The end of military SAR?
 

UK to unify SAR helicopter service

Private finance initiative aims to replace military and civilian search-and-rescue fleets under a single contract

A competition to select a service provider to operate the UK’s search-and-rescue (SAR) helicopter force is to be launched next year.

The unique cross-department project will replace military helicopters from the RAF and Royal Navy, as well as chartered civilian helicopters operated on behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) from 2012, according to Ministry of Defence sources.

A joint MoD and Department for Transport (DfT) integrated project team at the Defence Procurement Agency proposed the private finance initiative (PFI) solution last year. This year expressions of interest are being sought from industry before a full-blown competition is launched formally next year that could be worth up to £1 billion ($1.75 billion) over 25 years, say industry sources.

The new project aims to replace both the existing military and civilian SAR helicopter fleets and bring them under a single umbrella contract to reduce operating costs.

Plans for UK SAR harmonisation could see a private sector contractor provide between 30 and 40 helicopters to provide SAR coverage from up to a dozen sites around the UK coastline. Under the 25-year “power by the hour” contract, the UK government would pay for use of the helicopters, which would remain in civilian ownership and on the civil aircraft register.

These new helicopters would not be configured to take part in combat operations outside the UK. It is expected that international manufacturers, including AgustaWestland, EADS and Sikorsky, will team with helicopter leasing companies for the contest.

The DfT and the Treasury have been pushing for all peacetime SAR operations in the UK to be handed over to civilian operators to save money, but the RAF and Royal Navy successfully resisted the plans.

TIM RIPLEY / LONDON

The joint DfT and military project team is the same SAR(H) team that sorted out the recent bidding and award process for the interim contract given to CHC.
The MOD has firmly backed continued military presence in UK SAR so the probable outcome is COMR (Civilian Owned Military Registered) to allow this to happen.
I suspect the aircraft will have an MCA corporate paint scheme but you will have pilots from RAF, RN and MCA flying them.

Or CHC could win the lot!!!!

The writing is on the wall of Military SAR
 

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.
The RAF have clearly stated that they must maintain a SAR capability, not for UK peacetime but for its deployed operations which are on the increase every year. Agreed that UK peacetime SAR is an ideal way to get 'experience' but is that experience really what is required for CSAR/TSAR operations? Well, 28 Sqn have just announced they have such a capability but when one examines what they can do, how much of it needs experience gained from the UK SAR arena? Not much I believe.
With that in mind, the RAF does not need 30 crews around the UK to support a small CSAR capability within 28 Sqn? The announcement in the aviation press this week states that the RAF and RN have successfully resisted plans for all peacetime SAR ops to be handed over to civilian operators. Surely the RAF is going to be hard pushed to maintain the justification now. This announceent is the clearest indication yet that things are going to change. The RAF and RN may still resist but if they give in to a civilian operation with some RAF and RN crews flying those civilian registered aircraft, they will still be able to maintain some of the required expertise and they will not have handed over [I]all[I] of the UK SAR.
Views that the system will probably go COMR I do not think will happen. The most important point of the article issued this week is the 'power by the hour' contract. I see this as the helicopters coming under the authority of an agency such as the MCA, but the MOD paying for the use of those helicopters when the military need arises. The aircraft would be civilian owned and operated but with RAF crews dotted around the bases - certainly not 30 crews however. The CAA believe military personnel flying G- aircraft is a feasible option. Likewise, if the equipment and training of the civilian crews matches that currently used by the RAF today, then the capabilities between now and then will not be any different.
The writing is on the wall. The AB twins who will be taking up the command of RAF Sqns within the next year will be the penultimate SAR Sqn Commanders I believe. A shame it will be, but the RAF and RN have done their job extremely well in a time when them military control of SAR was right. Times have changed and now so, I believe, will UK SAR.
There will be no drop in the service provided. I see many of the current crews moving across to civvy street, to pick up their pensions and a much bigger pay cheque. No detachments, no secondary duties. Just a different coloured flying suit.
CHC's 5 year contarct will be carried out using AB139s and S92s. This is the way SAR needs to go and unless the military divulge much of the control of SAR, then we are not going to see the much needed platform replacement so desperately needed now that the Sea Kings have been on their last legs for years now.

Now let the replies flow............

Does this mean SAR becomes Public Transport since there is a charge being levied for the flight and passengers are being transported?

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......

except yours of course:mad:

SASless - SAR in the UK would be just like HEMS anywhere - i'm sure it would run on the same grounds.

