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