|
'Why do we need rearcrew?' 'Why does a qualified pilot need to keep training?' 'Why can't an NHS paramedic do shifts as a winchman without training - it seems he just hangs there.' What a balls up this is going to be and as chopabeefer suggests, a balls up that is going to lead to massive corner cutting and the dismantling of a quality of service that has been refined over decades. Where are the winning bidders going to source their personnel from when the drip feed of full-time SAR professionals from the military dries up? Training from scratch is a lengthy process (years, not months) that involves selecting the right people and taking them to their limits of capacity to see how they perform. |
VSF (& Cbeef) I don't think it really matters if some senior types in the Dft arrived at Valley and demonstrated their ignorance. It seems to me that the visit was all about improving their understanding and hopefully that's what the visit did. Removing the ignorance of top neddies and civil servants is no bad thing.
I just don't buy this emotive crap about "lives will be lost" etc. Look at the likely winners from who remain in the competition. It's these companies who will actually deliver the service, and 3 of them have clearly demonstrated their ability to do it. This is what matters, not some ignorance shown by top neddies from London! As for the longer term, any of the likely winners have the capacity to set up a training pipeline to meet the gap of no more military leavers, and don't forget one of the beauties of a long term civvy run service is that many who join the service at the start will be there at the end - no 2 to 3 year posting rosta to mess people and experience about!:ugh: |
Jungliebeefer - is it unreasonable that the Service who has been the main provider of UKSAR helicopters, views it as a primary role instead of secondary, has more SAR aircraft, crews, equipment and completes more SAROPs every year - has a claim to be the best?
It is a question of ethos and those of us in RAF SAR believe ours is unrivalled - our commitment to training (that element of SAR which detractors say is gold-plated and too expensive) stands head and shoulders above the rest. Now it is fair to say that 80% of SAR jobs can be done without all the bells and whistles - hence the belief that SAR can be done as a secondary duty by pretty much anyone with a helicopter. It is the other 20% which are on a sliding scale from slightly interesting to F*** Me which need the right crews, equipment and above all training to perform safely and efficiently. Unfortunately it looks all too easy to design a a UK SAR system for the future which looks cheaper because much of that 20% is conveniently ignored. |
:ugh:Many years ago, when Walter Wessex was Queen of the skies, I was asked by a member of the House of Lords Defence Study Group why we needed a navigator to operate the hoist, and if the pilot couldn't see downwards why didn't 'they' just fit a glass bottom to the aircraft? When I pointed out that the engines might obscure the view he helpfully suggested that they could be positioned 'down the back'! He was led away to the mess bar by another Lord - seems some things just don't change :sad:
|
Crab@
We have all sat in the crew room and bitched and moaned about the other services. However, I would hope that this bluster also belies a mutual respect and understanding that we are all professional aircrew who are fundamentally good at what we do ... To say that your way is the best and to automatically discount all other ways of skinning the cat is blinkered to say the least. The main savings from military SAR will not be from training but from all the other areas where operating the Sea King on a Military Release demand a high number of personnel and maintenance hours, vice operating a modern aircraft. The S92 can maintain availability rates far in excess of the ageing King with 3 engineers on shift. Daily training rates do not differ from the military with an allowance of 4 hrs per day. I believe that the MCA crews would take task with your inference that they are only able to carry out effective SAR in the 80% of routine missions!! The big piece for the future that has been rightly identified is the transition to NVG - again there are ex military experienced NVG operators already working on the solution ... I'm not saying that there are not hurdles ahead but to completely put your head in the sand and say that it can't be done as effectively and safely (but maybe differently) to RN or RAF SAR is simply wrong ... the people that will make this work will be experienced civilian, ex RN and RAF crews. I fully understand that those of you that have been involved in RAF SAR for your whole military career regard it as a primary mission - but again you need to look outside of your own world to see that the resource scarce services must prioritise ... rightly for capabilities that support a combat. Unfortunate for military SAR but thats the bottom line... |
Jungliebeefer - everyone knows the Sea King is old and tired and costs a lot to maintain but to claim big savings will be made by buying V expensive new toys off the shelf just because you can use less engineers is simply not true.
