Could not agree more that a good crewey is worth their weight in fuel!

There are plenty of decent amateur polers in that world too - but I wouldn't want any of 'em to drive me into the hills at night. (Dare say a few have said that about me as well!)

Crab - couldn't agree with you more. The MCA categorically stated at the outset of SAR Harmonisation that they would not accept a reduction in capability. Moreover, I believe any new civvy aircraft will have the technology to match anything in SAR now, civvy or mil. Its the experience of the crew that gets the most from this technology and is the essential factor in the maintenance of the capability. Undoubtedly, mil crews must be involved post-2012 to ensure this and it will generally be mil leading the civvy crews until the experience base evens out after some years. The outstanding questions are how many mil crews will there be and whose aircraft will they be flying?

Crab, just a few points:

1. Does the Sea King have "masses of power"? I suggest you get out more!

2. Was it worth a 20 year wait to get FLIR on the Sea King Mk3/3A? Civilianisation allows equipment to be fitted quicker and cheaper as you don't have to involve all the military red tape and IPTs. The baseline version of the FLIR the Sea King uses has already been flying for several years on some civilian machines, including some leased to the UK mil.

3. You keep talking about the military, but I think you mean the RAF, as many of your comment do not apply to the RN Sea Kings.

4. Have you visited an MCA SAR base - I suggest you do;) .

Regards

DTD

What a naive comment. It is obvious how they coped; there were some things they couldn't do which they can now. Does that mean they should go back? There are some things the military can do, at night, that the coastguard can't. This is not a dig at the coastguard, it is a fact. I am sure they would be just as good if they had the kit and the training (and were allowed to use it).

Incidentally, and I am not sure how the coastguard would view this (I assume exactly the same as us) there has been more than one Medevac flown by RAF Sea Kings this week, when a fixed-wing air ambulance has been physically available but not capable of doing the job, as the required incubator did not have CAA approval. There are benefits of a rescue platform (military or civilian) not having to comply with CAA rules.

Dillon - as usual you are one of those resposible for turning SAR threads into pissing contests and name calling; however, to address your pedantic points;

1. Compared to a Whirlwind the Sea King is like a space shuttle in terms of power available - compared to a Chinook it isn't - a fatuous answer to a fatuous question - who is it that needs to get out more?

2. Everyone would have liked FLIR sooner than we got it but it is a top piece of kit far more capable than that on the MCA S61s. The crap management of the Sea King fleet in the past and the appalling way long term fundings are juggled in MOD meant that it took 20 years - there is cock-all any of us can do about that, military procurement is an awful process often made worse by political interference. But - in the civilian world, unless the customer specifically requests a piece of equipment and foots the bill, no-one will fit it - the QWIP FLIR has been available for some time, why haven't Bristows fitted it to improve the S61's capability if it is so easy to do in the 'real world'?

3. Yes most of my comments apply to the RAF since the RN cabs are not to the same spec and SAR is a secondary role for both RNSAR sqns - however, if RAF SAR goes civvy I expect RNSAR will go the same way.

4. Why will visiting a MCA base improve my perspective, just because I haven't flown with them doesn't mean I don't know what they do or what their capabilities are. The MCA are doing a fine job in the face of limited training hours and old equipment and I bet they are looking forward to improved capability with new aircraft and kit.


Oh dear how did I manage to answer your post without having to include it all as a quote?

Hey Crab, let's not denegrate the RN heroes of 771 and Gannet by calling them secondary roles merchants!? 771 may technically have a different primary role but SAR is the meat and bones of Sqn. Gannet is most assuredly a SAR operation - the clue's in the name: GANNET SAR FLIGHT. Mil SAR types need solidarity in the face of some trying times ahead.

Gents, 2012 will bring some big changes but you can bet your 5% thrust margin that life will still go on, whether us stick-in-the-mud mil boys are driving the cabs or not.

We all want the gold plated solution - the mil understandably want to keep the staus quo, it's a great job and you get all the perks of being a military employee (and the down sides of course). Meanwhile the civs are doing their bit just as well as us and quite rightly see an expansion of their remit as a natural evolution.

It's a massively subjective argument to keep military SAR as is. We do a great job, no bones about it, but money is the driver of all things sadly. As I've said before, any service is better than none - and that's how the MOD/Treasury will see it when it comes to decision time.

