UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by jimf671
Are we sure the first one didn't circle round and join the back of the queue?
Ultimately only five SKs joined the tour, the sixth responding to a call-out. Image gallery here.
I/C
Llamaman - Comp A jobs were classed as SAROPs if a SAR cab was used as they take precedence over almost everything. I picked up a chap from Heathrow at 6am one sunny morning in a Sea King to take him to Bristol where his father was VSI - in less than 15 hours he had gone from being on patrol in Helmand to being at his father's bedside.
However, taking engineers to a rig hardly counts as compassionate - I presume the ARCCK gave their permission (if they were actually asked)
However, taking engineers to a rig hardly counts as compassionate - I presume the ARCCK gave their permission (if they were actually asked)
Llamaman - Comp A jobs were classed as SAROPs if a SAR cab was used as they take precedence over almost everything. I picked up a chap from Heathrow at 6am one sunny morning in a Sea King to take him to Bristol where his father was VSI - in less than 15 hours he had gone from being on patrol in Helmand to being at his father's bedside.
I do not think embedded is quite correct for what will be in place for next March. ARCC structures are expected to be separate from Coastguard MOC structures. It may seem a subtle distinction but, in spite of the branding of the aircraft, MCA Aviation is not structured within the Coastguard but under Director Maritime Operations MCA, and key management are DfT guys.
Later, if there is a move towards a JRCC model, it will be interesting to see how things pan out. The DfT will have to play a strong hand since, for a true JRCC, the Coastguard would be just another seat at the table. After the pain of 'Future Coastguard', that might not go down too well.
ARCC Fareham training kicking off as we scribble.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-gear/27/b05/815
Last edited by jimf671; 22nd May 2015 at 23:19.
I do not think embedded is quite correct for what will be in place for next March. ARCC structures are expected to be separate from Coastguard MOC structures. It may seem a subtle distinction but, in spite of the branding of the aircraft, MCA Aviation is not structured within the Coastguard but under Director Maritime Operations MCA, and key management are DfT guys.
The Coastguard is a customer for SAR with no less or more priority than any of the other 1st response agencies. The ARRC's responsibility is to allocate helicopters on a case by case basis without bias and driven by the urgency of the situation at the time. I hope this ethos can be maintained post-March.
The Coastguard is a customer for SAR with no less or more priority than any of the other 1st response agencies. The ARRC's responsibility is to allocate helicopters on a case by case basis without bias and driven by the urgency of the situation at the time. I hope this ethos can be maintained post-March.
The ARCCK has long struggled to find enough aviation qualified people to act as controllers and had to make do with lots of training to try and bring the others up to speed.
One problem will be money - whereas military controllers at Kinloss have been relatively well paid and often asked to work there for personal reasons, the CG pays peanuts and will struggle to attract people of the right quality and background, especially given property prices in the South of England.
In the same way that the MCA thinks local knowledge isn't relevant in this modern age of communications (they have recently been proved wrong at Milford after closing Swansea CG) - I have no doubt that a lack of quality aviation (especially SAR helicopter) knowledge and experience will waste time on SAR callouts and possibly cause loss of life as a result.
As ever with the MCA there is unlikely to be any transparency or oversight of how effective their operations are and FOI requests are far too clumsy a system to show what is actually happening on a day to day basis. At least as military operators we could always pick up the phone for a hot debrief after a job and run any concerns we had through our chain of command - when MCA is both the provider and the customer, how is that going to happen?
One problem will be money - whereas military controllers at Kinloss have been relatively well paid and often asked to work there for personal reasons, the CG pays peanuts and will struggle to attract people of the right quality and background, especially given property prices in the South of England.
In the same way that the MCA thinks local knowledge isn't relevant in this modern age of communications (they have recently been proved wrong at Milford after closing Swansea CG) - I have no doubt that a lack of quality aviation (especially SAR helicopter) knowledge and experience will waste time on SAR callouts and possibly cause loss of life as a result.