Then add the expense of reinventing a SAR service that already exists (RAF and RN) under the banner of DfT and, as a taxpayer, I have to ask why not just give the military new aircraft and crack on. The military is already using civilian aircraft with military crews and it will become more and more widespread over the next few years. The dogma about warfighting first has reduced many areas of the UK Mil to theatre-specific forces with little corporate memory of anything other than Afghanistan. Anyone in SH or jungly force doing EW training for example? If you keep chopping out what is not needed for Afghanistan then we will end up in few years (if we ever withdraw from there) with a very lopsided capability and a huge training burden to recover the lost skills. So, leave mil SAR in the mil, give us the new aircraft promised for son of SARH and stop wasting taxpayers money reinventing something that doesn't need reinventing. |
Crab,
Please would you clarify, EXACTLY, how you quantify that RAFSAR's training is "head and shoulders" above all other's stringent, pertinent, accountable training. Do you allude to knowing ANYTHING of the aforementioned training regimes? Or was this yet another pot shot at belittling those of us that work professionally, diligently, currently in post? Ray |
Well said RS - too much lack of real understanding about how civ SAR training works against what the mil have traditionally done.
I support Crab in that there was a chance for doing something more innovative under MoD ownership and its a shame that too many working there didn't give it another chance after the PFI was chopped. Crab is right too about dogma in the MoD about fighting the unwinnable war and what the aftermath will be, with many careers dependent on the faithful following the present mantra. :ugh: Let's not forget either that military SAR was created around UK shores precisley because it was operating in a combat environment with many brave acts during WW2, (or could have been had WW3 ever happened). Its easy to convince ourselves that such a direct threat around our shores may never happen again. If so then we might regret the day we civilianised some key helicopter capability dottted around the country at high readiness. I am also intrigued to know what the RN will do in providing an experienced SAR helo capability off the new carriers. Anyone for civ S92 detachments on HMS QE then?;):E |
Crab@
Junglie force already 90% withdrawn from Afghan and back at sea doing the Amphib thing. I'm not saying that I like whats happened to the forces over the years ... the ability to have a great second line tour at Culdrose or in Prestwick will disappear and the RN will be all the worse for it - thats the world that has been forced upon us. However, you need to get your head around the fact, that regardless of how much you dislike it, its not MIL SAR its SAR ... |
Ray:
1. The training stats we are required to complete every month/quarter/year - this is not just one deck, one sit and one drum per month to keep 'current' but a wide range of disciplines day and night. 2. There is an embedded training team pilot/radop/winchman in each flight. 3. There is a roving training team who carry out annual cat checks and further training who visit each flight once per month. 4. There is a dedicated Standards team who check each flights operational effectiveness every 2 years and carry out no-notice Opevals at each flight. 5. Our simulator training (6 monthly) includes SAREX's and NVG as well as all the emergency handling sorties. 6. We have an ongoing training scheme to take Co-pilots to Op Captain - not just a captain's course when a slot becomes available. In addition there are other training exercises including things like windfarm rescues, MRT, lifeboat, CG, beach rescue. Is that enough? I'm not saying civsar crews don't train or belittling their capability but those who haven't been involved in some of the night overland SAROPs the SAR Force have experienced are far too quick to dismiss our capability as 'just requires a set of NVG on an S92 and crack on'. Iron i reckon there will be a huge saving in maint costs actually |
Crab,
The capital outlay would surely still be required whether crewed by civilians or mil? As you yourself state the sea king is past it's best so a new machine is required. SW |
Crab,
Genuine question, how does RAF SAR training compare to the RN, specifically 771 NAS? Surely they are covering the same/similar tasking as you, same/similar equipment, and they certainly feature often in our GAPAN awards nominations. Historically, RN tasking would include Planeguard & SAR for carrier ops which, whilst often a secondary tasking for an ASW squadron, would be as advanced and professional as could be achieved. With intense carrier ops around the world and Ship's Flight covering each and every FW launch and recovery, both day and night, ASW squadrons backing up that task plus covering any SAR task within the operating region there was a wealth of knowledge and ability. Indeed, auto hover was developed back in the 60s for ASW and came to a high level of maturity with the Sea King in (front line service) 1970, and incorporated for the first time a 10% authority hover trim for the rear crew when winching with auto hover. Techniques and equipment have advanced dramatically in the ensuing years but it still remains an important element of the RN background in SAR. Comparing what the UK CAA allows for Civ SAR and 'other countries', there should be no justifiable reason to deny 24 hour/all weather SAR by Civ operators in the UK. Australia has managed for many years to provide this service, often Single Pilot with qualified crewman left seat, on NVG, over water, overland, day/night, (winching too) all with "civilian" operators. I include the State Police Air Wings, who are often the primary responders especially on the East Coast states. They all have their own training and crew progression well established, with relatively few being ex Mil: these days they have their own 'Corporate knowledge' and little reliance on getting the military to do it for them. In fact the military seldom get called for civil SAR, and they don't have a primary tasking nor the equipment to cover it. |
A good list of RAF training activities there Crab. but what makes you think something similar cannot and will not be delivered as part of the new contract?