I'll personally be sad to see the demise of mil SAR but even a staunch supporter like me good self can't realistically see an alternative to a greater civvy and greatly shrunken mil SAR effort.

Scottish Beefer - I am not denigrating 771 or Gannet (I do hate that SAR heroes bollox) but if 771 and Gannet had not been set up with different primary roles (I am led to believe Gannet was originally about submarine escort and rescue) they would not have been established as stand alone SAR sqns/flts.
22 and 202 Sqn have only one role, SAR - that's it.

I agree that we need to provide a united front but SAR Harmonisation hasn't changed anything so far.

My lords and masters keep saying that the RAF will continue to have a major presence in UKSAR and they do seem serious about it - whether or not that holds any sway with the treasury I don't know, I can only hope but the economic writing would seem to be on the wall.

Crab - tongue in cheek fella, tongue in cheek.

From personal experience I can tell you that the RN SAR boys have a fair bit of experience in doing the job and they do it right well. I wouldn't want anyone from either unit reading these posts to think they aren't as much a part of the force as the RAF or MCA. (Not that they would!)

Thoroughly concur SB.

Crab, you really are a total hypocrite. You accuse Dillon of starting a pissing contest and yet you put up a comment like the above saying that civilian SAR are coping despite their crap training hours and equipment. You really are unbelievable!!

You claim you know all about civil SAR and yet in a previous posting in another thread you claimed they didn't have standby aircraft which anyone with even the smallest interest in it knows that not to be true. So what is your knowledge of their training procedures or is it just another case of insulting the civvy's with innuendo?

You posted commercial in confidence contract information on the internet which you and your merry band had been casually discussing in the crew room - so not much discretion there. You have constantly made anti Bristow postings and openly rejoiced when they lost the contract. So you are hardly an unbiased or even handed commentator on this issue.

Why not just come out and say that you hate civil SAR, wish it never happened and have no respect for those that do it. Every comment you makes knocks it although I admit you do it very cleverly and very sneakily.

The sad thing is, is that your postings do more damage to military SAR then anyone else’s. It shows you to be short sighted, stuck in your ways, unwilling to advance further and embrace new ideas and clinging to the past. You’re just too opinionated to see it.

I have flown with military crews and I thank god that none of them are the slightest bit as ignorant as you. Your attitude and postings do you nor your service you purport to represent any favors at all. I feel sorry for you. Still I’ll get over it and move on.... can you?

Return to Sender - On previous threads it has been agreed by those in civil SAR that they don't have anything like as many training hours as we do - cost prohibits it, yet they still get the job done well.(you said coping, I said doing a fine job, somewhat different I think).

I said they had old kit (so have we) - you said it was crap not me.

Do the MCA flights have a declared second standby aircraft and crew available at RS 60? No.

I admitted that I made a mistake ref the contractor info - don't you ever make mistakes.

I don't hate civil SAR - what I do hate is when petty minded and uninformed individuals start knocking military SAR for being too expensive when they haven't got a clue about a. what it costs or b. what you actually get for your money.

As ever, posters like yourself have to resort to name calling and playground insults rather than reasoned and logical debate. But I'll get over it.....

Think u should tell em Crab how often that standby aircraft is unserviceable, in fact tell em how often we don't have a servisable aircraft for hrs / days at a time, cos if u keep slagging them off it won't be long before they tell you.

After all RCC tells them when we are unserviceable so it's not as if they don't know and yes they could tell the rest off the country.

I Agree with Return to Sender when he says "your postings do more damage to military SAR"

Justin

Crab,

What does military SAR cost? I don't think anybody knows the true cost.

DtD

Yes, but why did someone like you (anti Bristow, anti civil SAR) have this commercial in confidence information? No body else not even the bidding contractors had the inside track on this but you did and you then posted it on the net. Hardly a model of discretion are you? Were you or your friends at Chivenor in a position to influence the out come of the contract? If you were it's little wonder Bristow lost!

I don't want to do this but I'm fed up with [email protected] throwing mud at the MCA crews.

About 2 weeks ago Lossie went off state because the crew had done two 5 hour jobs and were fatigued. Good work and a good call to take the rest.

But Crab where was your standby aircraft and crew then????

But that is exactly what you do to civil SAR.

NW

Night Watchman, I would be interested in the details of the two 5-hour jobs at Lossie and going off state for fatigue. If it's what I think then could you please tell the whole story?

