UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
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.
The response time you quote is the fixed wing response.
The land grab is med transfers, missing person searches , RTAs and not all cliffs are at the sea for example.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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???
Would it have cost £1.6 Bn though???
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?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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!
My first question is why are the MCA not the experts in this field? They state that themselves!
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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'.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They really missed out by not hiring Crab to narrate it.
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.
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.
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.
and want more money....
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
The GFS and SC have been doing it successfully for years...
LZ
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.
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.
I know people like the space and power but it is surely overkill for the majority of coastal and inland jobs.
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.
Currently, we have no discernible difference in downwash intensity between an 8.6t aircraft and a 12t aircraft.
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
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
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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
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