UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
Seems that a bunch of MRT's are pretty dissatisfied with the contract & after raising concerns to the relevant agencies without response have gone public;
Can seem to add links - just https & www
facebook.com/lochabermrt/posts/1875711362478058?__tn__=K-R
Can seem to add links - just https & www
facebook.com/lochabermrt/posts/1875711362478058?__tn__=K-R
Thrust Augmentation - here is a link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-46072000
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty disgraceful set of affairs when HMCG don’t think the MRT worthy of recovery from the hill. Always the case when you have an agency divorced from the actual operation. The MRT could have given everything to locate a casualty and although capable of getting off the hill themselves, a lift certainly reduces their risk. Let’s not forget that the MRT are volunteers, they are not paid and HMCG would be poorly placed without their dedication. It must be contractual as no one in their right mind would make this kind of statement. This is no reflection on the crews who are, without doubt, just acting under orders.
The joint press release from the 4 MRT'S includes this statement: With the creation of this contract MR was promised that the service delivered would be ‘the same or better.’ It simply isn’t.
For those who may not have seen the Press Statement it makes clear that criticism of the SAR service is not aimed at the crews but rather the various players involved in the contract and tasking - MCA, DfT, ARCC and Police Scotland.
For those who may not have seen the Press Statement it makes clear that criticism of the SAR service is not aimed at the crews but rather the various players involved in the contract and tasking - MCA, DfT, ARCC and Police Scotland.
Last edited by BlackIsle; 2nd Nov 2018 at 22:25. Reason: Additional text
Hmmm, 3 of those 4 MRTs had a bit of a schism from the rest, in what appeared to be a desire to remain 'pure' MRTs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-35433633
I'd be curious to hear what the remaining members of SMR say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-35433633
I'd be curious to hear what the remaining members of SMR say
TY for the link BlackIsle.
The lack of recovery of the MRT's when considering that they will often be let down in arduous conditions, in pitch dark is a complete disgrace. Apart from the fact that that the practice in itself is possibly asking for trouble, the MRT volunteers have to get down the hill hopefully making it back home in time to start their paid work!
Maybe coincidence, but I have noticed locally that there have been several deceased climbers whom there has been some wait for the recovery of, possibly to do with location ,snow conditions & so forth, but I doubt that the SAR contact handling is helping.
Big up to the MRT's - I have huge respect!!
The lack of recovery of the MRT's when considering that they will often be let down in arduous conditions, in pitch dark is a complete disgrace. Apart from the fact that that the practice in itself is possibly asking for trouble, the MRT volunteers have to get down the hill hopefully making it back home in time to start their paid work!
Maybe coincidence, but I have noticed locally that there have been several deceased climbers whom there has been some wait for the recovery of, possibly to do with location ,snow conditions & so forth, but I doubt that the SAR contact handling is helping.
Big up to the MRT's - I have huge respect!!
The leader of one of those teams, in January 2013, had a similar rant that resulted in a two-page spread in the Guardian with a headline "Privatising search-and-rescue service and closing bases 'will cost lives'". It was rubbish then and same old same old is rubbish now.
We've always had to walk back. It was always a bonus if you got lifted off. We've always been on our own with dead bodies: well it's not 'life-saving flight' is it?. My first call-out in 1989 was a perfect example of those two points (still on youtube!).
And carrying heavy gear back down was never a problem with the Sea King because it wasn't powerful enough to carry it up to 4000 feet in the first place. The new contract is quite specific about the aircraft being capable of delivering a substantial pile of kit plus 6 MRT to that altitude at ISA +15C in still air with 30 min endurance remaining.
None of these guys read the contract spec or CAP 999 or have bothered during several decades of working with helicopters to find out anything useful about them. They try to tell us that the service is not equivalent. They are trying to measure Bristow performance without having any idea of what the requirement is, or why the requirement is expressed in the way that it is. And never having measured RAF and Fleet Air Arm performance they will never be in a position to make a proper comparison.
