Crab,

both our aircraft were serviceable throughout the day and night yesterday for the 7.5 hours of training and SAROPs we did and they are both still there this morning - any civilian operator provide that in UK?

That was, and maybe still is an average day for a N. Sea workhorse. The machines earn their living, nobody crows about it, because it's accepted.

It's really unnecessary to abuse somebody because they unearth the inconsistencies in your discourse. Mental health issues aren't a joking matter; especially amongst former servicemen and women. :ouch:

Crab,

Your so busy contradicting yourself I don't need to make my own arguments!! Your doing a splendid job of destroying your own arguments without any help from me! :D

Anyway, you know what they say - when people resort to insults they have a weak argument and I note your didn't answer not one of my points!:p

However, because of your unremitting and ignorant hate campaign against civy sar I take great pleasure in going through your old posts so I can show the rest of the forum what a load of contradictory drivel your posts actually are. And I will continue to do so - it should do your ego the world of good! :)

LAS

I would be careful about accusing service providers of lying. They will have given accurate answers to the questions posed as to do otherwise would attract the threat of litigation.

Here is an example.

I was out in my Jet Ranger the other day and Buddy comes up

How many can you take? 5

How long can you fly for? 3 hours

How fast can you go? 120 mph

So Buddy goes away thinking I can take 5 rednecks, 360 miles in 3 hours. Reality - quite different.

As they say round 'ere

Git 'er dun !

Lost - I would like to answer your points but you don't actually make any - you simply add throwaway comments to parts of my posts you have cut and pasted. Try creating your own coherent point of view on this topic and then we will see.

As for inconsistency in my posts - when you take parts of answers to specific questions out of context then you can distort the meaning of those answers.

As to perceived cost savings by privatising:

Our engineering has just been contractorised and, in their eagerness to get the contract, the bidders decided that they needed considerably less engineers to do the task than the RAF had used - there was their profit margin. But they have now conceded that at one particular base, they have miscalculated by a third, despite being warned that their plans were inadequate. They knew best because they were private industry but they got it horribly wrong - to the point where airworthiness was a serious issue. Their answer is now to increase the manpower to what was suggested by the RAF and start bleating about how much it will cost them. Eventually they will go cap in hand to the MoD and ask for more cash which we will pro bably have to give them because there is no alternative.

This is the reality of privatisation/contractorisation and I don't want it to happen to SAR.

What limits - that is pretty much what the bidders have done - it is deceit by omission since they know (for example) that the best top speed in the RFM isn't available at operational SAR weights but don't choose to mention it.

Bootneck - there are enough comparisons of apples and oranges on this topic without comparing the takeoff/cruise/land working regime of the N Sea with that of the SAR aircraft. I suspect your engineering effort is considerably higher than a civ SAR flight to produce that number of flying hours per day with an appropriately higher number of engineers.

"......they will want more cash which we will have to give them because there is no alternative"...says Crab..isn't that the problem ?

If a contract is worth anything then it shouldn't have get out clauses that give contractors the option to go back cap in hand .When somebody quotes for a job ,that's the price in my book.How they resolve their mistakes is their problem!

Yes but they were the only bidder and the SAR force can't go back to mil engineers cos they have either left to work in the civvy contract or have been posted elsewhere.

If AW can't meet their contractual obligations then who will dig the MoD out of the poo and provide engineering cover? AW and others have been doing this sort of thing to the MoD for years.

I think that is what crab@ meant about systemic incompetence - there was no plan b - look to 2star and above for such crap decisions.

Yes FS - exactly - so many of the 'great' strategic decisions are made without a full understanding of the implications, usually to satisfy some beancounter's balance sheet or politician's agenda.

Unfortunately the devil is always in the detail and that is for the underlings to sort out/make the best of a bad job with.

The move to Valley is a case in point where all the pitfalls were easy to forsee and the end result has cost a lot more money than it was intended to save. Additionally, neither the RAF nor the engineering elements look likely to be fully manned in the near future so it will never achieve the gains in efficiency that were envisaged (another pipe-dream).

I suspect your engineering effort is considerably higher than a civ SAR flight to produce that number of flying hours per day with an appropriately higher number of engineers.

Crab, you don't get it do you. It's perfectly feasible to maintain, and keep aircraft functioning at a high hourly rate per day without loads of engineers.
When do you need your max engineer strength? Not during the day, but at days end when the cabs are back in the shed. Balance your man power requirements, stop over servicing, keep them flying; when it stays in the shed something will break, put it out there and fly it, it'll keep turning and burning.

