Bristow wins Irish SAR
Thread Starter
Not sure about taking a stretcher into a cabin with a low roof clearance is easier than taking it into a cabin you can step into in my experience. Poor posture for both crew with lower back and neck loading as you have to bend down while moving forward as a winchman while assisting with the cabin entry of a loaded stretcher . Kinda leads into crew age and the potential retirement of experience.
Not sure about taking a stretcher into a cabin with a low roof clearance is easier than taking it into a cabin you can step into in my experience. Poor posture for both crew with lower back and neck loading as you have to bend down while moving forward as a winchman while assisting with the cabin entry of a loaded stretcher . Kinda leads into crew age and the potential retirement of experience.
I have a feeling that nothing other than a complete reversal of the contract award will satisfy Frank.
The following users liked this post:
I think the point about stretcher entry on the S-92 isn't the size of the cabin - it is the size of the aperture (small door) which would mean an end-on entry rather than a side entry for the stretcher.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I think the point about stretcher entry on the S-92 isn't the size of the cabin - it is the size of the aperture (small door) which would mean an end-on entry rather than a side entry for the stretcher.
at some stage you have to land the fkn thing
A council house flown from the upstairs bog window
And a brilliant SAR machine
The following 2 users liked this post by [email protected]:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
never a problem in the Wessex A council house flown from the upstairs bog window And a brilliant SAR machine
A council house flown from the upstairs bog window And a brilliant SAR machineThread Starter
QUOTE=SimonK;11493595]
well said.[/QUOTE]
calm down lads. The contract is signed . Smash and grab complete. I’m only asking a question about the work enviro of a 189 v 92 for the Tech crew. Considering the money , research and design put into the front end it’s a legitimate concern about the back of the aircraft. Door size is one thing but cabin roof height and cubic space available has to be considered . Stick 17 in the back then the size of the door might be a worry when some of your survivors on the floor unrestrained in close proximity to a large open door. Never mind trying to actually treat anyone injured. Again this is what IRCG asked for and this is what they scored. It’s obvious they wanted change so Bristow has a customer ripe for picking but it appears that IRCG has no one on the team from a medical or Technical crew back ground . So it’s all new tech with lots of new stuff and sure we don’t know what we are looking at but it looks good. No doubt they rated this scenario as high impact low likelihood, we’ll get away with it and hopefully be retired before it happens .
So my question still stands for someone to answer who has both 92 and 189 experience as a technical aircrew member. How’s the body holding up?
well said.[/QUOTE]calm down lads. The contract is signed . Smash and grab complete. I’m only asking a question about the work enviro of a 189 v 92 for the Tech crew. Considering the money , research and design put into the front end it’s a legitimate concern about the back of the aircraft. Door size is one thing but cabin roof height and cubic space available has to be considered . Stick 17 in the back then the size of the door might be a worry when some of your survivors on the floor unrestrained in close proximity to a large open door. Never mind trying to actually treat anyone injured. Again this is what IRCG asked for and this is what they scored. It’s obvious they wanted change so Bristow has a customer ripe for picking but it appears that IRCG has no one on the team from a medical or Technical crew back ground . So it’s all new tech with lots of new stuff and sure we don’t know what we are looking at but it looks good. No doubt they rated this scenario as high impact low likelihood, we’ll get away with it and hopefully be retired before it happens .
So my question still stands for someone to answer who has both 92 and 189 experience as a technical aircrew member. How’s the body holding up?
Again, you’re bringing up a scenario that from statistics hasn't been experienced and probably won’t. As Crab explained, if we’re talking those numbers they will task more than one helicopter. Ultimately it’s the CG/tax payer who is covering the cost of the service. They use empirical data to feed the bid requirement which isn’t 17.
From what I’ve heard from former colleagues in the U.K. the 189 has grown on them. There are quite a few older gentlemen who have time in Sea King, S92 and 189 and they’re still going strong. Stretcher entry is a lot easier and the working space in the cabin isn’t an issue.
LZ
From what I’ve heard from former colleagues in the U.K. the 189 has grown on them. There are quite a few older gentlemen who have time in Sea King, S92 and 189 and they’re still going strong. Stretcher entry is a lot easier and the working space in the cabin isn’t an issue.
LZ
Thread Starter
Fair enough . As I said they are hoping it never happens. I hope your ex colleagues keep going strong.
Correct the requirement is 15 not 17. I just assumed the 2 technical aircrew who rescued the 15 would be in the cabin also. Let’s split the difference and call it 16. We’ll leave the winchman behind. Sure it’s happened before.
best of luck to Bristow and their future crew.
Correct the requirement is 15 not 17. I just assumed the 2 technical aircrew who rescued the 15 would be in the cabin also. Let’s split the difference and call it 16. We’ll leave the winchman behind. Sure it’s happened before.
best of luck to Bristow and their future crew.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Department of Transport and IRCG engagement with stakeholders.
Q. Does TUPE apply?
A. Yes. As with any contract of this nature TUPE applies.
Bristow win contract with a more expensive solution, reduced range and time on scene, and now refusing to honour TUPE.
Q. Does TUPE apply?
A. Yes. As with any contract of this nature TUPE applies.
Bristow win contract with a more expensive solution, reduced range and time on scene, and now refusing to honour TUPE.
They were allowed to get away with that in UKSAR claiming that Mil pers weren't entitled to TUPE. If you replace one service provider with another it must surely apply in this case.
A new type is considered a significant change. As with UKSAR TUPE isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Ditto for Humberside when Bristow took over there, the great Norwich fiasco when Dancopter lost to CHC and the pilots all got no job and no redundancy either. Years in court and I can’t even remember how it ended.
Maybe the new provider does not want to inherit culture and attitudes.
