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

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread

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

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread

Old 10th Aug 2015, 23:58
  #2201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
.. ... Notice that I didn't get an answer regarding UKSAR standby readiness being compromised - that is very pertinent and we should be having the debate in public and not behind closed doors - no-one HAS to read this thread, they can always ignore it if they don't like what is written.

If I come across as a stuck record it is because the issues haven't gone away.

Not only have some issues not gone away but they may be about to amplify. In less than a year, tasking will pass to MCA Aviation.

Since the beginning, MCA Aviation, and their Coastguard predecessors, have been poor reporters of SAR helicopter activity. In 2001, 'quoting the NAO findings [from 1998(?)], a UK SAR working group wrote the UK SAR helicopter Provision and Coverage Report and noted the lack of DETR/CG data for inland incidents.' Further comment was recorded in a report of 2006. No change has been observed.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 07:14
  #2202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,580
Thanks Jim - as you have said before, a less transparent organisation than MCA would be difficult to find.

The contract will look perfect because they are marking their own homework.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 09:18
  #2203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Thanks Jim - as you have said before, a less transparent organisation than MCA would be difficult to find.

The contract will look perfect because they are marking their own homework.

When the defence ministry looks open and thorough in their publicly accessible reporting and another looks secretive and barely competent then there is definitely something that needs fixing.

There is some excellent work that has been done by the DfT/MCA Aviation to get us to where we are now but to achieve the equivalent service that they say they are committed to they must report in a thorough and open manner that properly demonstrates contract compliance and value for money.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 09:42
  #2204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moo moo land
Posts: 281
can you not do a request for information, as it is public body?
lowfat is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 17:57
  #2205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by lowfat View Post
can you not do a request for information, as it is public body?
Today I received copies of the NAO report back in 1998 that is said to have kicked off several of the early questions about how the Coastguard deals with helicopter SAR.

When I get the time, I plan is to go through it carefully and identify the points that link to the subsequent provision and coverage reports.

Skimming through it this afternoon it is interesting to observe how far we have come, or not, in these 17 years. Most notable, is the slow pace at which not only the Coastguard-branded aircraft but also the Fleet Air Arm aircraft were integrated fully into the previous system (19 years after Fastnet!).

Last edited by jimf671; 12th Aug 2015 at 18:28.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 18:50
  #2206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,580
What is worrying is that no-one in authority thinks it is wrong to wait for a Non-NVG capable flight (whether that be temporary or permanent) to turn a job down before tasking an NVG-capable flight instead.

Or deliberately tasking a milsar flight instead of a civsar one to avoid getting in the way of NVG training or affecting the early RS15.

Very disappointing since this smacks of collusion from the military hierarchy.

This is supposed to be all about the casualty, not face-saving or politics.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 20:43
  #2207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 71
Posts: 1,305
Crab et al

After all that's gone before that's a touch naive methinks

G.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 20:45
  #2208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
Although I appreciate the point you are trying to make Crab, I don't think it is as clear cut as that. Remember, there is no HAR3/HAR3A in Scotland apart from a museum exhibit.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 21:17
  #2209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,580
No, but there are at Chivenor, Wattisham and Boulmer - look at the flights near to them.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2015, 22:40
  #2210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the northern riviera
Age: 52
Posts: 75
Have just seen on another forum that 'B' Flt at Wattisham(e) stand down tomorrow at 13.00

Last edited by edwardspannerhands; 13th Aug 2015 at 22:41. Reason: Time change
edwardspannerhands is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2015, 23:02
  #2211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
A round of applause for Wattisham for continuing six weeks past your original close date.

And a round of applause for Bristow for getting a fourth base on line. Shame only one of them is compliant with the contract, what with two not being fully NVG capable and one not having an aircraft big enough to carry the required amount of survivors.