With 3 aircraft in China (One super puma and two pumas) we operated with 5 engineers, one electrician and helping hands from the drivers; meanwhile one engineer was always on leave. It can be done, but it needs organisation, co-operation from everybody, and speedy back up when a cab needs bits.

We are back into the circular argument about manning levels and the service's propensity to over engineer. :ugh:

Come on Bootneck, do not exaggerate. Bristow engineers used to work 24 hour shifts, back to back, changing over at midday for eight weeks on, four weeks off. Over a twelve week period you will get 672 hours availability out of him as opposed to 480 on a 40 hour week. I cannot see anybody working like that in the UK.
I agree, though, that civilian operaters need less numbers because they are more specialised and continuous on the same operation than the military.
As a matter of interest for the evacuation of offshore installations on track of Typhoon Fengshen four 332L1s and two 225s evacuated some 1400 personnel over three days in 81 sorties averaging 2hr 45mins each. That's 12hrs 20mins each, each day. The only snag was a radio stuck on transmit on a 225.
They were serviced by Chinese engineers but every aircraft was flown at some time by a UK licenced captain and we don't take second best.
Tomorrow it will start all over again. It's called a reman.

Bootneck - you just don't get it - a SAR flight needs its engineering effort all the time, 24/7 because the aircraft and crew are always on call and any unserviceabilities that affect the operational capability of the aircraft need to be fixed straight away, day or night. We hold RS 15 0800 to 2200 and RS 45 2200 to 0800 so more work does get done at night (our engineers work 12 hour shifts now) but they are rarely idle during the day.

Norwegian SAR service
 

Just to throw you guys off track a bit.

The RNoAF 330 sqn runs Seakings RS 15 24/7 365, with 12 engineers per flight working mainly 0800-1600, with paid overtime if needed (Snags).
2 Seakings per flight. Only one required to be operational for RS 15. If the RS 15 bird goes down the flight will get another one from a different flight within 3 hrs.

In Norway the ministry og justice pays the Air force to provide the SAR service.
It is also politically stated that the Air force will continue to be the operator of the SAR service for the forseeable future.

My opinion being a former mil SAR pilot, and current off shore driver, is that the SAR service should remain a government responsability, and operated by service personell, civil or military.

Torcher

Lost at Sea - the RAF gave advice on the interim contract but did not scrutinise the details of the bids - hence, bullsh*t claims by the bidders made it past the MCA who naively trusted the contractors to tell the truth.


Crab,

your quote above is totally incorrect and you know it, and if you didnt know it then you should not comment, a RAF Sqn Ldr (SAR force pilot) was the technical evaluator for the MCA interim contract.

FED, you've got it easssssy. We did 3 months in and 1 out. :ok:

fareastdriver, you used the optimum words in my humble opinion-332 and 225! Having extensive experience on 330 and 332L/L1 and L2 I can assure you all machines are not as reliable/forgiving/maintenance friendly etc. I was involved with a 332L2 flying 1200hrs/year with 1 engineer and the Eurocopter flexible tolerance scheduled inspections well at work as the machine had very high hours we were grounded for a total of 2.5 days in a 14 month period due to a MGB change which included the shipping time. I am currently on 350 and 130 and the nice thing is........they are little 332/225's. Worked with the Sikorsky 61 and 76 amongst other and the lack of flexibility in their maintenance schedule is what cause the "over" engineering. If there is no tolerance on scheduled maintenance, I better have all engineers on deck for if it runs out of hours. Does not make them bad machines, guess you have to get something for paying so much to EC?

victor papa,
The tolerance of maintenance inspections depends on the local airworthiness authority. A problem arises when an AD is incorporated into a maintenance programme as FAA AD's do not usually include any tolerance and therefore the scheduled inspection cannot be extended. Depending on the AD it s sometimes better to keep them as a separate scheduled inspection. As I do not know of your particular problem I apologise if I am on the wrong track.

Back to the question
 

I hear that the reason for the delay is due to the incompetence of the IPT rather than anything more sinister.

Soarer123 - did the technical evaluation done by said Sqn Ldr involve checking the claimed performance data to the degree that has just been done with the SARH bids? If so and all the bull made it past him then maybe he was the wrong guy for the evaluation because what has been delivered in terms of RoA is not what was promised.