Regarding range and time on scene claims for 189 v 92 maybe somebody might want to ask a current UKSAR pilot with time in both types for real world figures. I believe one has recently posted his 189 experience here.
Maybe the new provider does not want to inherit culture and attitudes.
Regarding range and time on scene claims for 189 v 92 maybe somebody might want to ask a current UKSAR pilot with time in both types for real world figures. I believe one has recently posted his 189 experience here.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new type is considered a significant change. As with UKSAR TUPE isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Ditto for Humberside when Bristow took over there, the great Norwich fiasco when Dancopter lost to CHC and the pilots all got no job and no redundancy either. Years in court and I can’t even remember how it ended.
Maybe the new provider does not want to inherit culture and attitudes.
Regarding range and time on scene claims for 189 v 92 maybe somebody might want to ask a current UKSAR pilot with time in both types for real world figures. I believe one has recently posted his 189 experience here.
Maybe the new provider does not want to inherit culture and attitudes.
Regarding range and time on scene claims for 189 v 92 maybe somebody might want to ask a current UKSAR pilot with time in both types for real world figures. I believe one has recently posted his 189 experience here.
I’m sure Bristow UK have culture and attitude issues of their own.
Change of type seen as a significant change is simply being used to undermine terms and conditions.
Change of type is significant to warrant a major project management requirement, change management, training needs analyses and large scale investment.
As seen in U.K. and NL SAR projects you cannot rely on extant crew used to doing everything a certain way a) making the grade or b) willingly adapting to new ways hence it is a method for TUPE not to be applied. If it’s within the scope for the new operator to flag as a way to avoid significant cost then so be it. That’s business. I’m sure if they are also changing a base then nobody has a leg to stand on.
We have seen, heard and read about culture and attitudes at length and no doubt if BRS are employing a manager who previously was in Ireland and found issues himself then that will play a part.
Given what has been written here regarding past experiences, the infamous events March 2017 and legacy from that including IRCG and DFT fallout then it is impossible to believe only 1 or 2 are of such an attitude etc.
Maybe @crab could elaborate on his friend’s experiences.
As seen in U.K. and NL SAR projects you cannot rely on extant crew used to doing everything a certain way a) making the grade or b) willingly adapting to new ways hence it is a method for TUPE not to be applied. If it’s within the scope for the new operator to flag as a way to avoid significant cost then so be it. That’s business. I’m sure if they are also changing a base then nobody has a leg to stand on.
We have seen, heard and read about culture and attitudes at length and no doubt if BRS are employing a manager who previously was in Ireland and found issues himself then that will play a part.
Given what has been written here regarding past experiences, the infamous events March 2017 and legacy from that including IRCG and DFT fallout then it is impossible to believe only 1 or 2 are of such an attitude etc.
Maybe @crab could elaborate on his friend’s experiences.
The following users liked this post:
Maybe @crab could elaborate on his friend’s experiences
Originally Posted by [email protected]
They were allowed to get away with that in UKSAR claiming that Mil pers weren't entitled to TUPE. If you replace one service provider with another it must surely apply in this case.
No I thought not.
😉
The salaries for many pilots was far higher than that and the rearcrew had to take a big pay drop in most cases so TUPE would have helped plenty.
the only reason the pilots salaries went so high was to keep up with N Sea ones so the non-mil pilots coming across didn't take a pay cut.
the only reason the pilots salaries went so high was to keep up with N Sea ones so the non-mil pilots coming across didn't take a pay cut.
TUPE just couldn’t be applied from military to civvy SAR, sorry but it just wouldn’t work, at the end of the day you sign up to serve and there is just no direct comparison in civvy street., as unpalatable for some that it was.
Going back to the question of TC longevity across both types, I have operated both. The cabin entry with a stretcher is much easier in a 189. I would suggest more injuries have occurred in a 92 in this particular evolution . It’s also much easier to load and unload a stretcher from a 189. If you think a stretcher in and out of the ramp on a 92 is optimal then, sorry you are wrong.
No one has mentioned the power limitations of the 92….I’m surprised, since TREV 15 was issued the power margins and associated drop down heights mean the 92 is limited when training much more so than the 189. Same engines smaller aircraft- better performance.
The 92 is more stable in the hills, it makes a better Wokka Wokka noise, and it can potentially carry more people. Kit layout is never a problem.
The 189 has better visibility for TC and pax (MR etc) it could have been better with TC input at the design stages in a few areas in my opinion. Kit stowage is a challenge but it works.
Both types have their merits but for winching the 189 is a better aircraft in my opinion.
Going back to the question of TC longevity across both types, I have operated both. The cabin entry with a stretcher is much easier in a 189. I would suggest more injuries have occurred in a 92 in this particular evolution . It’s also much easier to load and unload a stretcher from a 189. If you think a stretcher in and out of the ramp on a 92 is optimal then, sorry you are wrong.
No one has mentioned the power limitations of the 92….I’m surprised, since TREV 15 was issued the power margins and associated drop down heights mean the 92 is limited when training much more so than the 189. Same engines smaller aircraft- better performance.
The 92 is more stable in the hills, it makes a better Wokka Wokka noise, and it can potentially carry more people. Kit layout is never a problem.
The 189 has better visibility for TC and pax (MR etc) it could have been better with TC input at the design stages in a few areas in my opinion. Kit stowage is a challenge but it works.
Both types have their merits but for winching the 189 is a better aircraft in my opinion.
The following users liked this post:
It's not a question of signing up to serve - look how many left to join Bristow.
It's a question of one group of personnel providing a service being replaced with another group of personnel providing the same service or one service provider being replaced by another to provide the same service ie UKSAR.
It's a question of one group of personnel providing a service being replaced with another group of personnel providing the same service or one service provider being replaced by another to provide the same service ie UKSAR.