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 11th Apr 2015, 12:58
  #1821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 364
Perhaps then dont look for anyone to blame until there is factual evidence that something is actually wrong...
Spanish Waltzer is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2015, 13:48
  #1822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 120
And whom screwed up SAR10?? Not Bristow, one hears that someone in light blue was feeding info to one of the other bidders. If that hadn't come to light not only would the contract have been overpriced but no doubt pockets would have been lined with our hard earned taxes.
So far all we hear is rumour that the NGV is not up to speed, supposition that there arn't enough bases and what seems like hope that the whole thing will fail and the good fairy will pay billions to the RAF to save the day.
As the RAF can't even police our coast and doesn't seem to have enough air defence aircraft to protect UK I can't see them getting the call from Number 10.
Lets put the mud down and watch how it pans out and if there are any FACTS that show that things are not as they should be then lets put in a post.

Last edited by Sevarg; 11th Apr 2015 at 13:50. Reason: Typos
Sevarg is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2015, 14:24
  #1823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling View Post
... We (the UK) have outgrown our usefulness from a global positioning perspective and we need to restructure ourselves accordingly and align our current status with those already aligned to the 'new world order' (namely: Norway, Denmark, Germany et al). We cannot continue to run a world leading military order - simples. So paring back is the way to go. RAF SAR lost its raison d'etre - god knows how many years ago. It was surplus to requirement (as a military outfit) and several senior officers and politicians knew it.
Agreed in respect of the geo-political framework. We are a little NW European country scrambling to get over our long-held delusions of grandeur.

However, I suggest that a broader interpretation of the task of defending the British people could have been taken. SAR Force, Fleet Air Arm SAR flights and ARCC could have morphed into something new that resembled the Norwegian model. The Coastguard, with European Parliament ambitions for their extinction and limited authority within the current regulatory framework, needs to put down strong roots in new areas so that they can feel important and secure. Morphing into 'UK Rescue' fits the bill and if you don't have the skill set then just buy it in.


Originally Posted by Thomas coupling View Post
... The government continued to squeeze further savings after the debacle that was SAR(H) in 2010. - Realising that this was far to generous a package handing over and so they grabbed the opportunity to 'adjust' SARH2 to within an inch of its monetary life by dicing up the new contract into much more manageable chunks. ...
Agreed. The Treasury definitely had it in for SARH25. To put numbers on just the basics of that, if an aviation contractor is expected to estimate what something is going to cost in 25 years time then the estimate is going be HUGE. At 10 years, uncertainty is much more manageable.


Originally Posted by Thomas coupling View Post
... - and you can't blame them. Blame the government. ...
Yes. We've been doing this since 1971. Somebody in government should have got a grip and sorted it out. No chance. Scrappy little contracts came and went without significant progress in the technical specification and the way they addressed the wider SAR pcture.

Without the challenge of a full and appropriate technical specification, the contractor kept bidding on what was there. As I understand it, it is not the regulator's job to stick their nose in and decide what the job is. The customer initiates the changes in the regulatory framework by specifying the task and the operator then has to work with the regulator to develop a safe way forward.

Now we are left with a huge step-change in the technical specification and therefore the regulatory framework. What it comes down to is that this was the job thrust on the shoulders of Liz Forsyth and John McIntyre last week. Good luck folks.

(From Casbag 36.) "This stuff is all new to us (MR) but we are not alone. No civilian operator has ever had a contract like this operating in a regulatory framework like this before. The CAA has never regulated operations like these before. That goes some way toward explaining why this has all taken so long and why incremental changes continue."

(As I posted elsewhere.) "Bristow will be experiencing all the problems you might expect with a major public contract of this complexity. Most of those problems will be ironed out and we will never need to know anything about them. Whatever mistakes Bristow make there is a good chance that they will also be made to carry the can for any mistakes of their customer or the regulator."


Originally Posted by Thomas coupling View Post
... Further - SAR is a 'hidden' public service - the man on the street doesn't have the faintest idea what is going on in SAR, doesn't care and it isn't a vote winner.....don't expect miracles or even a par with its previous incarnation. Voters don't care.........................
Yes. The voters don't care. That's because nothing has gone badly wrong, so far, as we approach election time.

However, perhaps around a million internet posts in English on UK sites have been posted on this subject. That doesn't count comments on internet press articles which might be another million or two. So it took more than a couple of dozen sad ppruners to produce that lot which means that quite a few people are ready to care. Also, the world is watching and contractors and governments around the planet are waiting to see what happens.