If you want to have a go at Crab then fine, but I would be grateful if you did not twist the story to make a point at Lossie's expense.

Thanks

Oh dear incoming again...

RTS - do you really think anything I said or did influenced the contract award in any way shape or form - shows how little you really do know about the real world. CHC won the contract because they offered the MCA the best package - don't blame me for Bristow's shortcomings, blame them.

Dillon - if nobody knows the true cost then how come so many are convinced that contractorisation will be cheaper?

Justin - why is stating the truth that MCA don't have declared seconds 'slagging them off'? I never said our seconds standby serviceability was great, it goes in peaks and troughs because the aircraft are old and tired. We can all look at the RCS and sometimes it makes for very poor reading. Do you think this might be why the whole idea of contracting out SAR was even considered by the military?

Night Watchman - I'm trying to see what your point is - are you saying that an MCA flight wouldn't go off state if the crew were unfit to fly? Sometimes one flight gets hit hard with a series of jobs and the crew is fatigued. If there was not a second standby crew available then it would have been for a very good reason. I have never criticised the MCA crews or their professionalism - only their employers.

Crab, sorry to quote you again:

"I don't hate civil SAR - what I do hate is when petty minded and uninformed individuals start knocking military SAR for being too expensive when they haven't got a clue about a. what it costs or b. what you actually get for your money".

You imply that you do know what it costs - if you don't then why do you imply that you give value for money and that you are better trained than the "secondary role" RN SAR crews and the MCA crews?

DtD

DtD - see my post re: circa £50 million per annum - that wasn't a figure just plucked from the air but stated by a senior officer who should know.

How can we ever hope to give value for money when we don't aim to make a profit out of doing our job?

Enough MCA guys have agreed that they would love to have more training hours - we get them so shouldn't that mean we are better trained? And just to clarify, I don't mean better professionally at SAR but better trained over a wider range of disciplines.

I certainly haven't said or implied that we are better trained than the RN crews - I do know that the exchange winchmen and pilots we get at Chivenor are impressed with how the RAF do SAR.

Now which bit of this post will get quoted, misinterpreted and maligned?

Crab,

I try not to misquote you, nor malign you, but it does seem that anybody who disagrees with you (it is not just me) is accused of starting a pi$$ing contest as you start to tantrum. Now please read my comments below and respond in an adult manner, perhaps after reading about Transactional Analysis in your CRM notes.

The trouble with the Defence Vote is that many of the costs are buried, does that precise figure of "circa £50 million" include all the civil servants supporting the MOD, or is it just the day-to-day running figure of the 6 RAF SAR flights? If it is the latter then the true cost is much greater than "circa £50 million". A lot of time and money is wasted by the MOD during the procurement process, especially by the incompetents at Abbey Wood and elsewhere; for example the Nimrod fiascos, Typhoon over budget and years late, Chinook Mk2 FADEC, Chinook Mk3 unable to fly IMC and latterly the Apache coming into service without crews to fly it. In the end the front line suffers, such as you taking 20 years to get FLIR. In the civil world there is an element of Darwinism, if you screw up you lose money and get sacked - you don't get promoted and moved onto the next job. See link below, paragraph 27 is particularly relevant:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../386/38607.htm

As far as your comments go on training, you may be better trained over a wider range of disciplines, by which I presume you mean things like tactical flying and I agree that is relevant for a military pilot. However, as far as civil SAR goes such extra training is irrelevant although good fun for the crews!

btw Where is Crabette?

DtD:)

Well well, crab giving half truths again!
M.C.A. second standby aircraft.
Each 24hr unit, Sumburgh, Stornoway and Lee do have a dedicated second standby aircraft.( Do you want callsigns? But if you are as much in the loop as you make out, then you should already know them!) Portland being a 12hr. unit shares the standby machine from Lee. This after Portlands' standby machine was destroyed after suffering an in flight catastrophic engine fire while on a job! All public knowledge btw. There is now no spare machine at Portland purely because the M.C.A. did not see it as required/would not spend the money!! Them nasty chaps at Bristow did offer a replacement, but the M.C.A. would not accept that a spare machine is required for an S.A.R. base. FACT. This is even carried over to the new contract so successfully worked out by your compatriots and C.H.C. (Now who is the money grabbing contractor??)
There is no second standby crew purely because the M.C.A. will not pay for one. And with the limited training hours just what would they do?? Sit around playing uckers?
It is all down to what the client will or will not pay for. We do not operate in an ideal world i'm afraid.
Yes DtD, good question! Where is crabette?? I hear that schoolkids are getting the benefit of her wisdom. I hope they can work out how an AW139 has more ground clearance than an S61, Beats me!!

