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 8th Sep 2020, 16:38
  #2861 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moo moo land
Posts: 299
The response time you quote is the fixed wing response. Rotary asset is 15 and 45 currently. The land grab is med transfers, missing person searches , RTAs and not all cliffs are at the sea for example.
lowfat is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2020, 18:52
  #2862 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,469
The response time you quote is the fixed wing response.
That's why I wanted to check - the question was asked about air assets and didn't specify that it was for FW. The rotary times are what I was expecting.

The land grab is med transfers, missing person searches , RTAs and not all cliffs are at the sea for example.
Fair points but none of that was made clear in the presentation - they are jobs that were traditionally done by MilSAR but are hardly core MCA business as they take an asset away from its prime responsibility which, when cover is spread thinner than it was, leaves great swathes with no immediate SAR asset.

MISPERS don't need a SAR helicopter and med transfers and RTAs are the NHS/AA AOR - inland cliffs must be a very small percentage of the jobs except in mountainous areas.

Maritime Coastguard Agency is what the title says - still a land grab.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2020, 21:45
  #2863 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moo moo land
Posts: 299
Its primary task is to help any one in need now.. The MCA release an asset if its not actively tasked.
Its a triage system if a higher task comes in it goes to that if its committed the next asset goes till none are left. .
Its just the way it is you cant have lifesaving skills sat on the ground waiting for a titanic to sink, while people die 2 miles down the road because we are a "seafarers" only service.
lowfat is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2020, 21:47
  #2864 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lost again...
Posts: 640
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Probably, but we already had the aircraft in service in the RAF and RN so the training system, engineering and supply systems were already in place. We won't know because we didn't try.

Would it have cost £1.6 Bn though???
Crab

We agree on many things but if you are suggesting that the UK MOD could have rolled out the EH101 across the UK SAR fleet (inc HMCG) for less than the cost of the commercial contact (inc manning) then I simply don't believe that's possible.`
`
But perhaps i'm misunderstanding you?
OvertHawk is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2020, 02:49
  #2865 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,324
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Made my way through what was not a very professional looking or sounding presentation or Q and A.

My first question is why are the MCA not the experts in this field? They state that themselves!
I must say that I do from time to time get concerned about the MCA's grasp on some matters. For instance, two of the questions from me during the Q&A went straight to the heart of their understanding of how SAR aviation is regulated. If they don't make prescriptive requirements in the contract about matters that require regulatory approval (as they failed to do 1971 to 2006+) then it does not get translated into an Operating Manual and ultimately an AOC and appropriate secondary regulation. They need to pay attention in class.


Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Lots of buzzwords about innovation and specifying effect not solutions which is the same crap that happened last time - 'blue-sky thinking outside the box' - does anyone really think there will be an alternative to helicopters for rescuing people by 2024? They are frightened to commit to the realities of life in order to make themselves look progressive.
They did however end up with a world class service the last time. I agree that no alternative to the helicopter is likely to exist by 2024, or probably 2035. I have a suspicion that as the contract process moves forward, even without Richard Parkes to make incisive statements about helicopter operations, reality will sink in and the big beast rip-off merchants and the half-price dreamers will be turfed out and we'll be left with the usual suspects. I hope I'm not wrong.

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
It seems pretty obvious that you need mostly smaller aircraft for bases since 87% of jobs are within 100nm of base and then perhaps 2 long range assets (both West facing, one North and one South) for long range stuff. You can supplement this with FW and UAVs as much as you like but you will still need to rescue people.
My feeling is that we are in the right place already. I understand what our friend John Foster says about the number of quick jobs not far from base but my feeling is that there is a reason that as one moves further into the 45+ degrees 'hostile environment', all around the world the SAR aircraft get bigger. Could be coincidence but I don't think so. I think that if we end up with a contractor with S-92 and another contractor with maybe H145 then whatever you do it's likely to turn into a sh1tshow with everybody in the wrong place.

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
They wouldn't specify bases or equipment, why? If Bristow don't get the contract does that mean all their expensive infrastructure would have to be replaced elsewhere as part of the bill to the UK taxpayers? How is that value for money?
Nice little earner for Bristow renting those out? Business collaboration is more profitable than business competition after all (that's why we have laws against some forms of it!). Maybe not the best for the taxpayer certainly, although we don't know how the bidders might account for commercial property investments.

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
The stats on jobs show again what a land grab MCA made in the past, a full 50% of jobs are inland with the rest spread between maritime and coastal - how is that all MCA territory when the police have primacy inland?
The police have been pussies and let the Coasties elbow in on things. It is not helped when some police think that anything that doesn't involve baton-wielding or battering down doors as the sun comes up isn't worth their while. The broad view of public safety that many of us are used to is wasted on them. The Coasties on the other hand may feel a need to bolster their position since their importance in the Civil Contingency hierarchy is not as clear cut as police and fire for instance.

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
There seems to be an acknowledgement that the present contract wasn't well thought out - the implication that stakeholder training is currently inadequate, no-one thought about carriage of rescue dogs and problems with increasing capability or adding new technology.

One issue the director acknowledged was cross-governmental department work is difficult due to contract issues and turf boundaries - something the military never had a problem with and one of the strengths it brings to the party.

Govt strategy should be to incorporate Air Ambulance, Police and inland SAR work into one outfit and leave the coastal and maritime stuff to MCA or just hand back UKSAR to the military so you can include all surveillance and intelligence gathering as well as retaining the best aircrew training playground available. The UK military is dropping below critical mass without a war to fight and having surplus manpower in flying jobs means less lag when you have to ramp up (inevitable at some time in the future). Now I know that will seem like pie in the sky but thinking outside the current 'get a new MCA contract sorted, like the current one but somehow better' box doesn't seem what the MCA want to do. Not innovative or forward thinking, just more of the same.