These four teams do a very large proportion of the MR jobs in Scotland. One of them does nearly 100 per year sometimes. Or as Keswick or Wasdale might say, only a hundred? Unfortunately, the number of jobs they do does not mean that they are capable of distorting the space-time continuum in a manner that will make helicopters fly safely in every conceivable circumstance. And as I am sure all rotorhead ppruners realise, the weight of large egos can seriously damage airworthiness.
As for "agencies" restricting tasking in some way, there is an easy test.
How many jobs per year did RAF Lossie do? Answer: 215.
How many jobs per year does BHL Inverness do: Answer: 281
How many jobs per year did HMS Gannet do? Answer: 220.
How many jobs per year does BHL Prestwick do: Answer: 351
(Boulmer only did 120 per year and their load is shared across four bases, so that closure cannot explain the increases.)
Adjusting for the Boulmer effect, they are still doing over 30% more jobs than the military were doing before. This is because the aircraft are more capable and more reliable. Amazingly, they don't leak hydraulic oil over SAR passengers, go on fire, break down on the top of hills, turn up for jobs unable to take SAR passengers, or have to keep running on the HLS because they daren't shut down. All that is in the past yet somehow there are people who are close to this and they haven't noticed.
At the same time, MRT are safer in the air and on the wire than in any territory anywhere in the world.
Any hour, Any day, Any weather ...
We've always had to walk back. It was always a bonus if you got lifted off. We've always been on our own with dead bodies: well it's not 'life-saving flight' is it?. My first call-out in 1989 was a perfect example of those two points (still on youtube!).
And carrying heavy gear back down was never a problem with the Sea King because it wasn't powerful enough to carry it up to 4000 feet in the first place. The new contract is quite specific about the aircraft being capable of delivering a substantial pile of kit plus 6 MRT to that altitude at ISA +15C in still air with 30 min endurance remaining.
None of these guys read the contract spec or CAP 999 or have bothered during several decades of working with helicopters to find out anything useful about them. They try to tell us that the service is not equivalent. They are trying to measure Bristow performance without having any idea of what the requirement is, or why the requirement is expressed in the way that it is. And never having measured RAF and Fleet Air Arm performance they will never be in a position to make a proper comparison.
These four teams do a very large proportion of the MR jobs in Scotland. One of them does nearly 100 per year sometimes. Or as Keswick or Wasdale might say, only a hundred? Unfortunately, the number of jobs they do does not mean that they are capable of distorting the space-time continuum in a manner that will make helicopters fly safely in every conceivable circumstance. And as I am sure all rotorhead ppruners realise, the weight of large egos can seriously damage airworthiness.
As for "agencies" restricting tasking in some way, there is an easy test.
How many jobs per year did RAF Lossie do? Answer: 215.
How many jobs per year does BHL Inverness do: Answer: 281
How many jobs per year did HMS Gannet do? Answer: 220.
How many jobs per year does BHL Prestwick do: Answer: 351
(Boulmer only did 120 per year and their load is shared across four bases, so that closure cannot explain the increases.)
Adjusting for the Boulmer effect, they are still doing over 30% more jobs than the military were doing before. This is because the aircraft are more capable and more reliable. Amazingly, they don't leak hydraulic oil over SAR passengers, go on fire, break down on the top of hills, turn up for jobs unable to take SAR passengers, or have to keep running on the HLS because they daren't shut down. All that is in the past yet somehow there are people who are close to this and they haven't noticed.
At the same time, MRT are safer in the air and on the wire than in any territory anywhere in the world.
Any hour, Any day, Any weather ...
At the same time, MRT are safer in the air and on the wire than in any territory anywhere in the world.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would take exception to JimFs view somewhat. The main thrust of the joint teams statement is not so much the lack of capability of the aircraft as to the lack of deployment of the aircraft for particular tasks. (However there is also a lack of capability - we have only recently gone over to the 189 as our cover. Previously the 139 could lift 2 MR team members only. (Or 3 if you left a crew member behind). The 189 can just lift a part - although only a small one. the ground clearance on the aircraft is a real bugbear though. Actually getting it on the ground is a real issue.)