Thomas - I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm not going to get into a bun fight, but perhaps you'd like to add your views on the matter. All I was suggesting is that it would be good if this thread might stayed in the realms of a reasonable argument that's all. We shall see........

mallardpi

"The CAA believe military personnel flying G- aircraft is a feasible option."

This already done with AEF pilots flying G-reg Grob Tutors and vice versa with civilian pilots flying mil reg 365N2s for the Navy.

It would make more sense for the SAR a/c to be on the mil reg as they then can work to mil rules not civilian.

HF

The CAA are considering allowing a civvy SAR operation to work to limits equal to those of the military. As long as the crews are trained to the correct standards and are using the right equipment there should be no problem. The only concern for the CAA is third party risk - which is a concern to the military and civvys alike already.

Ok Mallardpi, I think your close to the answer but not quite there. You can have military crews within a PFI all on the civil register - people have already given you examples. You only consider 28 Sqn for the skill transfer because you dont value your own skills enough. It is not winching you take to the SH force it is a mindset, a rapid response mind set and the ability to change rapidly. That said, before the SH mates dive in for a kill, they too have this but it IS in a different way. Yes, you also bring the SAR experience but do not ever think its your winching skills. Wiht this in mind, you became more use to the wider SH community - even though they probably will never admit it!

Now to the anouncement, I see nothing here that says end of mil SAR, reduced yes, different yes, but not over. Someone will get the contract, they will provide assets, crews and a management system which willsatisfy both sides of hte equation - mil and civil.

Dont fear change, it might actually be better - possibly?

UK Civilian SAR has training limits not too dissimilar to the MOD, however since at present it is piggy backed onto the Companies Public Transport AOC, it is afforded CAA dispensations for training particular to the SAR environment. There are also company ops manual limits on training limits to provide a sensible, safety margin for the Crew and aircraft. These constraints don’t exclude the crews from achieving sound practise on a daily basis.

A civilianised UK SAR organisation would no doubt be set up without the limitation of the public transport AOC i.e it should have an AOC dedicated to SAR. As for actual SAR missions, at present there are not limits imposed by the CAA on what can be achieved or flown….just like the MOD crews. As long as a crew can justify what they have done to “save life” then you are quids in. The present UK MOD SAR crews aren’t going to double away aboard to do rescues in time of armed conflict…plenty of other great crews out there to do that….no magic involved. So the fact it will be in a civilian guise will not matter really.

I think the main difference between the current mil and civil rules is that the civilians tend to winch train at a single engine hover weight, whilst the mil can be committed. With new aircraft coming in 2012 this will be less of an issue.

Any news on how the AW139 is progressing/developing for the SAR role? Feedback from a couple of civil operators show it is not quite what the brochure promised.

Did SAR (H) make a wise choice and if not what will they do better for 2012?

DTD:}

So what are to Civilian NVG training limits?


The simple fact is, that under current rules and through no fault of the crews, the civilian SAR operators are unable to offer the same 'completeness' of service of a military unit. Granted the NVG issue could change if the CAA so decide but they have been extremely reluctanct to do so in the past. The only civilian operators that I am aware of, that use NVG, have rules that would be impossible to follow in a SAR environment.

NVGs are not an issue either, the CAA have developed rules now used by the police and the JAA have approved procedures - TGL 34 if I remember correctly.

The MCA units have not developed the use of NVGs as 90+% of their SAR work is overwater where NVGs are not that helpful and they have had FLIR for decades, unlike the UK mil.:ok:


DTD

NVG's are still a BIG issue. As far as I am aware the civvy NVG rules state that they are a back-up to standard night techniques. I also believe that they cannot be used at low-level (below 500' from what people tell me). That is of very little use for SAR and if the civvy route is chosen then these rules will have to be looked at again. I may be wrong is I haven't read the rules myself.

I agree that MCA's roots are in overwater rescue. However, if the whole UK were to go civvy then who would do the overland night SAR (granted that not all overland night SAR needs NVG's but a lot does)? If I were to choose between FLIR or NVG I don't think it would take me too long to decide.

Well gosh....lessseee here....uh...err....the SAR folks?

After being rigged with NVG's and trained....with the instant approval process the CAA would grant them after the talking bone jingled from down the road and the voice from ON High suggests "get yer fingers out and make this happen!"

Ah, we're back around some of the same buoys of previous threads - if the CAA change their rules regarding NVG and any other legislation that prevents SAROps and training being completed to an acceptable standard, then we might see an end to mil SAR. If not, then either a reduction in capability will have to be accepted by those who pay the bill (presuming all civ SAR in 2012) or we will continue to see mil pilots in SAR helos whether on the mil or civvy register.

