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 30th Jan 2013, 11:04
  #1061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,383
Received 384 Likes on 221 Posts
'less assets give better concentration of effort'
I think that's 'fewer assets' - clearly not a Waitrose customer......
212man is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2013, 13:44
  #1062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,387
Received 752 Likes on 338 Posts
clearly not a Waitrose customer
I am but I have to assume that not all the posters here are

If I selected 'pedant-mode' every time there was a spelling or syntax error on pprune I would have doubled the number of posts I have made

Last edited by [email protected]; 30th Jan 2013 at 13:46.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2013, 18:52
  #1063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The North Country
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do all my shoppin in liDl'Ls but theres' nothing wrong with my speling or gramer
Mr Whirly is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2013, 23:38
  #1064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,474
Received 29 Likes on 21 Posts
"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again."

Last edited by jimf671; 31st Jan 2013 at 23:41.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 05:45
  #1065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reading through the comments section, it looks like the public have made up their mind.
onesquaremetre is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 07:16
  #1066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bill Whitehouse, chairman of the British Cave Rescue Council, said: "There's concern whether the smaller aircraft will be able to do everything the Sea King can. Obviously there's nervousness when you see change coming. We're happy with what we've got."
Surely the smaller helicopters will be more effective in the cave rescue scenarios they seem worried about. It must be tight for a Sea King in a cave system even with NVG and a 330deg radar?

(Also worried about HRH being out of a job. How will he pay the bills?)

Last edited by Flounder; 1st Feb 2013 at 07:20.
Flounder is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 07:19
  #1067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,474
Received 29 Likes on 21 Posts
More Guardian

More balance.

Privatisation of UK's search-and-rescue helicopters raises safety and job fears | Politics | The Guardian



However, it is a pity they did not have sufficient petrol money in the budget to get far enough north to go out with teams who have worked with both military and civilian crews in the mountains for over 20 years.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 08:00
  #1068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,387
Received 752 Likes on 338 Posts
That Grauniad article seems to cover most of the concerns - and highlights that the MCA and DfT are sitting there with their fingers in their ears going 'la la la'.

Training hours are going to be the really big issue - as everyone has got tired of me saying
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 10:41
  #1069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil

That's because the training hours are not an issue on the MCA flights and there's been no indication of a reduction as far as I can see.

Always good to see a well informed well written article in the rags....

Last edited by Hedski; 1st Feb 2013 at 10:46.
Hedski is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 12:15
  #1070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,387
Received 752 Likes on 338 Posts
training hours are not an issue on the MCA flights and there's been no indication of a reduction as far as I can see.
that's not what the DfT site says

2.2.2.2.1 The Contractor shall ensure
that a total of 50 flying hours per month
of SAR role flying training is completed
at each location.

2.2.2.2.2 It is anticipated that all training
hours should be consumed within the
month. If this cannot be achieved a
maximum of 10 hours can be carried
over to the following month at the
contractor’s discretion. Hours in excess
of this limit must be agreed with the
Department.

2.2.2.2.3 In the event that monthly
flying training targets are not achieved,
the Contractor shall ensure that such
shortfalls are averaged out over the
year.

Last edited by [email protected]; 1st Feb 2013 at 12:20.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 13:48
  #1071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Zarg
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Targets not limits?
pitotprobe is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 14:02
  #1072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,387
Received 752 Likes on 338 Posts
Oh sure, because a contractor who has had to undercut competition by 20% is bound to give stuff away free that isn't specified in the contract

1:35 per day per SAR flight - of course that's enough training - how could I have been so stupid???????
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 14:18
  #1073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Zarg
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They didn't undercut - they had no idea what the others were bidding. Sensible process.

I might be splitting hairs, or being naive, but it's '50 hours of role training' - doesn't include transits in my book. Taking it even further, jobs aren't 'training'....

More revenue for hours in excess of the target? That's how it works elsewhere (with an upper limit). Crews are encouraged to fly more
pitotprobe is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 15:16
  #1074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the subject of this 20% difference between the CHC bid and the nearest rival - which caused DfT to remove them from the process, is anyone able to shed light whether this was on each of the bidable lots or just on one? If just one couldn't CHC have continued to compete in the other lots?

Still seems incredulous that CHC were such an order of magnitude different to the others....or is there more to this than simple maths?
Spanish Waltzer is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 16:56
  #1075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,387
Received 752 Likes on 338 Posts
doesn't include transits in my book.
yes you are being very naive - at what point do you think the clock would start?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 17:48
  #1076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Zarg
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Or you're being overly cynical?
pitotprobe is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 18:27
  #1077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,474
Received 29 Likes on 21 Posts
Or you're being overly cynical?
Perhaps not.

It's been very difficult to get the MCA side and the military to talk the same language on anything so that we could find out what has changed and what will change in the future.

The monthly SAR stats are the best example: no chance of comparing like with like. Criticised for these obscurations in the 2001 provision and coverage report. Unchanged 5 years later and criticised again in the 2006 report. Unchanged now. Useless.

It's the same with things like training hours. If someone can get MCA and MoD to speak the same language then your AFC is in the post (air force chocolate).
jimf671 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 19:58
  #1078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Away with the Fairies
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The points being raised about CHC being undercut by it's rivals, therefore they are doing it on the cheap, are a bit wide of the mark.

OK, it appears that there were only 2 bids for Lots 1+3, but there were 3 for Lot 2. So CHC would have been 20% more expensive than both of the others to get excluded under the 20% clause. Surely the other 2 couldn't both be wrong?

Did CHC actually want it in the first place?
No Vote Joe is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 21:35
  #1079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

Come on all you grown ups out there:

Hands up everyone who thinks CHC were going to do loads more than the ITT asked for and that's why they were justifiably £600,000 more expensive!

And now hands up everyone else who lives in the real world and thinks CHC were going to offer exactly what the contract asked for and pocket the rest!

Why does anyone think that a massive commercial company were for some reason going to do loads more than required and put their bid at risk by being super expensive? IMHO they bid what they thought the government were prepared to pay and got caught out by 2 companies prepared to cost it properly. Just a guess mind!
snakepit is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 21:49
  #1080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pitot

.I might be splitting hairs, or being naive, but it's '50 hours of role training' - doesn't include transits in my book. Taking it even further, jobs aren't 'training'....
In some SAR contracts, a training credit is given for time on scene on real jobs.

I think that with an experienced crew, it is fair enough if administered correctly. As a soon to be client of a SAR service using 225 (maybe) or 92, we contractually allow the operator to use the full 50 hours, any discount against jobs is the operator's call.
terminus mos is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.