JE - thanks for reminding me of how the RN traditionally did carrier SAR. My point is that with the removal of all SAR training and experience from the military, how is the RN going to deliver even this level of SAR capability. I presumefrom any Merlins or Wildcats working off the carriers. Some people on here may not like it, but in this litigative 21st century the MoD has to be seen to be fulfilling its full duty of care by making its best efforts, especially in trying to rescue those at hazard such as JSF pilots who have crashed off a carrier. Suggesting it will be done ad hoc by inexperienced Merlin or other helo crews does not seem to meet that criterion.:uhoh: Working in the civilian helo world can focus your thoughts on this type of thing! Sorry. |
Originally Posted by 4thright
(Post 7212309)
Suggesting it will be done ad hoc by inexperienced Merlin or other helo crews does not seem to meet that criterion
I just love the Crab lack of understanding of RN SAR RN crews maintain SAR cover on every ship with helicopters 24/7 wherever they are worldwide. That is not amateur or inexperienced or ad hoc. That is professional. SAR is just a secondary role, and a limited one at that. It is all just posh hovering. |
I am surprised that there is an opinion out there that as soon as uk national SAR becomes a contractor delivered solution any ability for a trained mil crew to effect a rescue will be lost. As I understand, every uk mil helo (apart from apache) will have a winch on the side. Therfore every mil crew will at some point in their training be provided with the skills to utilise it. No doubt like other flying skills there will also be a currency requirement to ensure the skills do not fade.
Yes the merlin crew providing plane guard may not be a dedicated sar crew but they will still be capable, competent and trained to effect a recovery. Indeed as the availability of mil crews who have completed a SAR tour diminishes, the need to deliver winch training, as a secondary role, for rotary crews of all colours will increase. Funnily enough, as with all training, this will evolve and the knowledge will continue to be passed on from generation to generation. Nobody, not even crab is irreplaceable! Am I the only one who sees the fact that the 'heads of sheds' are asking basic questions a sign that they are actually prepared to question the status quo? I have no doubt they were given passionate answers to such questions from those they asked and will make informed decisions when the time comes. Surely better to visit and ask 'silly' questions than not visit and make incorrect assumptions? Similarly, when it comes to scrutinising the bids, I think you'll find there will be an expert panel of experience from the RN, RAF and civil SAR providers made available to assist those 'accountants'. SW |
Seems to me SW that if the MoD crews are going to be so well capable of SAR in the future, they are not in fact giving the role up! So why all this hassle in giving up the UK based capability. Surely it would be better to keep a dedicated outfit which delivers both at home and can ensure the deployable crews are well trained too. Not that I want to lose a job opportunity you understand:E
There is so much inconsistency in this debate,and Tourist, I dont think anyone has been suggesting that the present RN crews dont deliver very professional SAR. I am questioning where it might be in the future when daily SAR delivery in the UK and having the associated trained crews in the RN and RAF no longer exists. SW seems to think all will be wel, but I cant see that (yet). |
Crab,
Many thanks for that terribly comprehensive reply. I did also ask whether you alluded to knowing anything of the training regimes of Others. If so, you might not be as self righteous in feeling that RAFSAR training far exceeds those of the rest of us who, again, work stoically in maintaining a professional level of competency in all aspects of SAR currency. Ray |
yer aye doomed, doomed I tell yer! :hmm:
|
Ray - some of the guys who provide your training are ex-RAF colleagues of mine;)
4th right A good list of RAF training activities there Crab. but what makes you think something similar cannot and will not be delivered as part of the new contract? I don't think there will be a significant influx of mil pilots into the new contract unless it is specified somewhere (like the last one was). I expect big civilian companies like Bond and Bristow will recruit internally first and everyone who has ever done a SAR tour in the past will throw their hats into the ring. Inevitably priority will be given to those with seniority in the company rather than ex-mil people with current and relevant experience - I guess it all comes down to what is specified in the contract. Spanish - all military aircraft with a winch??? you are having a laugh! Our SH bretheren have more than enough kit to worry about needing to be serviceable and the winch will be the first thing that gets red lined in the F700. We also get to see how poor winching can be when people don't practise on a regular basis. |
Who will police its standards and levels of training, currency and competency? The CAA? with all their expert knowledge of SAR? |
It is all just posh hovering |
Concerns over contracts revealed.
