3D - you just can't see our standards from way down where you are:)

Saluting?? in the RAF......Are you mad??

I suspect the ARCC may have turned down the request for Culdrose because other jobs were brewing - and anyway, you are always going on about how good the 61 is - why would you need help on such a nice, easy, big deck like that?:)

Crab,

having myself come from the mil into civvy SAR I am probably better placed (as with many people on this forum) than the out and out mil guy to pass judgement on comparing civvy and mil issues.
Crab, I dont know who you are and I really dont care but I suspect by the way you conduct yourself that you are either an old fart mil SAR driver who cannot accept change or a young wipper snapper who's maturity leads him to think that he is the only man on earth who can do the SAR job. When you eventually leave the mob and go civvy please continue with your mil only attitude as it would be a waste to let it go.

From seeing both sides of the fence I can honestly say that both civvy and mil could learn a bit from each other. The difference being that it's a lot harder to implement change in the mil. But one thing that must be corrected is that civvy standards both in and out the cockpit are no way below the mil standards. Seeing that many civvy SAR pilots are ex mil anyway I cannot understand why you go down being the **** route.

Crab
What??? No saluting?:)
You'll expect me to believe that there are no more Brylcreem issues next.:D

okay okay, so there are a few civvy f***wits around but there are just as many in the mil eh Crab.

Jeepys - you might like to note that the extensive use of the smilies in my posts (and 3Ds) is intended to convey the lighthearted nature of the banter in which we are engaged. This is because people like you read literally into posts which are written in a jocular way and jump to conclusions about the nature of the poster which are wholly inaccurate.

3D - can't get Brylcreem from Supply Sqn any more:)

Just for you Crab.

Just a very small correction, and I think you need to consult the ITT, but the last time I looked you couldn't shut or move Portland and Lee.

Crabb. What second standby under SAR-H? Its 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call.

Said it before I'll say it again. Stop it with the Civ bashing! The rest of you, play nicely! Lets all share and get along!

SARREMF - the statement about 12 bases and 12 aircraft on call implies no seconds at all and is therefore a clear contradiction to the 'no lesser capability' requirement for SAR H.

I don't believe the basing of any of the flights is sacrosanct, however, moving will cost money and is therefore unlikely to happen.

I think you will find I haven't been 'civvy bashing' - just plain old bantering:)

Bases, what bases?
 

I have just read the ITT again and there is no mention of any number of bases. The ITT simply specifies a response time:"1 on state airborne system to any specified location, within the relevant risk areas, within 60 min of take off." There are other qualifying clauses regarding the types of risk area but if the contractor could meet those requirements from a single base on the moon using a pan-galactic space hopper then that would do. None of the present bases are sacrosanct nor is there any mention of 12 bases. The whole point of this sytem of tendering is that the contractor comes up with the solution and is not constrained by the present arrangements. That said, with cost being a major factor, I don't think that the solution will come up with bases that are too far from their present locations. Anyway it's raining (again) here at Sunnyvale and I must find something more interesting to do than re-reading ITT's, any thoughts SARREMF?:ok:

L B - I suggest you re-read page 4 of the PITT and you might wish to amend your previous comments.
Cheers!

Baffled
 

Tallsar, still can't find it, maybe I have an out-of-date copy, care to enlighten us?:confused:

Hi LB - you are assuming I have a copy to hand, my friend!:) I'll use other means.:hmm:

12 Bases
 

Thanks Tallsar, I stand corrected. There will (probably ) be 12 bases. Back to the crossword for me.:*

According to todays press, well, The Mail at least, the VT, LM, British International consortium have binned the idea of using airborne ROVs (not sure if that is the correct description) as part of their bid!:hmm:
"Big Brother" will be most peed off!:)

The big question is why, if there are going to be 12 bases each with circa 4 x 4 man crews giving a total of 192 aircrew, is the MoD funding 70% of SAR H and only getting 66 aircrew places? With the way the MoD budget is being squeezed currently it seems rather odd to throw money (£3 -5 Bn) at something you get very little benefit from, especially on a pro rata basis.

Another good question is why, in the 3 additonal solutions proposals, all of which must have as a minimum 8 of the present 12 bases, the 4 present MCA bases are in that 8? Not really starting with a clean sheet or a level playing field is it? :confused:

Sing along now "There are more questions than answers.....do be do be do etc".:)

Leopold - this is business ethics ie there are no ethics in business and having a level playing field is just handing the advantage to your competitors:(

Business ethics
 

That's not really my point though, if we are to have a new multi billion pound SAR service why constrain the bidders by imposing restraints on them? Surely they should be allowed to come up with the solution unhindered by the legacy of the past, I thought that was what the new bidding system was all about.:confused:

I think its understandable that each of the present SAR "owners" wishes to have a say in which bases remain in the new service. While these vested interests are not always helpful, many of the "mandatory" bases are not neccessarily in conflict with the need to provide new SAR-H bases in those locations anyway. There may be exceptions however, and its a fact of life that our elected politicans have their vested interest too. After all - they allocate and vote for the money to be spent.
A blank piece of paper would of course been an ideal starting point, but no project of this size and scale can ever start with such a blank sheet - irritating as it is for those who might have an optimum solution in their heads!!
Cheers

Maybe one of the bidders will realise that if you ignore the MoD figure of 66 military personnel and construct a bid where all the crews are military then you will have a cheaper solution with far more flexibility. Capitation rate for a Flt Lt or equivalent is 68K whether he/she be co pilot or captain - what's the going rate for a civvy SAR captain? 75K plus or thereabouts?

That is without going into things like surge and concurrent ops, respite tours for SH mates, national security and homeland defence etc etc etc.

SARH was supposed to be a 'blue sky, thinking outside the box' project but the politicians and the MoD have insisted on putting ridiculous constraints on it and we are now on a runaway train that runs the risk of going right off the rails. Maybe there is someone on high who can stop it but, as ever in Britain, we have lots of interested parties pulling in different directions with no clear guidance or vision of what could be achieved.