SAR Bloke,

When the guidance for civilian use of NVIS were formulated and JAA TGL 34 written, the decision was taken not to constrain their use by setting arbitrary limits. The weather limits were aligned to those that were specific to the type of operation - thus permitting variation according to the task.

NVIS is not considered to be a "back-up to standard night techniques"; it is accepted that appropriate techniques should be used and the TGL contains many pages of guidance to assist with their formulation. What you might be alluding to is the policy that the limits on weather for Night VFR should not be lowered for NVIS - that was jointly agreed between the FAA/JAA and RTCA/EUROCAE when the task of providing regulations was started.

We were also mindful that existing NVG use in specific phases of operation - particularly transition in landing and take-off - had been evolved by operators over a number of years; we were therefore reluctant to be specific and instead tied this to procedures contained in the Operations Manual.

We were also interested in generalising the text so that NVIS could be used in areas of aviation other than CAT; in fact the only NPA for NVIS that has been produced and circulated for comment in Europe was the ANPA for JAR-OPS 0, 2 and 4 (general aviation, corporate aviation and aerial work).

Even before the JAA started work on TGL 34, the CAA already had a limit of operations of 500' for one of their operators; that was proposed to the working group but the JAA decided, after much debate, not to align the text with that policy.

Jim

I can't help thinking that Crab and SAR Bloke are clutching at straws again, ie civies can't do SAR because they don't have NVGs. How have the RN managed, I don't remember Culdrose and Gannet having NVG compatible Sea Kings, unless things have recently changed.

As JimL says operators can develop their own rules and when the requirement exists they will develop them.

Crab, what do you mean by "if the CAA change their rules regarding NVG and any other legislation that prevents SAROps and training being completed to an acceptable standard, then we might see an end to mil SAR".

Would you like to explain what you mean, as most of us who have been involved in both sides of the mil/civil world don't see what you mean. Many of your previous posts on SAR have shown you to be ignorant of the outside world (except when you leaked the MCA bid details), is this another example?

DTD:confused:

I don't see why the MOD/Home Office don't use 2012 as an excuse to remove the mil in its entirety from "civvy" SAR. As it stands now, the mil are utilised for approx 90% of their time with civvy tasking on and offshore. WHY?

We all know the mil is a lumbering beomoth financially - accepted it is falling into line with good working practice along commercial lines in a number of their depts - but there is still a long way to go, I would suggest.

Let the civvy SAR companies do what they know best - they are more maleable to market forces and can adopt and adapt very quickly.

JAR 3.005(h) gives the rules for SAR training NOT the CAA.

Currently civvies have to fly training missions (note: not live ones) where a critical unit failure does NOT jeopardise the crew/aircraft. Small cabs like the 109 / 365 etc often find this regulation difficult to attain.
How they go about it then - requires exemptions from European law, not national law.

NVG is potrntially available to the deck (and is as we speak being profiled right now, by the CAA). NVG will NOT be a hurdle for civvy SAR, believe me.

The biggest issue for any current/future SAR operator, is without doubt - litigation issues. The mil are feeling this intensely lately and I have a feeling they would want to wash their hands of it IF there is a suitable alternative......and there is. Watch CHC over the next few years [No connection with them either].

SAR - Mail on Sunday
 

If anyone saw the article in the mail on sunday about the government cutbacks (dont start!) to the military to cut Search and rescue crews from the army and privatise the system, and possibly sell off to bistows (who another thread says may be pulling out) or CHC helicopters - well a couple of questions:

1) To anyone in the know - How much harder would this make employment for civil UK commercial pilots looking for such a job? Wont a big company like CHC be able to easily recruit pilots for Search and rescue and put "wannabes" out of the Job?

2) To anyone who read the article dont you think this was a bit harsh: "A veteran RAF helicopter pilot said: when its a force 8 gale in the atlantic...this is not when you want some young pilot you have just trained up to be making decisions"
Im sorry but if this chap had his way - No young pilots would come through in this industry!
Many helicopter pilots tend to be the same - and as a young ATPL (H) trainee, I have tremendous respect for those in a job such as search and rescue, but that is just a real ARROGANT comment from someone in a place many of us would just love to be! I expect he came through the military and those with a similar view came through civil aviation?

MADY

(do NOT let this turn into a civil vs military thread)

g-mady

"but that is just a real ARROGANT comment”

If you think talking with a lot of sense and with the basis of experience is arrogant then you are in the wrong job and will have little success in progressing in our industry.

