UKSAR2G - MCA CivSAR Second Generation
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 79
Likes: 41
From: UK
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: U.K.
In my view a contributing factor as to why BHL won the UKSAR bid was to use the AW189 in the bid since A) it was a brand new frame; and B) it would be built in the UK at the Yeovil plant creating new jobs for AW and thus making the decision to award to a US company more politically palatable.
As for BHL not meeting the serviceable aircraft req's - thats a new one on me. Another consideration in the SAR2G contract award, is that BHL either own all or parts of some of the airports they operate from at the current locations; BHL lost the island SAR contract to CHC many years ago so learnt that lesson and have subsequently 'insulated' themselves from some of the risks this time around. I think BHL will take some beating, they provide a good service and are the current incumbent.
I mean 2XL?? come on the only reason they in there is due to the oil dispersal role with their ancient B727; their P31 Navajos are better placed in a museum, they'll be cheap for a reason
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: U.K.
ya can either have "good" but it won't be "cheap". Or "cheap" but it won't be "good".
As regards the 'more capable' argument I'm not aware of another current frame which can land a Mountain Rescue team up in the Cairngorms in sh1te weather, with all their kit to rescue casualties and bring them back safely as they have been doing - does anyone else know?
As regards the 'more capable' argument I'm not aware of another current frame which can land a Mountain Rescue team up in the Cairngorms in sh1te weather, with all their kit to rescue casualties and bring them back safely as they have been doing - does anyone else know?
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Falkland Islands
“If so, I hope whoever is making the decisions on awarding contracts looks closely at the levels of service/reliability that they currently achieve on their one SAR contract!”
and
”Quote:
Originally Posted by Medevac999
viewpost.gif
They seem to have a high turnover of personnel
Yes. Engineers and pilots. And a lot of days with 0/2 serviceable.”
then I was referring to BIH, British International Helicopters, and their SAR contract in the Falklands, not to BHL, Bristow Helicopters.
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: U.K.
Thank you, I think there was a little message crossing and/or confusion as regards the use of BIH and BHL to represent the 2 different operators. Too many TLAs.
I absolutely agree BIH have both a high turn-over of critical personnel (Crews & LAEs) and their 'S' record will raise eyebrows.
BHL (in my opinion) have - low staff turn-over and good frame 'S' record and a correspondingly good record at saving peoples lives ; but they will be relatively expensive
I absolutely agree BIH have both a high turn-over of critical personnel (Crews & LAEs) and their 'S' record will raise eyebrows.
BHL (in my opinion) have - low staff turn-over and good frame 'S' record and a correspondingly good record at saving peoples lives ; but they will be relatively expensive
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
From: Aberdoom
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Falkland Islands
Absolutely agree with that comment - but I think it’s a case of “you get what you pay for”, as the MOD in the Falklands have discovered!
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 248
Likes: 38
From: Parts Unknown
Thats a really good question. AFAIK, the Newquay Academy and the SAR2G bid are complete separate things - one is not dependant on the other. As I understand it, the closure of the Academy is simply down to fact that paying customers are not coming through the door. This has nothing to do with whether Draken can support a bid for SAR2G as I see it as HMCG is already the customer. Airbus/Draken could easily put the provision of training services into their bid and outsource this if required - I do not see why the closure should have an impact on their ability to bid.
That said, there is no doubt that it looks bad. Draken only purchased and rebranded the Academy recently from Cobham and have already closed it. Did they do their due diligence? I don't know, but I have to say that on the face of it, it does not inspire confidence. I think the real question is not whether Draken are still part of the bid, but whether Airbus still want them to be.
That said, there is no doubt that it looks bad. Draken only purchased and rebranded the Academy recently from Cobham and have already closed it. Did they do their due diligence? I don't know, but I have to say that on the face of it, it does not inspire confidence. I think the real question is not whether Draken are still part of the bid, but whether Airbus still want them to be.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
From: Aberdoom
Thats a really good question. AFAIK, the Newquay Academy and the SAR2G bid are complete separate things - one is not dependant on the other. As I understand it, the closure of the Academy is simply down to fact that paying customers are not coming through the door. This has nothing to do with whether Draken can support a bid for SAR2G as I see it as HMCG is already the customer. Airbus/Draken could easily put the provision of training services into their bid and outsource this if required - I do not see why the closure should have an impact on their ability to bid.
That said, there is no doubt that it looks bad. Draken only purchased and rebranded the Academy recently from Cobham and have already closed it. Did they do their due diligence? I don't know, but I have to say that on the face of it, it does not inspire confidence. I think the real question is not whether Draken are still part of the bid, but whether Airbus still want them to be.
That said, there is no doubt that it looks bad. Draken only purchased and rebranded the Academy recently from Cobham and have already closed it. Did they do their due diligence? I don't know, but I have to say that on the face of it, it does not inspire confidence. I think the real question is not whether Draken are still part of the bid, but whether Airbus still want them to be.
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 248
Likes: 38
From: Parts Unknown
A usually reliable source tells me Draken will no longer be part of a bid for UKSAR2G. Unclear if Airbus will look for a new partner.
This is a RUMOUR and NOT confirmed, but he’s in a position to know.
This is a RUMOUR and NOT confirmed, but he’s in a position to know.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
From: Aberdoom
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 114
Likes: 7
From: UK
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,556
Likes: 56
From: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
My estimate of the programme timeline expects "Deadline for Submission of Initial Tenders" about now and the "Shortlisting for Participation in Negotiation" about 6 to 8 weeks hence. So I expect this is a period when there is an opportunity for the great ego that is Airbus to disappear from the process without fanfare and with minimum embarrassment.
On the helicopter side of things, we would then be left with 'the usual suspects', unless one of them does something strange in which case it would all be over.
On the helicopter side of things, we would then be left with 'the usual suspects', unless one of them does something strange in which case it would all be over.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,556
Likes: 56
From: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
In that case it becomes more interesting to observe whether, with 3 bidders still in the game for the helicopter lots, there will be a down-seletion in November-ish. Invitation to Submit Final Tender will only go to those that MCA Aviation judge can do a proper job.
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 248
Likes: 38
From: Parts Unknown
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 114
Likes: 7
From: UK
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 132
Likes: 33
From: England