Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

Old 23rd Dec 2012, 06:40
  #841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,068
Received 403 Likes on 180 Posts
Bond will win the lights and Bristow will win the heavies. Done deal.
I think you are probably right on that one but let's see what other shenanigans will surface as we get closer to the finishing line

As expected - SAR down to a price, not up to a standard
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 07:28
  #842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not sure quite what your point is jimf, was it made post a few Saturday night beers per chance?
llamaman is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 10:20
  #843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
Or of course it could be a compromise between the two. Something has to give, accept it and move on.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 10:44
  #844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Aarhus
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bond are owned by worldwide helicopters who are owned by private investment company KKR. They will be looking for at least 20% ROCE. They are not in tue business of making 4% on an investment. Bond have not gotten a 20% reduction on the purchase price of any aircraft they bid.

So how do they bid over 20% lower that Chc ?. Simple they pass it onto the T&C of the pilots, crew and engineers . One possible way of doing this is have all your employees work for a sub contracted company. Like developing assets. Simply put they will offer T&C below both other main heli operators, with no chance of BALPA coming in to push the case for improvements as bond do not recognise unions. This may suit people coming out of MOD with a pension to supplement
your pay. This may be business but your cutting your own throats.
meanttobe is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 11:19
  #845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,433
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Don't be so sure about the 139 being history Jimf.....
From the September 19th version of the ITT document pack for the revised submissions as provided a few days ago on the DfT website. Identical in these sections to the February version and there is believed to be a stated objective of the final tender stage being different only in small details.

Schedule 1 - Definitions

"MRT Standard Load"
a team comprising of six member at 80kg each, plus 25kg for hill bags. Hill bag dimensions being 0.6m x 0.35m x 0.3m. Additional rescue kit to be carried as a separate lift: one stretcher at 25kg, dimensions of 1.2m x 0.6m x 0.4m. Four rope bags at 10kg per bag, dimensions 0.6m x 0.3m. One crag bag at 15kg, dimensions 0.6m x 0.3m;

Schedule 2.1 - Specification

4.1.4 Performance
1 4.1.4.1 All On State Airborne Systems must be capable of retaining the Hover:
4.1.4.1.1 outside of Ground Effect whilst delivering an MRT Standard Load at or below 4000ft amsl at ISA +15 degrees centigrade in still air; and
4.1.4.1.2 with 30 minutes SAR Endurance remaining, at the location of any SAR Incident in the Mountainous Regions of the UK SRR.

4.2.4.2.2 Numbers
4.2.4.2.2.2 Smaller Minimum Rescue Capacity
4.2.4.2.2.2.1 [For Lot 2] The Contractor must, throughout Aircraft Operation be able to rescue up to 4 Casualties and/or Survivors (2 of which are capable of being stretchered) with one Airborne System anywhere within the Threshold SAR Operating Area.

4.2.7 Transport
4.2.7.1 All On State Airborne Systems must be capable of deploying from and retrieving to the Aircraft an MRT Standard Load in a single trip and from the air or on the ground.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 11:37
  #846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jimf, thanks for the reproduction of the DFT website. I was already very aware of the ITT contents before posting.

Anyway, still don't be too sure about the 139 being history.

Last edited by terminus mos; 23rd Dec 2012 at 11:37. Reason: Said too much for my own good
terminus mos is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 12:07
  #847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,433
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Not sure quite what your point is jimf, was it made post a few Saturday night beers per chance?
Not at all.

These are aircraft that will operate under a specialist AOC that is supposed to recognise that they do not operate in a normal aviation environment where every aspect is within the grasp of an aviation regulator. To compensate for the lack of aviation regulation in the training of lifeboat crew, or the training of mountain rescue teams, or the shape of a mountain side, or the mast of a tall vessel, the regulator has developed a special approach. I believe that the regulator needs to be more assertive about how one achieves that compensation. 'Train hard fight easy' sums it up quite nicely. It is possiible that the regulator has underestimated the training load necessary with non-aviation organisations and locations.

Currently, the customer is involved in a small way in the process of arranging training with non-aviation situations. Even this small involvement sends the wrong message. The regulator needs to be there requiring the operator to do appropriate training and the customer shouldn't be a part of the routine.

At the same time, we have a substantial contract process that has been going on for some time and all principal documents were written as though the tasking organisation, the ARCC, does not exist. Although co-ordinating authorities were referred to in the documentation, one could easily get the impression that the police had nothing to do with this. In recent versions, the ARCC has come into the picture and gets one mention in the side-notes of the Specification of 19th September for instance.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 12:21
  #848 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,433
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
However, 139 and the MRT standard load? Is the winchweight standing outside on the FLIR-ball bracket pushing people to get the door closed, like a Japanese train guard at rush-hour?
jimf671 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 12:55
  #849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Meanttobe: Bond is now owned by Avincis, not World Helicopters. (Rebrand) I hope your other information is up to date.

Why is everyone automatically assuming its Bond/Avincis bid that is 20% lower? Surely it could be Bristow?

One final point... Bristow rescued 7,000 people over the last 2 decades, CHC rescue between 200 and 800 people per base (Ireland slightly different), Avincis rescued 7,000 people in ONE year.... Those figures tell me that Avincis is the World Leader in SAR, HEMS etc.... Are they not going to be the top bidder?