Perhaps if they hadn't been sending their UK SAR trained and contracted aircrew to fulfil a lucrative commercial SAR contract in the Falklands for the past few months they'd have a few more fully trained aircrew in the UK.
satsuma is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 02:01
  #2212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: England
Posts: 330
We are not there just yet but we'll done to Bristows for getting up and running for Lydd in a very short time. I know there will be plenty of crytisics our there but not bad for such a large contract with high demands. Before anyone tries to disagree please only comment with eqaully as good results, therefore military contracts do not apply.
jeepys is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 07:23
  #2213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,580
we'll done to Bristows
plenty of crytisics
eqaully as good
Hmmm - hope the standard of your spelling and grammar isn't representative of what you judge to be good
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 08:52
  #2214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: England
Posts: 330
Okay, so I had a few beers down me when I wrote.
I should have known there will be some .... person who would correct me should I make a mistake. In my merry state it looked fine to me but then again so did my thoughts about Crab.
Don't drink kids, it make you think of stupid things!

Crab, why don't you become a lover rather than a fighter!
jeepys is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 09:18
  #2215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: llanelli
Posts: 381
Satsuma,

It's likely BRS were using the 'lucrative commercial SAR contract' as a training base for their people for UKSAR. It's normal to do after all. Why would you spend a fortune training people in the UK (or elsewhere) when you can send them on contract and have someone else pay for it?

Last edited by nowherespecial; 14th Aug 2015 at 09:19. Reason: poor grammar,as usual
nowherespecial is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 10:12
  #2216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,580
Crab, why don't you become a lover rather than a fighter!
because my love was for the Military SAR Force of which I was proud to be a part rather than what appears to be becoming a tacky commercial enterprise where cost-cutting (as nowherespecial has correctly identified) and contract politics is the name of the game.

I quite fancy a pint or two of what you were on jeepys
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 19:39
  #2217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Nowherespecial

So from what you're saying, one of two things could have been happening.

1. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by trainees

Or 2. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by fully qualified SAR crews.

My guess would be the latter in which case they have been depleting their UK resources to man a commercial hydrocarbons SAR support contract. Shouldn't those aircrew have been in the UK doing what the UK taxpayer expects them to do, namely train for and man what is widely recognised as an undermanned UK SAR project that is behind on its training?
satsuma is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 07:41
  #2218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,580
Or 3. They were qualified on type and gaining experience in role (on type) and fulfilling the FI contract when there wasn't space or capacity for them to fly in UK.

It would have been an excellent place to conduct NVG training but they clearly didn't have the resources or foresight for that.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2015, 14:26
  #2219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
I think we need to consider that a contract thousands of miles away in the southern hemisphere with part-time maritime LIMSAR really cannot provide any kind of support mechanism for a contract of the size and complexity of the UK SAR contract. And it is only S-92.

I don't think that on 26th March 2013 either party to the UK SAR contract thought that there would be three types involved for up to a year at the beginning. OK, so with common systems on two types it is almost like 2.5 types (2.673 types anyone? ) but it is still a much increased training load at a difficult time in the contract when they are already trying to ramp up a wide range of capabilities.

I remain slightly concerned about NVG at Inverness though I am confident that they will be sorted for the winter. I am not going to get all excited about other bases going down on NVG capability or paramedic strength for a few days at a time. With the obvious extra training load and the size and complexity of this contract, a few glitches will happen as staff arrive from Managed Transition and Transition Teams get moved around to fill the gaps. Let's have a rested and properly trained pilot and paramedic on base tomorrow instead of an accident today.



And a big round of applause for all those who were doing this before there were any goggles or paramedics.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2015, 20:53
  #2220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by satsuma View Post
Nowherespecial

So from what you're saying, one of two things could have been happening.

1. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by trainees

Or 2. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by fully qualified SAR crews.

My guess would be the latter in which case they have been depleting their UK resources to man a commercial hydrocarbons SAR support contract. Shouldn't those aircrew have been in the UK doing what the UK taxpayer expects them to do, namely train for and man what is widely recognised as an undermanned UK SAR project that is behind on its training?
Option 2. Money talks (and is obeyed), the taxpayer has a little moan in forums such as this and is, essentially, irrelevant.
llamaman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.