I have always questioned the fitness of MCA to manage aviation and that presentation hasn't changed my mind. The question about the CAA approving the use of UAVs wasn't answered and seemed to be 'well they will have to approve it'.
The stakeholder training matter is as good as fixed. Requirements are being reviewed and the bidder on the new contract will have access to the names and contact details of the stakeholders and thus the ability to go and ask the right questions. If the right questions are not asked then that becomes another measure for the MCA to consider during the competitive dialogue phase.

We should remember that nobody else wanted UK SAR Helicopters. If the military wanted it then it would have all been sorted out at the same time as JHC. There is no other Govt department that wants it or is a good fit. The MCA was doing contract SAR already and could see that bolstering its image in this way was a win-win not least from the point of view of deterring a move to single European coastguard.

Police air support beyond the scope of an economically sensible NPAS should be an RAF SH task and can be based on air support for RAF Police and RAF Regiment. It would be sensible for a variety of reasons to have military helicopter resources more widely spread around the UK.

Air Ambulance? Do NOT start me.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2020, 06:23
  #2866 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,469
Jim, thank you for your usual reasoned and informed response

Overthawk - Perhaps not feasible given the military disinterest in SAR but it would have been interesting to see what a military proposal looked like on cost. Llamaman was right though, the 101 wasn't what people wanted due to the downdraught but the S92 isn't far off and it seems to work allbeit the working environment under the aircraft is very unpleasant - guess who chooses the aircraft, pilots or winchmen?

All 3 Armed Services have dwindling numbers of helicopters and a training system (when it works) that will produce too many pilots for OCUs to cope with or the front line to absorb. Having military SAR - no matter how unlikely now - would have kept trained pilots in demanding flying posts ready in case they were needed for core-military business.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2020, 23:16
  #2867 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,324
UK
More4, 2100h, Sunday 13th September 2020,
EMERGENCY RESCUE: Air, Land & Sea.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/...e-air-land-sea

They really missed out by not hiring Crab to narrate it.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2020, 05:53
  #2868 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,469
They really missed out by not hiring Crab to narrate it.
I would only have commented on how the guys getting their hands dirty are paid half as much as those driving them to the job
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2020, 13:17
  #2869 (permalink)  
gsa
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wensleydale.
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by jimf671 View Post

Police air support beyond the scope of an economically sensible NPAS should be an RAF SH task and can be based on air support for RAF Police and RAF Regiment. It would be sensible for a variety of reasons to have military helicopter resources more widely spread around the UK.
Why RAF SH? Surely the wildcat role would fit in far better if your sending it to the Military, recce is what’s needed not bus drivers.
gsa is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2020, 16:43
  #2870 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,324
Originally Posted by gsa View Post
Why RAF SH? Surely the wildcat role would fit in far better if your sending it to the Military, recce is what’s needed not bus drivers.
NPAS do that. What NPAS lack, and what MCA Aviation are proposing to provide, are bus drivers. This is part of the MCA's idea of being able to deploy a range of different teams from across public service.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2020, 18:02
  #2871 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,469
what MCA Aviation are proposing to provide, are bus drivers. This is part of the MCA's idea of being able to deploy a range of different teams from across public service.
they'll be annexing Poland next
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2020, 21:16
  #2872 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,859
and want more money....
sycamore is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2020, 23:05
  #2873 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Am I dreaming when I hope that 1 one day we can have an integrated aviation arm that can be tasked to assist any government service, paid for by the tax payer that cover key disciplines such as SAR/HEMS, police support and general duties like moorland fire fighting?

The GFS and SC have been doing it successfully for years...

LZ
Hot_LZ is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2020, 11:19
  #2874 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 201
Or maybe even a JRCC? That would really be leaping into the 21st century.
llamaman is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2020, 11:39
  #2875 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,324
I do feel that the MCA vision is moving towards a government flying service. However, if we are prioritising the saving of lives, all serious crime and fires must be scheduled for Tuesday mornings.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2020, 11:47
  #2876 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,324
Originally Posted by llamaman View Post
Or maybe even a JRCC? That would really be leaping into the 21st century.
That question was asked during the approach to the ARCC changeover. The answer was that the JRCC model would not be part of that stage. I await with interest any progress in this area.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2020, 19:24
  #2877 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,469
Just watched the first episode on catch-up - all good professional stuff but it highlights the issue of the S-92 downdraught.

I know people like the space and power but it is surely overkill for the majority of coastal and inland jobs.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 02:22
  #2878 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,324
Based on the advances that continue in rotor technology, I am not expecting any great relief for those who work under SAR aircraft.

Currently, we have no discernible difference in downwash intensity between an 8.6t aircraft and a 12t aircraft.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 06:42
  #2879 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,469
Not so much rotor technology but more powerful engines that allow smaller rotor discs and make them work harder, producing the higher downwash speeds.

S92 - rotor 56'4", 2 x 2520 SHP engines, MTOW 26,150 lbs

AW 189 - rotor 48', 2 x 2000 shp engines, MTOW 18,300 lbs

Sea King - rotor 62', 2 x 1660 shp engines, MTOW 21, 400 lbs
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 19:12
  #2880 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 966
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Not so much rotor technology but more powerful engines that allow smaller rotor discs and make them work harder, producing the higher downwash speeds.

S92 - rotor 56'4", 2 x 2520 SHP engines, MTOW 26,150 lbs

AW 189 - rotor 48', 2 x 2000 shp engines, MTOW 18,300 lbs

Sea King - rotor 62', 2 x 1660 shp engines, MTOW 21, 400 lbs
Honestly, Crab, this is what I admire about your inputs. No BS from anyone.
etudiant 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.