As ever with the MCA there is unlikely to be any transparency or oversight of how effective their operations are and FOI requests are far too clumsy a system to show what is actually happening on a day to day basis. At least as military operators we could always pick up the phone for a hot debrief after a job and run any concerns we had through our chain of command - when MCA is both the provider and the customer, how is that going to happen?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
The ARCCK has long struggled to find enough aviation qualified people to act as controllers and had to make do with lots of training to try and bring the others up to speed.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
... ... - when MCA is both the provider and the customer, how is that going to happen?
I once had to 'explain' to an NRCC controller why we couldn't just 'punch out' from low level and divert to Glasgow for a night stop as we approached the fuel dump at Killin, at night in a blizzard , as we attempted to rtb Leuchars in a Wessex following a successful rescue of a faller on Ben Vorlich. The controller on that occasion was ex VC10 I believe. That was pre ARCCK, it couldn't happen these days surely; could it? 
Last edited by Al-bert; 25th May 2015 at 08:59.
If it is to morph into a JRCC in future then for it to successfully use that concept the police need to wake up and get involved. So far, in all UK jurisdictions, they have generally been quite happy to let somebody else carry the load. The MCA do SAR helicopters, civ MRT and RAF MRS search hills, CG and RNLI do Loch Ness, ALSAR, and so on and so on. All of which nibbles away at what is Police business in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
Trouble is that we have had situations where the insistence on police primacy has delayed the correct use of a SAR helo, despite pressure from MRT.
it is a mix of that and others who are not aviators
Cryptic clues?
rest in gear, even his mountain of experience will be spread pretty thin...
An interesting (no doubt controversial!) viewpoint from Major Jean Laroux, 103 SAR Sqn commander for the RCAF interviewed in May's edition of Airmed & rescue;
Some countries augment their SAR provision through contracts with private operators. Do you ever see that happening in Canada?
"I think the private operators are filling a need in those countries and I respect them very much. I truly think that private operators like Bristow in the UK have integrated the SAR community at a level above a simple business plan. It becomes apparent to me that they have a desire to make a difference around them. Having said that, the military is a different machine. We are here to provide the best SAR services to Canadians. The military machine is definitely more robust in risk management, which makes us an operationally focused organisation. The armed forces are built to take and manage risk. Our SAR forces are required to operate at the edge of their capabilities in order to safely and effectively respond when lives of our citizens are at stake. The government is giving the RCAF the equipment and most importantly the aircrews, to train every day and every night to prepare us for every eventuality. I think military SAR will always have the upper hand just because of our ability to constantly train. The military ethos makes us serve above and beyond our job description."
Of course, his stance will always be somewhat biased but I thought his views on risk and training were interesting. Is the military approach better or just different?
Some countries augment their SAR provision through contracts with private operators. Do you ever see that happening in Canada?
"I think the private operators are filling a need in those countries and I respect them very much. I truly think that private operators like Bristow in the UK have integrated the SAR community at a level above a simple business plan. It becomes apparent to me that they have a desire to make a difference around them. Having said that, the military is a different machine. We are here to provide the best SAR services to Canadians. The military machine is definitely more robust in risk management, which makes us an operationally focused organisation. The armed forces are built to take and manage risk. Our SAR forces are required to operate at the edge of their capabilities in order to safely and effectively respond when lives of our citizens are at stake. The government is giving the RCAF the equipment and most importantly the aircrews, to train every day and every night to prepare us for every eventuality. I think military SAR will always have the upper hand just because of our ability to constantly train. The military ethos makes us serve above and beyond our job description."
Of course, his stance will always be somewhat biased but I thought his views on risk and training were interesting. Is the military approach better or just different?
I think he is right about the military being built to take and manage risk. He also alludes to the broader interpretation of 'defence' where a nation's military protect citizens from risks other then warlike operations.
Unfortunately, the British military is still thought of too much as an instrument of imperial power (though the empire would probably have to built in Lego) while budgeted mainly as an crutch to British industry.
Unfortunately, the British military is still thought of too much as an instrument of imperial power (though the empire would probably have to built in Lego) while budgeted mainly as an crutch to British industry.