I think the main thrust of the article is that the aircraft should be deployed where available to cover the type of incidents described. If they can make the job safer then they should do so? There is also the small matter of why a team member should give up more time/income than necessary to save the government money.
Also there is a further statement in response/support from a respected ex-Military MR team member available on the Cairngorm MR Facebook page. It's worth a read.
Also note that there was/is a split in MR in Scotland with the 4 busiest teams forming iSMR largely in a debate over how government funding was distributed to MR in Scotland. MR in Scotland (unlike England and Wales) receives quite a bit of government funding. In England and Wales the biggest government funding given to MR is the recently introduced VAT rebate.
I think the main thrust of the article is that the aircraft should be deployed where available to cover the type of incidents described. If they can make the job safer then they should do so? There is also the small matter of why a team member should give up more time/income than necessary to save the government money.
Also there is a further statement in response/support from a respected ex-Military MR team member available on the Cairngorm MR Facebook page. It's worth a read.
Also note that there was/is a split in MR in Scotland with the 4 busiest teams forming iSMR largely in a debate over how government funding was distributed to MR in Scotland. MR in Scotland (unlike England and Wales) receives quite a bit of government funding. In England and Wales the biggest government funding given to MR is the recently introduced VAT rebate.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The leader of one of those teams, in January 2013, had a similar rant that resulted in a two-page spread in the Guardian with a headline "Privatising search-and-rescue service and closing bases 'will cost lives'". It was rubbish then and same old same old is rubbish now.
We've always had to walk back. It was always a bonus if you got lifted off. We've always been on our own with dead bodies: well it's not 'life-saving flight' is it?. My first call-out in 1989 was a perfect example of those two points (still on youtube!).
And carrying heavy gear back down was never a problem with the Sea King because it wasn't powerful enough to carry it up to 4000 feet in the first place. The new contract is quite specific about the aircraft being capable of delivering a substantial pile of kit plus 6 MRT to that altitude at ISA +15C in still air with 30 min endurance remaining.
None of these guys read the contract spec or CAP 999 or have bothered during several decades of working with helicopters to find out anything useful about them. They try to tell us that the service is not equivalent. They are trying to measure Bristow performance without having any idea of what the requirement is, or why the requirement is expressed in the way that it is. And never having measured RAF and Fleet Air Arm performance they will never be in a position to make a proper comparison.
These four teams do a very large proportion of the MR jobs in Scotland. One of them does nearly 100 per year sometimes. Or as Keswick or Wasdale might say, only a hundred? Unfortunately, the number of jobs they do does not mean that they are capable of distorting the space-time continuum in a manner that will make helicopters fly safely in every conceivable circumstance. And as I am sure all rotorhead ppruners realise, the weight of large egos can seriously damage airworthiness.
As for "agencies" restricting tasking in some way, there is an easy test.
How many jobs per year did RAF Lossie do? Answer: 215.
How many jobs per year does BHL Inverness do: Answer: 281
How many jobs per year did HMS Gannet do? Answer: 220.
How many jobs per year does BHL Prestwick do: Answer: 351
(Boulmer only did 120 per year and their load is shared across four bases, so that closure cannot explain the increases.)
Adjusting for the Boulmer effect, they are still doing over 30% more jobs than the military were doing before. This is because the aircraft are more capable and more reliable. Amazingly, they don't leak hydraulic oil over SAR passengers, go on fire, break down on the top of hills, turn up for jobs unable to take SAR passengers, or have to keep running on the HLS because they daren't shut down. All that is in the past yet somehow there are people who are close to this and they haven't noticed.
At the same time, MRT are safer in the air and on the wire than in any territory anywhere in the world.
Any hour, Any day, Any weather ...