Nobody in there right mind would put "some young pilot you have just trained up" in the RHS of a SAR helicopter either mil or civil. Most SAR commanders come with a wealth of experience either from other operations or after serving in the LHS of a SAR Helicopter.

On SAR, things can go from bad to worse very quickly and you need to have the experience to cope with that. You also have to be completely at home flying the helicopter as all your capacity should be focused on the rescue. It is not the place for a brand new wannabee.

"I’m sorry but if this chap had his way - No young pilots would come through in this industry!"

What utter nonsense. He has just correctly stated the obvious and now you twist his words to mean something different. We all know that the industry needs new blood to replace those of us nearing retirement but they need to be nurtured and mentored to turn into the consummate professional that we all want to be.



HF

Hummingfrog,

I completly see that - dont get me wrong of course I see experience as vital- its just that in the context of the article, how can a young pilot get from zero to hero, it takes flying hours to build vital experience. But you have to have been there and done it, as the article says "when the older pilots retire" then what?

Please dont missunderstand - I absolutley see that experience is a lifesaver and a wonderful thing to have for a search and rescue team but new pilots must come into the game, and with the whole system possibly being privatised then what?

(oh dear - I hope this thread doesn't continue down this trend!)

MADY

No one really knows what will happen in the new contract. Current thinking is that a significant military aircrew presence will remain. Civilian SAR tends to be crewed by the more experienced pilots. Funnily enough, the RAF crews, in some circumstances, are less experienced than their civilian counterparts (although there are also lots of RAF crews with huge amounts of experience). However, the younger ones make up for this to a certain extent with a large amount of training.

If (and it's a big if) the entire system was to go civilian there would be two effects. There would probably be a not insignificant number of military SAR aircrew looking for jobs in the new system. However, there will also be a lot more civilian SAR jobs. What the overall effect would be I cannot tell.

The comment from the RAF pilot (if anywhere near accurate) is not very well made but the sentiment is there. Obviously, everyone has to start somewhere, however there is a big difference between an ATPL pilot flying an R22 or Squirrel, and flying a S61 or S92 sized helicopter in atrocious weather. It goes without saying that the crews have to be experienced. This is not a problem that only affects civilian crews. From my understanding most of Bristow's pilots are either ex-military or have a lot of experience flying S61's in rig type work. I know a lot of the Bond Jigsaw pilots are ex-military.

The fact is that there are civilian SAR pilots out there with no military experience. If that is what you want to do, I wouldn't be put off by the scaremongering in the papers.

Thanks SAR Bloke - you saw the question i was trying to ask - intersting answer

MADY

This subject has been done to bits but...

I'm a stated advocate of the current SAR arrangement, but 2 points above are well made.

Namely, SAR Bloke's comments that the civ's are often more experienced than the mil (natch - coz they're almost all ex-mil). Secondly that whoever runs the contract ain't gonna be taking some R22 jock with 150hrs.

My issue is merely that it's inevitable that the experience levels will drop in due course, once the ex-mils have withered on the vine. A pedigree civvy pilot cannot, with the best will in the world, have the depth of experience a mil driver could have. At that point the quality of service will drop. However, whether that means much is the question. Any service is better than none.

Before too many civ's start trying to nail me to the cross, I fully acknowledge that there are many excellent civ drivers out there, often doing some very crunchy stuff, in physical and commercial conditions that would make us military types wince.

Mail On Sunday - instant loss of credibility
 

When you headline the fact that "the Coastguard helicopters will be taken over and civilianised" it makes you wonder about how much homework they have done given that they are already civilianised. Not only that but the two contenders from overseas are hardly newcomers to the SAR world in the British Isles!

Another misinformed briefing from the MoD duffers who see their PR baby sailing over the horizon.

As a taxpayer I am more than happy that we will not have to pay for a nuclear bomb-proof Sea King with a fraction of the serviceability to go plodding round our coastline at 110 kts...... and because I've been there I know that the comments made about young military pilots are absolutely right. Everybody has to do their first SAR tour and in the old days you didn't have a co-pilots position to go makey-learning in. The Wessex SAR boys did it cold-turkey - well almost. But they were well trained and good enough to do the job. It can often be forgotten that the crutch a new SAR pilot needs most is a good crewie. Now, where are they coming from??

G

:ok:

Hi Geoffers

How is Brazil?? Hot and steamy:eek:

Don't know where you got your nuclear bomb proof Seaking from - ours were hardly water proof;)

Life offshore is coming to an end so it is back to radial following - though if a nice position came up at Lossie there may be a few years left in me. Though memories of night mountain flying in a snow storms may change my mind.