3Dcam

Before I jump into this thread can you confirm that each base, Stornoway, Sumburgh, and Lee on S has a second a/c on site and it is a fully equipped SAR machine?

Thanks

HF

HF.
Standby machines are on site at each of those bases. They are not, however, fully fitted a/c. ie. No auto hover & single hoist but are fitted for FLIR. This is just swapped from a/c to a/c and takes the engineers less time than it does for the crews to swap their equipment.
Again, it comes down to what the client is willing to pay for.
Allegedly the new a/c, S92 and AW139 will all be the same. That is, fully coupled, dual hoist etc.etc. We shall see.

Crab,

A wider range of disciplines for you to practice on:

http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/global-rescue.html

DtD:ok:

Flippin heck!
 

Ye Gods gents this thread has got down and dirty very rapidly!

Now I have posted a few times pointing out the virtues of both mil and civ SAR pilots. It would appear that no one is listening! Chaps, and ladies, I'll say it again, we are all good at what we do with the tools we are given. Change is comming though. That will be change for both mil and civ operators. Lets cover the civ chaps first, you all state about you get the kit the customer will pay for. Well in 2012 one of the partners that will be your customer is the military. So some accommodation of what they will require will be needed - they are currently working out what it is they exactly want and this is not the forum to go speculating about it - someone has already mentioned commercial in confidence information. But you will need to meet in the middle me thinks.

Military chaps. You too will have to change. SAR will inevitably not be an 'entire career posting anymore'. You will have to move to the SH force at some point to use the skills from SAR in the battlefield - SH chaps dont start about what skills - time and a place and this aint it.

You will almosty certainly get new equipment to a specificiation laid down in a contract. If it doesn't work or new kit is required, you adjust the contract and the ac or service is modified at someones expense. Sometimes yours sometimes theirs. It is relatively simple and you reap the benefits of change quickly. The trick is getting the contract right in the first place. Now this is where your efforts should lie from now until contract award.

Crab. I am sorry but I have to agree with some of the posters above and say you might well be doing more harm than good to mil SAR. I think some of your comments might be a little outdated and suffer from crew-room wispers [a bit like chinese wispers but more dangerous!]. Please don't have a go back because I am not attacking you just pointing out that you might like to think on a little more before you type out a response.

RTS, 3D cam, DtD, Crab is not a bad chap he is just defending his corner from a perceived threat. You are doing exactly the same. However, this ping pong my dads bigger than your dad stuff is not doing the SAR community any good whatsoever. Can we all please look to the future and get the BEST from it for all concerned. This thread is not a good advert for people who spend their lives dedicated to saving others.

Waits for incomming. Oh, by the way crabette is not who you think either!

So which ever way you cut it - there is no declared second standby aircraft and no second standby crew at MCA flights. I stated it as a fact and after lots of gnashing and wailing it has been agreed that it is in fact the case. It wasn't meant to bash the MCA crews - I know the customer won't pay for the fully fitted second aircraft and another crew. The second standby aircraft is povided by us (when serviceability permits) and the crews are always available (except in extremis). Add that capability to the pot and you find another reason why trying to compare costs of SAR operations is futile.

DtD why don't you include the whole govt in your ridiculous reasoning for military expense.

As an aside - read back through this thread and see who first starts quoting and criticising, thus changing the flavour of the thread completely with 'outraged responses'.

As SARREMF rightly spots, I am defending something of which I am proud to be a part of, in the face of an overwhelming momentum towards contractorisation fuelled by speculation and supposition that it will be cheaper and therefore better. I disagree and I am just trying to give a different perspective on what most seem to feel is a fait accomplis. If this means highlighting areas of different capability then that is what I will do, if it puts the odd nose out of joint - I don't care, if it is 'damaging military SAR' and I frankly can't see how, then so be it - many posters here should be rejoicing if that is the case since they are so anti-mil SAR.

Try and come up with some reasoned arguments rather than sniping or just pm me with your vitriol rather than wasting server space by quoting paragrapghs of my posts and then bitching at me.