We've always had to walk back. It was always a bonus if you got lifted off. We've always been on our own with dead bodies: well it's not 'life-saving flight' is it?. My first call-out in 1989 was a perfect example of those two points (still on youtube!).
And carrying heavy gear back down was never a problem with the Sea King because it wasn't powerful enough to carry it up to 4000 feet in the first place. The new contract is quite specific about the aircraft being capable of delivering a substantial pile of kit plus 6 MRT to that altitude at ISA +15C in still air with 30 min endurance remaining.
None of these guys read the contract spec or CAP 999 or have bothered during several decades of working with helicopters to find out anything useful about them. They try to tell us that the service is not equivalent. They are trying to measure Bristow performance without having any idea of what the requirement is, or why the requirement is expressed in the way that it is. And never having measured RAF and Fleet Air Arm performance they will never be in a position to make a proper comparison.
These four teams do a very large proportion of the MR jobs in Scotland. One of them does nearly 100 per year sometimes. Or as Keswick or Wasdale might say, only a hundred? Unfortunately, the number of jobs they do does not mean that they are capable of distorting the space-time continuum in a manner that will make helicopters fly safely in every conceivable circumstance. And as I am sure all rotorhead ppruners realise, the weight of large egos can seriously damage airworthiness.
As for "agencies" restricting tasking in some way, there is an easy test.
How many jobs per year did RAF Lossie do? Answer: 215.
How many jobs per year does BHL Inverness do: Answer: 281
How many jobs per year did HMS Gannet do? Answer: 220.
How many jobs per year does BHL Prestwick do: Answer: 351
(Boulmer only did 120 per year and their load is shared across four bases, so that closure cannot explain the increases.)
Adjusting for the Boulmer effect, they are still doing over 30% more jobs than the military were doing before. This is because the aircraft are more capable and more reliable. Amazingly, they don't leak hydraulic oil over SAR passengers, go on fire, break down on the top of hills, turn up for jobs unable to take SAR passengers, or have to keep running on the HLS because they daren't shut down. All that is in the past yet somehow there are people who are close to this and they haven't noticed.
At the same time, MRT are safer in the air and on the wire than in any territory anywhere in the world.
Any hour, Any day, Any weather ...
............ and here we go again.
im sure the Helicopter crews must be loving the warm comments coming their way. For example:-
P3
im sure the Helicopter crews must be loving the warm comments coming their way. For example:-
Richard Laird Have to say this comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever!! From the very start of the tory government decision to privatise this life saving function and remove it from RN/RAF I have always believed there would be a reduction in the level of service and this is now shining through. There was never any possibility of a commercial profit making organisation having the commitment and motivation required for this incredible service!!
Scott Seefeldt Any government that thinks privatisation is a good thing, is either short sited and foolish or just plain arrogant. Companies like Bristow only care about profit and therefore look to deliver contracts in the most profitable way, whilst exploiting our governments inability to clearly define requirments and to negotiate robust contracts. The iSMR do an amazing job in the harshest of conditions, I hope this gets resolved sooner rather than later. Stay safe!
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The logic of a private company trying to save money by turning jobs down makes no sense. Surely a private company gets paid to fly, therefore more jobs=more revenue?? Maybe that’s too simplistic but it must be close to the business model.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody -that I've read- is criticising the flight crews, ground support etc. The criticism (as clearly stated in the press statement by Lochaber MRT) is of the management further up the chain in the agencies administering the contract.
I would take exception to JimFs view somewhat. The main thrust of the joint teams statement is not so much the lack of capability of the aircraft as to the lack of deployment of the aircraft for particular tasks. (However there is also a lack of capability - we have only recently gone over to the 189 as our cover. Previously the 139 could lift 2 MR team members only. (Or 3 if you left a crew member behind). The 189 can just lift a part - although only a small one. the ground clearance on the aircraft is a real bugbear though. Actually getting it on the ground is a real issue.)
I think the main thrust of the article is that the aircraft should be deployed where available to cover the type of incidents described. If they can make the job safer then they should do so? There is also the small matter of why a team member should give up more time/income than necessary to save the government money.
