lowfat

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.

[email protected]

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.

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.

lowfat

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.

OvertHawk

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?

jimf671

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[email protected]

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.

jimf671

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.

[email protected]

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

gsa

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.

jimf671

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.

[email protected]

they'll be annexing Poland next

sycamore

and want more money....

Hot_LZ

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

llamaman

Or maybe even a JRCC? That would really be leaping into the 21st century.

jimf671

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

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.

[email protected]

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.

jimf671

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.

[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

etudiant

Honestly, Crab, this is what I admire about your inputs. No BS from anyone.