To put the record straight. The resources of the Joint MCA/MOD IPT were exclusively assigned to the MCA for the writing and award of the MCA Interim Contract. This was by way of apology by the MOD for earlier programme delays that necessitated the MCA to find a stop gap solution. The technical evaluation of the MCA Interim Contract involved evaluation of the bids as submitted, against the requirements as written. The delivery of that capability is an issue between the MCA and the winning bidder (The MCA have staff assigned to montoring this contract and they retain the services of an civilian aviation 'consultant' to assist them if required). By the time the MCA interim contract was coming online the IPT had already moved on to the SARH main contract. The Interim Contract has nothing to do with the MOD and to defend 'said squadron leader' he (or she!) had already left the Service by that time.

Reference the recent SARH delay being due to 'incompetence of the IPT'. I think that they are in the clear on this one and you might need to look much higher up the food chain(s) for the culprits!!!!!:oh:

Why the delay
 

Max, the inference then is that the bids have been scrutinised by the IPT and their recommendation has been passed up the chain? Would that be the MOD, MCA, DfT or higher where the delay has occurred?:confused:

News from the North
 

Where's Crab ::=:=

Yes, I am on shift today but I have been doing some flying in our proper long range SAR aircraft!

The article highlights that the MCA will believe what they are told by operators or contractors wanting to pull the wool over their eyes. Not that any of the esteemed bidders for the 3 to 5 Bn SAR H contract would do such a thing;)

Contractorisation seeks to make profit by reducing manpower and training hours since these are the only 2 variables in SAR - the cost of the machines and infrastructure is broadly the same - which do you think is best for the British public and those other nationalities who choose to travel through our SRR - cheapest or best trained?

Read the following in a sport commentator’s sort of way. (Or meatloaf)

Welcome late comers to the SARH snout in the MOD trough stakes, leading by a long way is the S92 with the AW101 in a sorry second and last place, but what’s this, the S92 is slowing up with only a short way to go, the AW101 is catching fast, does the S92 have the range to finish the job or has the 101 just got longer legs. Some of my co presenters smell a rat but I think something fishier is going on (Perhaps Crab):). It’s neck and neck as they reach the line…………… and the winner is…………………………..

Yeah, I know the routine, Hat Coat etc.:\

R1a

R1a.
The AW139 is coming up on the rails... oh no, its legs are shorter than advertised as well!:rolleyes:
Sorry.
3D

French runner
 

And the odds on the EC225? Has it got the legs?:confused:

AW139
 

Footage of the AW139 based at portland in action.

Meridian - News - In-depth news and features for South Coast, Hampshire, Dorset, Kent, Isle of Wight, Wiltshire and Thames Valley

I hope the mil SAR boys are enjoying a well deserved gloat now the cat is out of the bag ref the new short-range SAR service provided by the MCA (Please don't repeat all that tripe about interim SAR being the fault of some lowly sqn ldr). My object of derision is the MCA higher management by the way, not the crews who have been hamstrung with the new aircraft.

This story deserves much greater publicity because the UK public, taxpayer and, most importantly, the government need to know about this. With regard to SAR-H, if you think this is bad, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Don't forget, after SAR-H comes in the military won't be there to dig the contractor out of it once all the excuses for a service that falls short of that promised start.

Interesting to see some Crab baiting as soon as the story was posted. The stick that chap has received over the years for having the courage to tell the truth, even after some toe-rag revealed his identity, has been disgusting at times. Looks like he has been proved right.

AW101 whose going to pay for it? :ugh:

Too darn expensive :=

EC say the 225 meets all the criteria, they want to be able to offer a SAR 175 as well...

Just like Sikorsky said the S92 met (and exceeded) all the criteria and AW said the about the 139. Self-praise is no recommendation;)

Common guys! Why the retorical questions. You are in the uK and I am sure Aberdeen is a part of that???? Pick up a phone-surely there is enough 225 and S92 hours being flown to make a decision on fact and not just what the manufacturer claim. What about jigsaw??? How is the L2 doing? If it is doing as advertised, that is a plus for the 225? Forum is dead quiet on the 225 performance so is that a good thing or bad? Phone.:ugh::ugh:
Sorry, maybe my logic doesn't work!!!!

Well, Clever Richard, you can call it what you like but we all know the Technical assistance came from the MOD/RAF and thats where the problems are! Civy SAR has been running well since the late sixy's without a problem and then the RAF get involved........

I don't think that you can get all high and mighty about the UK taxpayer. The UK taxplayer has already paid half a billion quid for 6 chinooks and 2.5 billion for the Nimrod fiasco - all RAF and all a bloody disaster!!

You're forgeting the number of times that Civy SAR machines have covered for the military when the military aircraft are U/S. Conveniently forgotten by you I think - doesn't help your biased argument!

