in the military and I am now in a union. Some good things from both sides and some bad things from both sides.
Your statement that engineering at Valley was not that clever is a model of understatement!!! No comp washes for months? If a failure of one of the poor state engines had led to a loss of life would that have been corporate manslaughter?
I am not sure I would support your view that SAR engineering requires a special ethos. In fact there are many commercial organisations that operate aircraft all round the world in all climates on a 24/7 basis. They in many cases have excellent engineering organisations that support them very effectivley in this regard. They are not hinbound by union rules.
I do agree with you that it will all rely on good management though. That however does not require it to be military.
I have been in the military and I am now in a union. Some good things from both sides and some bad things from both sides.