As for saving the government money, this contract has been let on the basis of the £1.6bn being approximately 85% of the total costs and the rest is variable costs. This has deliberately been organised by MCA Aviation so that there is no financial incentive for the operator to restrict the service. Any restriction imposed by ARCC Fareham is for the purpose of maintaining the asset and ensuring that the next job and the job after that can also get done.
I note that they are trying to take aim at the DfT/MCA while cuddling up to the aircrew yet so much is at the Captain's discretion. This is not a good look.
Also note that there was/is a split in MR in Scotland with the 4 busiest teams forming iSMR largely in a debate over how government funding was distributed to MR in Scotland. MR in Scotland (unlike England and Wales) receives quite a bit of government funding. In England and Wales the biggest government funding given to MR is the recently introduced VAT rebate.
The Justice Department funding has been great. Most particularly, it has enabled teams operating in areas of low population with little fund-raising base to fund modern operations that ensure that anyone in distress in these areas is just as well served as someone in the honeypot areas. SMR continue to work with ScotGov on securing appropriate funding into the future. It is particularly impressive that whether it's the main grant money or the LIBOR fine money, SMR have ensured that the entire movement has had the chance to benefit whether they are doing one job a month or five jobs a month.
"They're aw oot o step but oor Jock."
Last edited by jimf671; 3rd Nov 2018 at 17:41.
well Sweatshop, perhaps you should read more widely
Whatever the M.R. target was, it looks like there will be a considerable degree of long lasting collateral damage here. The general public are never interested in facts or finer points.
P3
Andrew Thompson I’m afraid this was entirely predictable when they took the role off the military and put it out to civilian contract. As those of us that work with such contractors regularly know, the words that immediately spring to mind are brewery and pissup
P3
Indeed. Recently, Qinetiq have been doing an implementation review. Heaven knows what these guys wrote in their submission. A scatter gun attack on a contract that is providing a world class service is bound to have the effect of obscuring not only the good work currently being done but also the points that should be addressed to update and improve service in the future.
Further news copied from facebook post this evening:
Glencoe, Lochaber, Tayside and Cairngorm Mountain Rescue Teams
4th November 2018
Following our public statement regarding our concerns about the way in which the Rescue Helicopter (SAR H) contract is being coordinated and operated, the four teams of Glencoe, Lochaber, Tayside and Cairngorm have been overwhelmed and humbled by the level of support that we have received from the public.
We have been further gratified to find that so many others in the world of Mountain Rescue and also people with experience in operating and coordinating rescue helicopters have been prepared to lend their support to our concerns. Thank you to each and every one of you.
In addition to thanking you, we wanted to update you on developments since Friday.
We have now received a response from Police Scotland that shows attempts are starting to be made to address the concerns we have had for some time. Our concerns have been acknowledged and commitments have been made to attempt to influence the review of the SAR H contract and to encourage the Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre (ARCC) to adopt a more pragmatic approach to their standard operating procedures.
We are grateful to Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams for his personal intervention in progressing this and hope that his efforts will be successful. However, we recognise that Police Scotland may not be able to generate the level of change required without a change in stance and practice from the MCA and ARCC. The four teams want to positively recognise that Police Scotland has led this first small step forward.
We have also had invites from several politicians to take up our concerns and we welcome their support We will follow these invites up.
Hopefully the strength of support that has been expressed will help the Agencies on a longer journey to improve the welfare of the casualty and respect for the deceased and their families, and potentially promote the effectiveness of all volunteer mountain rescue teams by experiencing less avoidable risk and being better able to be ready for the next rescue.
Glencoe MRT
Cairngorm MRT
Tayside MRT
Lochaber MRT
4th November 2018
Following our public statement regarding our concerns about the way in which the Rescue Helicopter (SAR H) contract is being coordinated and operated, the four teams of Glencoe, Lochaber, Tayside and Cairngorm have been overwhelmed and humbled by the level of support that we have received from the public.