Love and kisses to all

Its starting to appear on this thread that SAR is a bit like the church.... After a while it has little to do with God.
Maybe we shouldnt forget who the real customer is in all this... (a) the person in need of the helo. and (b) the person paying for it. The tax paying public and the Goverment needs to be able to stand over how it spends those funds.

It is quite amazing that the UK Air ambulances have to go around begging with buckets while the SAR bases have TWO aircraft AND in some cases full back up crew. Worse still in Ireland we dont have any Air Ambulances at all. Our role is important but lets not lose sight of the big picture just so we can stick our chest out.

SARREMF I agree totally with your posting.

Unfortunately as a civil SAR pilot I can't help be feel agrieved by the negative postings by crab towards civil SAR. It seems he wants to knock us at every opportunity and has no respect for the job that we do or the training that we do. It's interesting to note that every time this argument turns into a pissing contest its always crab who's in the middle of it. But then I think its pprune and a lot of 'venting' goes on here!! :)

I have flown with an RAF SAR crew on a training exercise and was thoroughly impressed with the attitude and professionalism of the crew so I know that crabs postings are not representative of the majority of RAF SAR crew.

To the other posters - is it possible that crab is just trying to wind you up and doesn't actually believe a lot of what he is posting. He does seem to have a very mischievous streak! :suspect:

Been there, done them both - Military and Civilian SAR.

I was once asked at RAF Fairford when I was doing the commentating for a Civilian SAR demo "If I was in the water and I saw a rescue helicopter coming for me. Which would I prefer? Military or Civilian SAR" to which I replied "Does it matter?" :D

As long as the equipment is good and the guys are well trained and experienced, does it matter?

I hear the AB139 has a few problems SAR wise? Don't know if this is true though

Quote: Mallardpi (me)

"It seems that the arguement of who should do SAR and who can do SAR in the UK is about to raise it's head again and no doubt however hard anybody tries on this thread to stop silly bickering, mindless chat will be posted. However, in a effort to make my opinion known whilst risking the senseless moaning and ill-informed 'chat' from both sides of the fence, I will put my tu'pence worth in now before it all goes mad."

Reply: Thomas Coupling:

"You don't need to come that high all mighty here mallardpi...you're just another pilot saying his bit...ok?

Silly bickering...mindless chat......"



See I told you so, it did go mad.........enough said.:)

Crab if you can see it then I suggest you put down your NVG's and pick up your white stick because you are doing us no favours at all.

It says it all when u say "I don't Care" well we do

Justintime80 - I suggest you learn how to read, then learn what punctuation is for and how to interpret its effect on sentences and then grow up - if you are in RAF SAR mate, I can't wait to do your cat check.

I haven't commented so far as I like to see Crab keep digging. The comment above really does some you up mate - is that the best you can do. The SAR boys must be quaking and in awe of your obvious superiority.

I thought that kind of attitude had largely dissappeared from the RAF - good to see not all the dinosaurs are extinct.

NB grammar/spelling:

1. Homophones are not synonyms (some/sum).

2. Questions should have question marks at the end of them.

3. Disappeared has one s.

Thanks,

SBW

Freeride - not familiar with the concept of baiting then?


SBW - there is a career for you as an ISS tutor.........oh no that won't work, you have got a sense of humour:)

Crab.
You really do have a problem!
Harmonisation is going to happen, no matter what you/we think or say on this forum.
Just accept it and stop winding up the people you already work with and the people you may work with in the future! You never know, they might be doing your check ride then??

Harmonisation! A symphony of yellow hatters!

There's always a "clever dick SAR boy" around when you don't need one:)

I'll try harder in future to attain your lofty standards. I hope your ISS skills are recognised by EASA.

Oh I can't wait to be on the other side of the desk from you Mr Crab and I know which of us will be sitting ;)

Crab dear fellow....

Statements like that leave you wide open for many forms of retribution. Down Check the wrong Chap or Chapette and you might get yerself a very broken, up turned probiscus one day. You are dealing with helicopter pilots you know.

The UK helicopter business being as small as it is....I fear the hiring process in Civvie Street might not be to your liking either. I can see the fellow screening CV's recognizing the name and making a rounded entry into the round file with your freshly crumpled CV, smiling the entire time.

'Course you and Gymble sound like you are made for one another. So there is hope.