(All figures from respective websites)
RotorRPM is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 13:04
  #850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh no not agiain! Meantobe you should try and stop droning on about your prejudices about Bond. For starters you and others seem to be assuming its Bond that were 20% cheaper whereas its more likely to be Bristow given their size and great financial conditon, plus their enormous S92 fleet with 28 more on order has to put them in a good place. That smacks of a good starting point for being cheap not all this dribble about Bond or anyone trying to hire very professional aircrew at nonesense salaries. Get real people and look a bit deeper before mouthing off please! There were 3 Lots being bid according to the DfT website, and CHC were biddig all 3 of them according to the last selection process. So CHC seem to have blown it big time if they couldn't get the price right to survive in at least one of those Lots.

Jim671 is right IMO. 139 is history.

Crab: even if the military was still organising a replacement they too would have a price ceiling wouldn't they? Especially these days. When has the military bought stuff on the basis of "dream up the best solution and then pay for it whatever the cost" - your nievity (sp?) is stunning Crab but perhaps not surprising if you have spent too much time being a Crab SAR pilot. So your constant mantra about the commercial run service always stooping to the lowest price is just utter crap. Your vast experience of the commercial aviation world really puts you in a strong position on that one (NOT)!

Happy Christmas Everyone! My CV is off to Bristow for what its worth
4thright is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 14:11
  #851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One final point... Bristow rescued 7,000 people over the last 2 decades, CHC rescue between 200 and 800 people per base (Ireland slightly different), Avincis rescued 7,000 people in ONE year.... Those figures tell me that Avincis is the World Leader in SAR, HEMS etc.... Are they not going to be the top bidder?
Why bother having a Competitive Dialogue procedure at all then? Surely the DfT can just base their decision upon what's contained on each bidder's website.
Vie sans frontieres is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 15:22
  #852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can we assume the regulator is represented within the DfT SAR-H project team?
Spanish Waltzer is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 15:30
  #853 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It doesnt matter who the final winner(s) is/are...Apart from the senior management the boys and girls on the shop floor will be the same, just wearing a different logo on their overalls. All doing their utmost to make the new service work within the T's & C's they're given. Market forces will ultimately decide their salaries.
Spanish Waltzer is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 15:44
  #854 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vie, look at the bigger picture..... Much more experience in the applicable role!
RotorRPM is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 16:54
  #855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,068
Received 403 Likes on 180 Posts
4thright - why is that you and so many others on this forum feel the need to revert to personal insults instead of making valid points?

It is called the Ad Hominem argument - literally 'to the man' since it involves insulting and otherwise denigrating the opponent such that by association his argument must also be worthless since he is obviously unworthy. It is used extensively by politicians and those of weak mind and position.

According to your fatuous argument, I cannot know anything about commercial aviation simply because I have been in the RAF for 30 years - not actually much real logic in there is there?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 17:28
  #856 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,433
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
I think the way that joins up is through a different mechanism. The CAA Flight Operations Inspector for SAR is on the UK SAR Liaison Committee along with representatives of various RAF bits of the pie and the contractors, MCA and several DfT.

---------------
Added.

Assuming that the regulator is represented within the DfT SAR-H project team may be a potentially dangerous notion. The CAA clearly work at standing off from their mothership the DfT and the FSG perhaps some distance again. Thus the separation of FSG and project team representation on the UK SAR Liaison Committee.

The project documentation has limited references to the regulatory aspects. It is believed that the DfT Project Team have made clear that they will play no part in regulatory matters and that relationship is solely between the operator and the regulator. This is consistent with the approach demonstrated in my communications with the bodies involved.

---------------

On documentation, for instance, in the 19th September ITT set, the only reference to regulatory matters that I could find was as follows.

Schedule 6.2 Acceptance Procedures
1.3 The Acceptance Procedure shall only take place once the Civil Aviation Authority has granted the AOC at each Base.

Last edited by jimf671; 24th Dec 2012 at 09:18. Reason: Added clarifying paragraphs.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 18:20
  #857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Newcastle Uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I cannot know anything about commercial aviation simply because I have been in the RAF for 30 years
Well done Crab it takes guts to admit that so a Merry Christmas to you and all at Chivenor and all the best for 2013
Rescue1 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 19:26
  #858 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From Jayteeto

Or of course it could be a compromise between the two. Something has to give, accept it and move on.
A bit harsh From Jayteeto. I think the reason people are having a bit of a rant is that they feel passionate about what they do and see compromise as exactly that, a compromise. Unfortunately the reality is that, yes, people will have to accept it and move on, whatever 'it' turns out to be.

It's a shame that the comments (as ever) are getting more personal as the thread continues.

Yuletide greetings to all,

Llamaman

Last edited by llamaman; 23rd Dec 2012 at 20:05.
llamaman is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 20:05
  #859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
p.s. can somebody please merge this thread with the SAR-H thread?
llamaman is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 20:09
  #860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vie, look at the bigger picture..... Much more experience in the applicable role!
RotorRPM

Of the 7000 people that the newly-formed Avincis rescued in one year, are you able to let us know how many were rescued by a dedicated national SAR helicopter using a winch and how many were HEMS or Air Ambulance tasks?

Bond have some experienced SAR operators on their payroll who are no doubt playing a part in developing their operation from one that had something of a shaky start in the North Sea into one that is now proving itself in complex rescues and may well, it appears, have a significant role to play in the future of UK Search and Rescue. However, geographically they're on the periphery at the moment and are therefore not the first port of call for daily SAR tasks around the UK. To suggest that the operation has more experience in the applicable role is something of a departure from reality when it is the RAF, RN, CHC and Bristows who have been providing frontline SAR cover for the UK for the last twenty-five plus years.
Vie sans frontieres is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.