We have been further gratified to find that so many others in the world of Mountain Rescue and also people with experience in operating and coordinating rescue helicopters have been prepared to lend their support to our concerns. Thank you to each and every one of you.
In addition to thanking you, we wanted to update you on developments since Friday.
We have now received a response from Police Scotland that shows attempts are starting to be made to address the concerns we have had for some time. Our concerns have been acknowledged and commitments have been made to attempt to influence the review of the SAR H contract and to encourage the Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre (ARCC) to adopt a more pragmatic approach to their standard operating procedures.
We are grateful to Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams for his personal intervention in progressing this and hope that his efforts will be successful. However, we recognise that Police Scotland may not be able to generate the level of change required without a change in stance and practice from the MCA and ARCC. The four teams want to positively recognise that Police Scotland has led this first small step forward.
We have also had invites from several politicians to take up our concerns and we welcome their support We will follow these invites up.
Hopefully the strength of support that has been expressed will help the Agencies on a longer journey to improve the welfare of the casualty and respect for the deceased and their families, and potentially promote the effectiveness of all volunteer mountain rescue teams by experiencing less avoidable risk and being better able to be ready for the next rescue.
Glencoe MRT
Cairngorm MRT
Tayside MRT
Lochaber MRT
Last edited by BlackIsle; 4th Nov 2018 at 19:43. Reason: correction of text
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no lack of deployment. Going back across 10 years of SK numbers, the two most relevant bases are doing 30% more jobs. They fly past my house on the way to Lochaber from Inverness. Aircrew joke about 'the Ben Nevis helicopter'. There is no point in bringing up ground clearance since nobody can change that. A new regime of any kind cannot magically create a modern helicopter with Wessex undercarriage. Anyway, I have hung off the sill of a Sea King at arms length and dropped onto rocky ground as it hovered at ten feet, so this is not new. The aircraft are as contracted for the carrying of a 'MRT Standard Load' (see Definitions, Sch 1.0, page 20) and that definition looks like much of it came from either Cairngorm or Lochaber.
Team member time? The capability and availability of these aircraft saves huge amounts of team member time by going in and picking up people without needing our participation. I can go back to my bed. Sometimes it swings the other way. It has always been thus.
As for saving the government money, this contract has been let on the basis of the £1.6bn being approximately 85% of the total costs and the rest is variable costs. This has deliberately been organised by MCA Aviation so that there is no financial incentive for the operator to restrict the service. Any restriction imposed by ARCC Fareham is for the purpose of maintaining the asset and ensuring that the next job and the job after that can also get done.
I note that they are trying to take aim at the DfT/MCA while cuddling up to the aircrew yet so much is at the Captain's discretion. This is not a good look.
He's doing his best to support those out on the ground. However, he's not on the end of the phone with ARCC Fareham understanding how his successors work and he's not organising helicopter training exercises under the new regime as I was just a couple of days ago.
Surely this can't be true? I heard them repeatedly strenuously deny it was about the money. Are you telling me that it really was about the money? They lied? I am shocked.
The Justice Department funding has been great. Most particularly, it has enabled teams operating in areas of low population with little fund-raising base to fund modern operations that ensure that anyone in distress in these areas is just as well served as someone in the honeypot areas. SMR continue to work with ScotGov on securing appropriate funding into the future. It is particularly impressive that whether it's the main grant money or the LIBOR fine money, SMR have ensured that the entire movement has had the chance to benefit whether they are doing one job a month or five jobs a month.
"They're aw oot o step but oor Jock."
Team member time? The capability and availability of these aircraft saves huge amounts of team member time by going in and picking up people without needing our participation. I can go back to my bed. Sometimes it swings the other way. It has always been thus.
As for saving the government money, this contract has been let on the basis of the £1.6bn being approximately 85% of the total costs and the rest is variable costs. This has deliberately been organised by MCA Aviation so that there is no financial incentive for the operator to restrict the service. Any restriction imposed by ARCC Fareham is for the purpose of maintaining the asset and ensuring that the next job and the job after that can also get done.
