UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim, I hear you on the first reason. I hope in time though you don't regret wanting a sports car in the mountains....sometimes big and heavy is better at coping with those nasty downdraughts!
SW
SW
Except that once you start going down, a bigger helo has more momentum to overcome so less weight and a bigger power margin is a better configuration.
SW - I think they had a good idea about the costs of the 139 right up until it proved how little it liked the maritime environment at SARTU
Some engineering issues didn't help either but those are the sort of thing you can only discover once the aircraft is in situ and in role - but you knew that anyway
SW - I think they had a good idea about the costs of the 139 right up until it proved how little it liked the maritime environment at SARTU
Some engineering issues didn't help either but those are the sort of thing you can only discover once the aircraft is in situ and in role - but you knew that anyway
I hear you SW and I appreciate your point. However, I have been flown around the hills of Kintail in various aircraft from 2 to 12 tonne during the last three decades and the differences are pretty clear. I expect that the diversity of size and specification planned for the SAR fleet will be a positive feature. Of course, it's not like they will be deploying 350s or 135s in this case. The 189 is roughly the same weight as a SeaKing with monster power and advanced rotor technology. Am I wrong to expect such a machine to shrug off a fresh breeze but be a bit easier for pilots to manoeuvre in and out of a tight corrie?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best laugh I've had all day.
It dents the government's effort to turn Westland into a proper commercial civil aviation supplier so not likely to happen.
I did mention Inverness-shire in my profile so the sarcasm filter should have been operational.
Sorry for any distress caused. (Still not working!)
Sorry for any distress caused. (Still not working!)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manning Levels at Bases
Ok my cohort here showed in the thread that bases that are S92 are two aircraft.
Still have questions about manning; are both aircraft manned 24 hrs or is it one aircraft is the ready and the other is a backup with one crew for both? 24 hr watch? 12 hr watch? 8 pilots or more/less pilots?
Still have questions about manning; are both aircraft manned 24 hrs or is it one aircraft is the ready and the other is a backup with one crew for both? 24 hr watch? 12 hr watch? 8 pilots or more/less pilots?
This contract has always been based upon the manning of a single aircraft at each base. No second standby is required.
As the contract process progressed in 2012, first one and then a second EC225 ditched in the North Sea during oil and gas crew change operations and the DfT witnessed the chaos that can occur when an entire type is grounded.
At this point the contract changed from being one aircraft per base and 'convince us of how many spares you need to maintain 98%' to two aircraft per base. If you have two aircraft per base then if one type is grounded, or otherwise not available, then you can redistribute aircraft and still have one aircraft per base.
Oh wait a minute, we have one type unavailable now. And we are getting eight extra aircraft. This is fascinating isn't it?
As the contract process progressed in 2012, first one and then a second EC225 ditched in the North Sea during oil and gas crew change operations and the DfT witnessed the chaos that can occur when an entire type is grounded.
At this point the contract changed from being one aircraft per base and 'convince us of how many spares you need to maintain 98%' to two aircraft per base. If you have two aircraft per base then if one type is grounded, or otherwise not available, then you can redistribute aircraft and still have one aircraft per base.
Oh wait a minute, we have one type unavailable now. And we are getting eight extra aircraft. This is fascinating isn't it?
One question that is raised is this: Since the costings were based on the 189 and the S92 is more expensive, who is paying for the difference now that there are more S92s than the contract stated?
Someone suggested that the DfT would foot the bill (yes the taxpayer) but surely it must be the contractor since it is a deviation from the contract?
Some progress since milSAR - less shift plot changes since it is £1000 extra to get a pilot to volunteer for an extra shift. However, since it costs £30K in penalties for a flight to be off-state, there is plenty of room for people to ask for more before it becomes too unpalatable!
Any takers for a £10K SAR shift???? Commercial reality kicks in.......
Someone suggested that the DfT would foot the bill (yes the taxpayer) but surely it must be the contractor since it is a deviation from the contract?
Some progress since milSAR - less shift plot changes since it is £1000 extra to get a pilot to volunteer for an extra shift. However, since it costs £30K in penalties for a flight to be off-state, there is plenty of room for people to ask for more before it becomes too unpalatable!
Any takers for a £10K SAR shift???? Commercial reality kicks in.......
Originally Posted by [email protected]
One question that is raised is this: Since the costings were based on the 189 and the S92 is more expensive, who is paying for the difference now that there are more S92s than the contract stated?
Someone suggested that the DfT would foot the bill (yes the taxpayer) but surely it must be the contractor since it is a deviation from the contract? ... ...
.
Someone suggested that the DfT would foot the bill (yes the taxpayer) but surely it must be the contractor since it is a deviation from the contract? ... ...
.
Now lets see. Who told them they needed to buy AW189s? Who didn't make them in time? Somewhere in that mess is your answer.
(Also true that Bristow weren't too sharp with their order process.)
I think they decided to buy 189s by themselves since the contract was for 2 types not 1. They can't lay that one at the feet of the DfT.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manning Levels at Bases
Ok folks thanks for the info and background. But what is the Bristow planned manning level for a base; for argument let's say a two type base manned 24 hrs?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redhawk, a base will not routinely have a mix of airframes. Either 2 x S92 or 2 x AW189(eventually). If a type is grounded, then the other type will be loaned from a nearby base thereby maintaining the coverage, providing you don't have any aircraft in deep maintenance at that time. Each base has historically been manned by 4 x aircrew and 2 x engineers on a 24 hour duty period. You don't have a fixed crew system, personnel are completely interchangeable. Also you have a (generally) day working Chief Engineer, and when there are times requiring more intensive maintenance you bring your off duty engineers in on o/t. Roughly speaking you have 10 Pilots (6-7 Captains), 10 rear crew, and 10 engineers. Also a part time admin person and a labourer to maintain the hangar etc. Crews will on average work between 6 - 8 24hr shifts per month
6 - 8 24 hr shifts a month for £90K - that sounds like value for money for the UK taxpayer............
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blame the CAA; besides I remember on my last visit to the SAR Flt at Chiv how many personnel were there to support one a/c. There must had been at least 15 engineers, a couple of ops type people, and on passing down the corridor beyond the crewroom, each of those offices had a least two people in them. I estimated that there were in the region of 30-35 'support' staff for one flight. When one considers that generally speaking manpower is the costliest item in a business it is little wonder why the RAF and RN will no longer provide UKSAR. I remember a few years ago when I was still serving being picked up from BZN and taken to Benson by a Flt Sgt Driver. I thought he must be the duty SNCO with no-one else to go and fetch me. But no, the air force actually pay drivers £40k+ PA to drive a car. You could get a civvy to do that for £15k. Now that is a waste of taxpayers money
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manning Levels at Bases
Norfolk thanks, that helps me. I was trying to figure out if it was a "touring" type job but sounds like a live there job (or ideally live there). I am surprised by the 24 hr shift since I always thought it would be more stringent than the FAA 12-14 hr duty rules (FAR Part 135 since once the passenger is on board via hoist it turns into that). FAA doesn't allow "on call" etc. Again thanks!
Originally Posted by [email protected]
6 - 8 24 hr shifts a month for £90K - that sounds like value for money for the UK taxpayer............
Somebody please tell Senior Pilot that the sarcasm filter is on the blink again.
But no, the air force actually pay drivers £40k+ PA to drive a car. You could get a civvy to do that for £15k.