dingo9

snrtrpr,
The views of some(2) regular contributors to this forum do not represent the views of 'military folk'. It's been said before, just throwing it out there as a reminder

[email protected]

so we will see the 189 flights operational on time then???? Why are intended 189 crews converting to the 92 then?
The 3-month overlap has always been part of the planning - if it doesn't get used then fine but it is there for contingency planning and we aren't there yet
Dingo - since I am 'military folk' clearly my views are representative of some

P3 Bellows

Crab,

As you seem to have now broken your self imposed vow of silence, are we to take it that you were not offered a job with Bristows?

Norma Snockers

I saw that Lossiemouth were involved in a Rig evacuation the other week, and that Sumburgh were also involved. From the report, the Sea King took off 34 people in 2 runs but the S92 could only take 18 in 2 runs (2 runs of 9), admittedly it was only a precautionary down manning (something to do with a vessel carrying radio active waste drifting towards the rig) but that doesn't quite seem like progress to me?

jimf671

And the fuel load remaining in each aircraft at time of offshore departure was .... ?

[email protected]

P3 - that's very old news but you are correct - apparently A2 SAR QHIs with 8000 + hours and 14 years of operating, instructing and examining in UK SAR are so abundant that my services were not required because I dare to have an opinion about what UKSAR should look like.

Someone clearly didn't understand the sentiment of 'keep your friends close but your enemies closer'

I'm actually rather happy to get all my weekends back and not get dragged out of bed at 2 am for a pointless search.

Norma Snockers

irrelevant when you consider the Sea King had planned to carry out the evacuation in 3 lifts, instead it took 4 lifts (2 from the Sea King and 2 from the S92) but would have taken 6 lifts if the S92 had done it on its own!

dingo9

Crab- your views are representative of 1, yours.

[email protected]

Hmm Dingo - and just how many RAF SAR crewrooms have you spent time in???

cyclic

and two runs in an EC225 with full fuel

8000 hours Crab, that in the Naafi queue?

[email protected]

You can seat 17 pax in a Mk3/3A.

Oh dear, cyclic - really???? And it's nearer 9000 but I have been flying for 32 years

dingo9

Only 2 tours worth to be honest before moving over to proper military flying, but the non deployable ranting A2's tune rarely changes. I was also an A2 BTW before moving onto the commercial sector and having my eyes opened for both better and worse.

[email protected]

Nice to see the chips on your shoulders so nicely balanced Dingo and you clearly don't qualify as 'military folk' any more

The clear answer to my question about how many RAF SAR crewrooms you had been in (in order to claim my views were not shared) is none then

dingo9

That was 2 SAR tours, 3 SH and no chips, just left at my option. Now enjoying the other side of the fence.And to keep this on thread this ex-military folks opinion is that a new fresh SAR set up will be a great opportunity and will eventually develop into a world leading service. To the guys and girls who did get a job... Well done and good luck.

Hot_LZ

I Believe the reason that the CG S92 was only taking 9 per trip is that the situation was not classed as an 'emergency'. This means they are limited to seated pax and operate under CAT rules. In an emergency they have dispensation to take a lot more.

LZ

jimf671

Is there any indication of who defines whether it's an emergency?

Commander? ARCC? Requesting authority?

Norma Snockers

LZ, I did say it was a precautionary downgrade of the rig, but this begs the question how many other jobs that Military SAR currently do will be turned down because it's not quite an "emergency" and so CAA rules won't allow it? Like the increasing number of rig personnel that military SAR are being asked to transfer because the person can't get into an immersion suit for whatever reason. It seems this is acceptable for the Mil SAR crews to take on risk, but not for the civvies.
I have no doubt that the aircraft and crews are very capable, but will it truly offer the same service if it is hampered by CAA regulations for anything other than an "emergency" callout?

Hot_LZ

I'm not a SAR man myself but I do understand that the SAR assets, whether military or civilian are tasked by the same agency, the ARCC. Those in the game will be better placed to answer the question of who classes the task.

It is simply not true that CG aircraft do not retrieve injured offshore workers and military crews are. They both get their fair share and from what I have witnessed CG crews are tasked to jobs because their military counterparts are off state due to U/S aircraft and lack of crews.

I think it is fantastic what the military have done for SAR over countless years however the government have made the decision to privatise for a multitude of reasons. Instead of trying to shoot the fledgling service down why don't we get behind the new system and ensure it is a success!

LZ

Norma Snockers

P3, did I say the captains could decide what category a job was and turn it down? No, what I did say is that iif the job is NOT given an "emergency/life saving" tag by ARCC/CG then they ARE bound by CAA regs (as per the S92 only being able to take 9 pax at a time, cos the pax HAVE to have seats) I know that if it had been classed as an essential downgrade, they could have sat people on the floor, but it wasn't and so they were hampered by the rules. No wonder crab gets frustrated, people jump on him for having an opinion, but read there own take on it instead of reading what he actually says.
And LZ, Yes the CG do go and take people of the rigs, but if you speak to the crews at Boulmer and Lossiemouth, they can provide you with details of jobs that they have been asked to do because the civvies wouldn't (because the casualty, who is not life critically threatened can't get an immersion suit on and so they cannot fly them under CAA rules)
The CG will provide a very good service, but will they do EVERYTHING that is being done now, (I like to hope so, but only time will tell).

Hot_LZ

Yes the rules have changed for pax carriage on CAT flights. These cover no immersion suit/life jacket, escorted by minder etc. in these cases the crew change cannot take them but instead it falls on the SAR crews.

As far as I'm aware there is no rule that hinders the CG from collecting these cases and returning them to land. But I stand to be corrected by those who know better.

lZ