I note that they are trying to take aim at the DfT/MCA while cuddling up to the aircrew yet so much is at the Captain's discretion. This is not a good look.
He's doing his best to support those out on the ground. However, he's not on the end of the phone with ARCC Fareham understanding how his successors work and he's not organising helicopter training exercises under the new regime as I was just a couple of days ago.
Surely this can't be true? I heard them repeatedly strenuously deny it was about the money. Are you telling me that it really was about the money? They lied? I am shocked.
The Justice Department funding has been great. Most particularly, it has enabled teams operating in areas of low population with little fund-raising base to fund modern operations that ensure that anyone in distress in these areas is just as well served as someone in the honeypot areas. SMR continue to work with ScotGov on securing appropriate funding into the future. It is particularly impressive that whether it's the main grant money or the LIBOR fine money, SMR have ensured that the entire movement has had the chance to benefit whether they are doing one job a month or five jobs a month.
"They're aw oot o step but oor Jock."
Team member time is an ever impacting issue on the ability to deploy for MR activities. Broadly speaking there are 2 aspects to this. Firstly its the time away from the day job/family. The team members are volunteers doing this of their own volition in their spare time. We have had employers recently saying they can't have employees committed to further MR work. Even out of hours it affects work. Last night our team was alerted at 19:30, deployed around 22:00 and then retrieved at 3AM. Most team members then went to work this morning. Obviously this will have some effect on their work and their employers attitude too. Secondly a team member when deployed really has very limited time. Assuming they are working hard/moving over difficult ground then 6 hours is pushing the limit of what we'd anticipate them doing. In some cases they may be given a break and a chance to go out again, but normally unless their initial deployment is short then it isn't worth attempting to commit them to anything of much duration. So assuming a technical rescue takes some hours it may well be very desirable to retrieve the team by the most expedient method possible. There are also aspect that in remoter areas team members may be driving long distances in their own vehicles before and after deployment.
There has also been issues of MRTs being used to save the cost of using paid personnel. There have been recent flood cases when the FRS have called in MRTs (from out of area) rather than retained firefighters as they don't have to pay them. The 4 teams involved in the original issue split from SMR not so much as because they were "honeypot" areas - they split to concentrate on mountain rescue. With limited training hours in a year they decided to concentrate on core skills to make them more effective in the mountains rather than "Swift Water Rescue" - or sewage wading depending on your point of view.
Team member time is an ever impacting issue on the ability to deploy for MR activities. Broadly speaking there are 2 aspects to this. Firstly its the time away from the day job/family. The team members are volunteers doing this of their own volition in their spare time. We have had employers recently saying they can't have employees committed to further MR work. Even out of hours it affects work. Last night our team was alerted at 19:30, deployed around 22:00 and then retrieved at 3AM. Most team members then went to work this morning. Obviously this will have some effect on their work and their employers attitude too. Secondly a team member when deployed really has very limited time. Assuming they are working hard/moving over difficult ground then 6 hours is pushing the limit of what we'd anticipate them doing. In some cases they may be given a break and a chance to go out again, but normally unless their initial deployment is short then it isn't worth attempting to commit them to anything of much duration. So assuming a technical rescue takes some hours it may well be very desirable to retrieve the team by the most expedient method possible. There are also aspect that in remoter areas team members may be driving long distances in their own vehicles before and after deployment.
There has also been issues of MRTs being used to save the cost of using paid personnel. There have been recent flood cases when the FRS have called in MRTs (from out of area) rather than retained firefighters as they don't have to pay them. The 4 teams involved in the original issue split from SMR not so much as because they were "honeypot" areas - they split to concentrate on mountain rescue. With limited training hours in a year they decided to concentrate on core skills to make them more effective in the mountains rather than "Swift Water Rescue" - or sewage wading depending on your point of view.