Have you actually read any of Crab's postings? He started off saying that the Interim Contract would be better thanks to MOD involvement and now is happily slagging it off. He admits that there is "systemic incompetence" in the RAF and yet in the same breath ignores it and says they are the only ones who can do the job. And when he's proved wrong he accuses that individual of having a mental illness - well if he's your champion I'd quit now if I were you.

Maybe, all the anti civy rants and SAR-H RAF propoganda is more about RAF pilots having to leave the service to remain where they are rather than SAR-H itself.

Still not formulated your own argument then Lost at Sea?

Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder.

When one bidder assumes the customer will accept more of the same basic service he has provided for many years and another bidder comes along with new shiny toys and the promise of better performance and capability - guess who MCA chose?

The SARH bids have been carefully scrutinised by a team of subject matter experts as far as technical issues go which is why so much of the bu** was noticed this time.

Gordon Brown has wasted so much public money the MoD's cock-ups look like very small beer in comparison.

How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability.

The systemic incompetence isn't at the front line, it is at the higher levels in MoD-land where countless Air Rank Officers vie for knighthoods and try to hold together a system that doesn't work (because the politicians have knackered it) long enough to hand over to the next sucker on the greasy pole.

All the 'anti-civvy rants', as you call them, are because I believe UK military SAR to be the best for the UK, a civilian company would never pay for what we can provide because they would never make any profit out of it.

Lost at Sea,

How can you be so sure of the content and form of mil advice provided to the interim contract? Were you involved? Was the MCA under an obligation to implement all advice or was it at liberty to pick and choose? I am also slightly confused why the MCA would need mil advice anyway. This is, after all, the organisation that claims expertise in all things SAR and that many on this board are happy to endorse. So given the MCA's obvious pedigree it is slightly baffling that they asked the mil to advise them. I can see why the claim about duff mil advice is being touted now, it is a lame excuse for being caught out as not quite having the expertise previously claimed.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork next (and who within the RAF/MoD is to blame).

More power to the Crab!:D

Crab said:

"Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder".

Surely confirming that the aircraft were fit for the job involves validating the performance, range, payload etc? If the RAF ("lowly squadron leader") did give technical advice then her competence is questionable!

Regards,

a taxpayer

Running in,

Can I ask you the same questions I asked lost at sea ref the mil advice to the interim bid? If you don't know the answers then how can you be in a position to blame this 'lowly sqn ldr' who now appears to be gaining myhtical status?

Lots of supposition regarding this particular point and unless any of the accusations directed at the mil can be proved then you are left with the conclusion that it was the MCA that screwed up.

HAL,

What's interesting is that the MCA ran an excellent SAR service for 20 years and then the RAF got involved......


Crab,

It's nice that you can dismiss an RAF £3 BILLION pound wastage of public money so flippantly. If everyone else in the service has such scant regard for the taxpayers money then its little wonder they don't want the RAF to run SAR!

If it takes a team of subject matter experts to work out the range of an aircraft then who in the RAF gave the MCA the technical advice in the first place, a cook?

If an aircraft can't do a job because its in the hanger in bits or because it doesn't have the range then its exactly the same. Neither aircraft can do the job!! How'd you like that argument? Nah, you'll probably ignore it and call me 'mental' again! (and it's not my aircraft:eek:)!!!!!

And I have loads of arguments but in true spin doctor fashion you choose to ignore them! :=

According to the Press & Journal quoted earlier (I know, a Highly Reliable Source), the range problem is due to non-fitment of long-range tanks. Now if the contract was based on having l-r tanks as specified items, and they subsequently aren't fitted, that's hardly a technical analysis issue - is it?

Sven

Crab,
Why do you think the military is better for the UK SAR coverage without any knowledge of the civilian side? To be specific, the pilot's skills are the same with the possibility that the civilian pilots have a few more hours having been probably trained by the military before crossing the fence. It goes without saying that the civil winch operators and crewmen have the same bravery and skills as the military. The dedication of the crews will therefore be the same. So, it comes down to the aircraft as the SAR control is from the same site. Before the recent change in the SAR contract are you saying that the Sea King is superior to the S61N? Or, are you saying that because the RAF has a few more bases from which SAR aircraft can be deployed when, say Stornaway, is clagged in they can supply an aircraft from another base? The profit you mention will all depend on the agreed contract, no business will knowingly operate at a loss so it will come down to the difference between what the MoD now spends on SAR and what a civilian company can do the same job for. I think that the difference in the costs of both sides will be shown by the less engineers required by the civil side, thus saving a lot of money.