-----------------

La oss gå flyr.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2015, 14:56
  #1824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,563
Oh dear Sevarg - not ex-RN by any chance with that anti-RAF drivel?

No-one is expecting the RAF to save the day - the deed is done and we can only hope that the new service gets up to speed as soon as possible.

There may be regulatory issues preventing the NVG ops but these have been in the pipeline for a long time - DfT need to get a grip.

Meanwhile, HMCG have shown their grand plan for reducing bases and streamlining operations hasn't gone smoothly - Swansea CG was closed based on the incorrect assumption that Milford could cope - now they are desperately recruiting ex-Swansea staff because they were a. competent and b. had local knowledge.

And these are the guys tasked with managing UKSAR - they were proposing to monitor the UKSAR aviation contract using the same chap who monitors vehicles and other contracts - no aviation knowledge or experience at all. I hope they have finally got someone in who knows something about SAR, particularly aviation provision of SAR.

And who was the customer
Without the challenge of a full and appropriate technical specification, the contractor kept bidding on what was there. As I understand it, it is not the regulator's job to stick their nose in and decide what the job is. The customer initiates the changes in the regulatory framework by specifying the task and the operator then has to work with the regulator to develop a safe way forward.
oh yes that would be HMCG.

There is a rumour that military rearcrew are being asked to bring their own safety equipment (immersion suits, helmets etc) when they start training with Bristow - the lead time on company kit is 4 months or so apparently. More fantastic organisation!
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2015, 16:21
  #1825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 120
In Reply Crab
Oh dear Sevarg - not ex-RN by any chance with that anti-RAF drivel?
No afraid not ex RN, ex RAF but one that thinks for myself, as I have said before the brain washing didn't work. In fact I've been out so long and now retired, I would call myself an ex civilian.
Re the NVG RUMOUR of regulatory problems. This is up to the CAA not the DfT. The CAA or EASA are not behold to DfT nor should they be. Not that I am saying for one minute that they are not with out their faults. In this case I think it's the CAA and they are Quote Wiki:-
The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many other countries, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work. It is classed as a public corporation, established by statute, in the public sector. The connection it has with the government is via the Machinery of Government and Standards Group of the Cabinet Office.
So that's the cage to rattle, not much hope until the elections over.
I'm not defending the CG, I admit I know little of their workings and have had no contact with them for 15 years.
Lastly I see no point in commenting on the latest RUMOUR on rear crew safety equip, you say yourself it's a RUMOUR. I know this is a rumour network but here they get treated as facts.
Sevarg is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2015, 16:33
  #1826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,563
Sevarg, apologies for assuming dark-blueness on your part.

If the CAA is established by statute, is part of the machinery of Govt and presided over by the Cabinet Office, then the DfT is exactly the cage to rattle - but I agree the election will prevent any actual action.

I can only state things as a rumour that I have not personally witnessed, no matter how much I trust the source of such comments. And, as you say, it is a rumour network.

Whilst I have every faith in the crews and aircraft of the new SAR service, I have very little in the mechanisms and organisations set up to manage and monitor what actually goes on to provide them with the best help possible.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2015, 18:47
  #1827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
... If the CAA is established by statute, ...

A subject hardly worth our attention. However, the Coasties on the other hand ....
jimf671 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2015, 22:19
  #1828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
If these 'rumours' weren't true, someone would be on here gnashing their teeth.

Ask the ARCC who they'll be sending to night overland tasks in Scotland for the forseeable future. Prestwick or Boulmer, that's who.

As for the lack of immersion suits - it's been the case for quite a while.
satsuma is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 08:39
  #1829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Out West
Posts: 282
Aha. The little orange petulant is back. Are you a Bristow reject by any chance?
Same again is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 09:11
  #1830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by Same again View Post
Aha. The little orange petulant is back. Are you a Bristow reject by any chance?
I think Satsuma may have a point. The new service was supposed to see no reduction in capability and was heralded by a certain politician as a "better service". However, it is what it is and will no doubt (in terms of night capability) catch up as crews with previous NVG experience replace the transition crews. I'm assuming (read hoping) that is what will happen as the agencies involved are keeping somewhat tight-lipped about the matter. The ARCC has had to cope with no overland NVG capability from the two Bristow gap-SAR flights, it is not a new problem!
llamaman is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 10:45
  #1831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Out West
Posts: 282
I read lots of 'points'. I see that the latest one is immersion suits. I don't know what planet these people live on but where I come from 100+ bespoke immersion suits take some time to appear - as do the measurements of crews not even employed by Bristow yet.