HF

Life on the roaring 40s
 

HF

I seem to remember that they explained the enormous cost of a simple UHF radio was down to the development work required to make it resistant to the electro-magnetic pulse that results from a nuclear bomb going off!

I'll pm you about the work situation

G

SAR
 

It is rumoured that the Govt will announce plans to centralise/privatise UK SAR operations.
Will everyone on board have to provide a credit card before rescue or will the airlines add a rescue surcharge to the ticket price?
Will the proposed Blair One be Civil or Military registered?

Tongue in cheek:eek:

Opinions?

It's been discussed by an MOD/HMCG working group for a long while now.
SAR Helicopter Harmonisation

Doesthe Mail on Sunday have much credibility to start with? :}

Was this an 'Exclusive' article, or have any of the broadsheets taken the story up?

Experience..... Some RAF pilots gain command of a SAR aircraft after only 18 months SAR experience and some of these pilots are on their first tour. I dont see civvy pilots being given command in 18 months do you?

How did the RAF cope before they haad NVG? NVG only came in earnest in the last part of the 80's/early nineties so the Sea Kings and Wessex had been ploughing around for a long time before NVG - quite sucessfully too. The rules will eventually allow civvy SAR crews to fly using NVG to the same extent that the mil do now. It's just a matter of time. It will probably be that the mil will retain an element of the new crew composition so they will be there to set and maintain the standard of NVG flying that the regulators will require. From then on the civvy crews will gain the necessary experience and the rest will be history with the experience base being transferred.

RAF Sumburgh?
 

Overheard on BBC Scotland this morning:

"There is concern that some [military] bases will be sold off, including Sumburgh"

nice to know that our media are so well informed.

OA

Geoffers mentions good SAR crewmen. In my first month of SAR command, (Mallardpi; on the Wessex, where you had command after 0 months SAR experience!) I was out in the bay with just the MALM winchie on board, practising drum circuits.

During each circuits he looked up from the cabin to check my accuracy. He was not happy and told me so; I wasn't nailing the figures (60kt, 150ft) to his satisfaction!

I made some comment about who was captain.

I was 'requested' to leave the drum (our winching target) to fly an orbit at 500ft.

Winchie climbed up into LHS. He asked me to reposition in the hover with the drum just visible in front of us.

He requested control and held a rock steady hover. He suggested I called the clock codes on the drum during a standard circuit. He then flew a totally accurate circuit back to the hover.

We climbed up to 500ft, he returned to the cabin and we then descended to the drum to continue with my practice.

Good point mallardpi:)

Can not the same have been said a few years ago when the Civ's had Flir and we didn't.
It took us over 20 years after they had it to add Flir to the Seaking. I bet it won't take em as long to get the go ahead for NVG's.

But then do they need em think I'm right in saying they have a s61n from Stornoway flogging around the mountains at night and managing very well without em.;) Bit like what we did before we had nvg's

I think I can speak for most NVG experienced pilots here....to be flogging around the mountains of Scotland...the Rassay Sound and other places at night without NVG's when NVG's are available....is plain stupid. To deny that techology to a SAR crew is really beyond belief and explanation.

I can attest to how dark it gets in that area having lived in Broadford years ago flying that patch of water.

Think we all need to grow up a bit here YOUR not the first to say those words it happens everytime we the Military are told that we are about to lose one of our best PR machines.

The civ's have been providing SAR like us for well over 25 years and not one Credit card has been asked for.
so Why say it.

If they can do it Cheaper with a better serviceability record than the Seaking (which is bad) I say let em have a go

After all even Military aircrew will be wanting a job outside oneday even Me:)

SAR has been done for many years with what kit was available, whether in a Whirlwind without a second engine, NVG or FLIR and the ability to just about lift the skin off a rice pudding or a Sea King with all sorts of kit and masses of power - but what cannot be denied is that as the technology has improved, so has the capability and the safety.
How many posters here are actually in current front line RAF SAR and know what the capabilities of the Mk3 and 3A are - not what they might have been 5 or 10 years ago.
Unless you have used our FLIR/MSS - you won't know what a leap in technology it is over the MCA kit - it may have taken 20 years to get it but it was worth the wait.
Regardless of who ends up running UKSAR, there can't afford to be a reduction in capability - neither the MCA or the govt will sanction that, so one way or another either the military will still be involved or the civvy SAR will have to raise their game.