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 12th Oct 2015, 12:41
  #2341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 365
Jim, I hear you on the first reason. I hope in time though you don't regret wanting a sports car in the mountains....sometimes big and heavy is better at coping with those nasty downdraughts!

SW
Spanish Waltzer is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2015, 13:50
  #2342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,650
Except that once you start going down, a bigger helo has more momentum to overcome so less weight and a bigger power margin is a better configuration.

SW - I think they had a good idea about the costs of the 139 right up until it proved how little it liked the maritime environment at SARTU Some engineering issues didn't help either but those are the sort of thing you can only discover once the aircraft is in situ and in role - but you knew that anyway
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2015, 19:31
  #2343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
I hear you SW and I appreciate your point. However, I have been flown around the hills of Kintail in various aircraft from 2 to 12 tonne during the last three decades and the differences are pretty clear. I expect that the diversity of size and specification planned for the SAR fleet will be a positive feature. Of course, it's not like they will be deploying 350s or 135s in this case. The 189 is roughly the same weight as a SeaKing with monster power and advanced rotor technology. Am I wrong to expect such a machine to shrug off a fresh breeze but be a bit easier for pilots to manoeuvre in and out of a tight corrie?
jimf671 is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2015, 19:35
  #2344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 298
Best laugh I've had all day.

It dents the government's effort to turn Westland into a proper commercial civil aviation supplier so not likely to happen.
You are a wag Jim.
leopold bloom is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2015, 19:55
  #2345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
I did mention Inverness-shire in my profile so the sarcasm filter should have been operational.

Sorry for any distress caused. (Still not working!)
jimf671 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 17:34
  #2346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moo moo land
Posts: 281
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqTawOdIVAc

lowfat is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2015, 10:05
  #2347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: North Kent, UK.
Posts: 336
RAF ends SAR. Tribute.
Farewell to RAF UK Search and Rescue
mmitch.
mmitch is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2015, 15:47
  #2348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 41
Manning Levels at Bases

What are the manning levels at the Bristow SAR Bases? Are all bases single aircraft? If not single aircraft; is it two of one type (S92)?
Redhawk 83 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2015, 15:51
  #2349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 41
Manning Levels at Bases

Ok my cohort here showed in the thread that bases that are S92 are two aircraft.
Still have questions about manning; are both aircraft manned 24 hrs or is it one aircraft is the ready and the other is a backup with one crew for both? 24 hr watch? 12 hr watch? 8 pilots or more/less pilots?
Redhawk 83 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2015, 19:18
  #2350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
This contract has always been based upon the manning of a single aircraft at each base. No second standby is required.

As the contract process progressed in 2012, first one and then a second EC225 ditched in the North Sea during oil and gas crew change operations and the DfT witnessed the chaos that can occur when an entire type is grounded.

At this point the contract changed from being one aircraft per base and 'convince us of how many spares you need to maintain 98%' to two aircraft per base. If you have two aircraft per base then if one type is grounded, or otherwise not available, then you can redistribute aircraft and still have one aircraft per base.

Oh wait a minute, we have one type unavailable now. And we are getting eight extra aircraft. This is fascinating isn't it?
jimf671 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2015, 19:56
  #2351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,650
One question that is raised is this: Since the costings were based on the 189 and the S92 is more expensive, who is paying for the difference now that there are more S92s than the contract stated?

Someone suggested that the DfT would foot the bill (yes the taxpayer) but surely it must be the contractor since it is a deviation from the contract?

Some progress since milSAR - less shift plot changes since it is 1000 extra to get a pilot to volunteer for an extra shift. However, since it costs 30K in penalties for a flight to be off-state, there is plenty of room for people to ask for more before it becomes too unpalatable!

Any takers for a 10K SAR shift???? Commercial reality kicks in.......
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2015, 11:52
  #2352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
One question that is raised is this: Since the costings were based on the 189 and the S92 is more expensive, who is paying for the difference now that there are more S92s than the contract stated?

Someone suggested that the DfT would foot the bill (yes the taxpayer) but surely it must be the contractor since it is a deviation from the contract? ... ...
.

Now lets see. Who told them they needed to buy AW189s? Who didn't make them in time? Somewhere in that mess is your answer.

(Also true that Bristow weren't too sharp with their order process.)
jimf671 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2015, 16:54
  #2353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,650
I think they decided to buy 189s by themselves since the contract was for 2 types not 1. They can't lay that one at the feet of the DfT.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2015, 00:13
  #2354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 41
Manning Levels at Bases

Ok folks thanks for the info and background. But what is the Bristow planned manning level for a base; for argument let's say a two type base manned 24 hrs?
Redhawk 83 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2015, 13:43
  #2355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Redhawk, a base will not routinely have a mix of airframes. Either 2 x S92 or 2 x AW189(eventually). If a type is grounded, then the other type will be loaned from a nearby base thereby maintaining the coverage, providing you don't have any aircraft in deep maintenance at that time. Each base has historically been manned by 4 x aircrew and 2 x engineers on a 24 hour duty period. You don't have a fixed crew system, personnel are completely interchangeable. Also you have a (generally) day working Chief Engineer, and when there are times requiring more intensive maintenance you bring your off duty engineers in on o/t. Roughly speaking you have 10 Pilots (6-7 Captains), 10 rear crew, and 10 engineers. Also a part time admin person and a labourer to maintain the hangar etc. Crews will on average work between 6 - 8 24hr shifts per month
Norfolk Inchance is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2015, 15:55
  #2356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,650
6 - 8 24 hr shifts a month for 90K - that sounds like value for money for the UK taxpayer............
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2015, 16:30
  #2357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Blame the CAA; besides I remember on my last visit to the SAR Flt at Chiv how many personnel were there to support one a/c. There must had been at least 15 engineers, a couple of ops type people, and on passing down the corridor beyond the crewroom, each of those offices had a least two people in them. I estimated that there were in the region of 30-35 'support' staff for one flight. When one considers that generally speaking manpower is the costliest item in a business it is little wonder why the RAF and RN will no longer provide UKSAR. I remember a few years ago when I was still serving being picked up from BZN and taken to Benson by a Flt Sgt Driver. I thought he must be the duty SNCO with no-one else to go and fetch me. But no, the air force actually pay drivers 40k+ PA to drive a car. You could get a civvy to do that for 15k. Now that is a waste of taxpayers money
Norfolk Inchance is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2015, 16:35
  #2358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 41
Manning Levels at Bases

Norfolk thanks, that helps me. I was trying to figure out if it was a "touring" type job but sounds like a live there job (or ideally live there). I am surprised by the 24 hr shift since I always thought it would be more stringent than the FAA 12-14 hr duty rules (FAR Part 135 since once the passenger is on board via hoist it turns into that). FAA doesn't allow "on call" etc. Again thanks!
Redhawk 83 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2015, 17:00
  #2359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
6 - 8 24 hr shifts a month for 90K - that sounds like value for money for the UK taxpayer............


Somebody please tell Senior Pilot that the sarcasm filter is on the blink again.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2015, 17:08
  #2360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,178
But no, the air force actually pay drivers 40k+ PA to drive a car. You could get a civvy to do that for 15k.
In Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/chooseyourownMiddleEasternshithole?
TorqueOfTheDevil 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.