Good God it will be the wrong type of biscuits in the crew room next. Pathetic.
Same again is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 11:46
  #1832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by Same again View Post
... ... Good God it will be the wrong type of biscuits in the crew room next. Pathetic.

Just to clear up one important point, the biscuits in the crew room are pretty good. (Not sure if they'll be letting me near them again though. )
jimf671 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 14:15
  #1833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by Same again View Post
I read lots of 'points'. I see that the latest one is immersion suits. I don't know what planet these people live on but where I come from 100+ bespoke immersion suits take some time to appear - as do the measurements of crews not even employed by Bristow yet.

Good God it will be the wrong type of biscuits in the crew room next. Pathetic.
Calm down! I don't think lack of an NVG capability is comparable with biscuits. I agree that immersion suits may be a logistical hiccup and certainly a problem that has been got round. However, standing-up new SAR bases when not 100% capable whilst on the other hand claiming an equal if not improved service is, quite rightly, something that causes concern for those of us that care. Nothing more.
llamaman is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 14:57
  #1834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Out West
Posts: 282
The alleged lack of compliance or capability that the same individuals keep harping on about is becoming more than a little tedious. You will not get any answers to your questions and snipes here on a public site for the same reasons that you will not find military crews declaring their capabilities on the military aircrew forum. They are tax payer-funded too but the public does have an automatic right to that information.

If you want information then I am sure that you are welcome to arrange a visit to your nearest SAR base where, if they are not out training or on a shout, they will tell you as much as they are able about the operation.

There are very few Bristow SAR crew members who actually take any notice of this forum. They cannot learn anything from it. One person described it to me as 'Jurassic Park', populated by disgruntled ex-military SAR dinosaurs, petulant Bristow rejects and armchair experts.
Same again is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 15:49
  #1835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 456
35 Year old Grievences



Jerry G, please don't think this is 'inter service banter', rivalry, whatever. The Command & Control of the Fastnet, probably above 'Wings' head even, was a goat f..k!
Properly crewed and trained RAF assets were offered and rejected. This is to take NOTHING from the RN crews who carried out those rescues - but when one witnessed (on TV) empty strops being dangled towards survivors who couldn't reach them, scratch RN crews being hauled in off leave by local radio bulletins, and the use of helos to fly camera crew (again, not SAR equipped) questions should have been asked of the RN Command. Those questions undoubtedly were addressed since subsequently RN SAR came under the RCC's.
BTW, RAF crews were equally capable over the water as they were in the hills. In my 22 years and over 7k hours I guess I did my fair share of both.

Wishing the new CIV SAR all the very best for the future. Onwards and upwards - now, is it navy patter or RAF patter you use
Al-bert is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 15:49
  #1836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 77
Fred Flintstone

Which dinosaur are you same again and why are you on here? Not bothered though?
Hompy is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 15:57
  #1837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,563
The alleged lack of compliance or capability that the same individuals keep harping on about is becoming more than a little tedious.
not half as tedious as the crap excuses made by the same individuals to avoid the fact that a very expensive Govt contract has been allowed to start without meeting the required spec.

Then, in a pathetic effort to denigrate the credentials of those who are actually concerned about this stuff, the same individuals start name-calling.

Same Again - fortunately I know that you are not typical of the Bristow workforce otherwise I would fear even more for the future of UKSAR.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 16:55
  #1838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by Al-bert View Post
... ... subsequently RN SAR came under the RCC's. ...
35 years ago lesson learnt: RN SAR comes under ARCCs.

5 years ago lesson learnt: CG SAR comes under ARCC.

Now, lessons not learnt: give ARCC to CG.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2015, 17:02
  #1839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 195
Thanks for the patronising response Same Again. Much of the discussion on this forum is valid (much is not). More importantly it is a public forum where people are free to express their opinions, if they upset you so much why are you here!!?

People aren't necessarily expecting answers but they are free to express their frustrations. If it makes you feel better by trying to shout them down then that is your problem.
llamaman is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 22:06
  #1840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 51
Posts: 75
So is the handover going seamlessly with absolutely no reduction in capability or not? That was what was promised is it not?
HAL9000 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.