Search and rescue helicopter contracts awarded despite police probe: TBIJ A Canadian helicopter company at the centre of an ongoing MoD police investigation into bidding ‘irregularities’ has been allowed to re-tender for the multi-billion pound contract for the UK’s search and rescue service. The Bureau has learned that the Canadian Helicopter Corporation (CHC) has also recently been awarded interim contracts to run services in the south of England. The company’s alleged involvement in serious irregularities resulted in the government having to abort a previous bidding round at a cost of £10m. The Bureau’s revelations will now be brought before the House of Commons Transport Select Committee. The multi-billion pound privatisation of search and rescue helicopter operations has been dogged by controversy since it was first proposed in 2005. It will hand over control of the service from the RAF, the Royal Navy and the Maritime Coastguard Agency to a purely civilian operation. Prince William, who qualified as a search and rescue pilot yesterday, was one of those who raised concerns directly with the prime minister, David Cameron, over the planned sell-off. The whole process was thrown into disarray last year when the Government cancelled the £6bn procurement contract after it emerged that ‘commercially sensitive information’ came to be in the possession of CHC. The company was part of the Soteria consortium also including, Thales UK, Royal Bank of Scotland and Sikorsky. In a Commons statement, the then Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond said: ‘The irregularities included access by one of the consortium members, CHC Helicopter, to commercially sensitive information … and evidence that a former member of that project team had assisted the consortium in its bid preparation, contrary to explicit assurances given to the project team at the time. ‘The Government has sufficient information to enable it to conclude that the irregularities that have been identified were such that it would not be appropriate to proceed with either the preferred bid or with the current procurement process.’ The MOD revealed in answer to a Parliamentary Question that approximately £10m had been spent on the project. The Ministry of Defence has now withdrawn completely from the replacement PFI deal announced last November and the procurement process is being run solely by the Department for Transport. According to the Department of Transport the inclusion of CHC Helicopter in the new bidding process is good for business. ‘The Ministry of Defence Police investigation into the failure of the PFI is ongoing. Not only would it be wrong to pre-judge the outcome of that investigation, CHC’s participation in the current UK SAR helicopters procurement increases competitive tension in the tendering process.’ However he asserted that pending the outcome of the police investigation, the Department did not rule out the option of trying to recoup the £10m losses incurred by the taxpayer in aborting the previous round. The chair of the House of Commons Select Committee for Transport, Louise Ellman expressed surprise at the Department’s decision. ‘It is important that this procurement is conducted in a way that gives public confidence. I am surprised that anyone involved with the collapse of the previous procurement, where investigations have not been concluded, may be involved. I will discuss this with the Committee,’ she said. CHC has been shortlisted in the procurement process along with 10 other companies. The range of 10 year contracts to run the new, entirely civilian, search and rescue service are worth between £2-3bn. They will replace more than 40 helicopters currently operated by the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Maritime Coastguard Agency. The final contract will be awarded in February next year, with operations starting in full in 2017. Meanwhile, in addition to making it on to the DfT shortlist for the main national contracts, the Department renewed contracts with CHC to run the interim search and rescue helicopter services in Portland and Lee on the Solent in the south of England. The company also previously ran services in Scotland but lost those to a more competitive bid. The MOD Police were also called in to investigate the bidding irregularities and decide whether a criminal offence had been committed. It has confirmed to the Bureau that its investigation is still ongoing. In a statement a spokesperson said: ‘The investigation has been continuing for over a year, and has required much painstaking work and the interviewing of potential witnesses over a wide area internationally. There have been no arrests to date, but when this investigation is complete, the findings will be reviewed before a final decision is made as to whether any further action is required.’ Responding to criticism over the move to renew interim contracts and allow CHC to re-bid, the company told the Bureau that the British public could be confident in the probity of the company. In a statement it said that as soon as it became aware of the irregularities it brought them to the attention of the Government, and that the information was irrelevant to the bid. Mr T L Reid, vice-president of global communications for CHC in Canada said: ’Obviously we’d much rather that any seeds of poor judgement or worse don’t get into the organisation in the first place. But when they do we’ve got to make sure that they don’t take root. We’ve got high standards, people know them, overwhelmingly they follow them, in the air and on the ground, and the rare occasions that they don’t – we take action. Three individuals were properly dismissed from CHC.’ He added: ‘We’ve been fully cooperative from the time we called the activity to the attention of the Government. We know the case is continuing – we are not going to speculate about how it might turn out.’ Under EU law any company or individual convicted of offences involving corruption is excluded from the tendering process. |
Originally Posted by crab@
Spanish - all military aircraft with a winch??? you are having a laugh! Our SH bretheren have more than enough kit to worry about needing to be serviceable and the winch will be the first thing that gets red lined in the F700. We also get to see how poor winching can be when people don't practise on a regular basis.
Having operated SAR both in and out of the service, I can safely say that the service provided may differ in method, but the results are entirely comparable. |
Zzzzzzzzzz. Some pilots just don't get it. The best pilots are still completely reliant upon having decent rearcrew to do the job. If they're not well-trained, current in EVERY aspect of SAR winching and at least one of them has at least 9 months of everyday, frontline SAR experience, then when you do get a call off the back of your ship, your big moment could well turn into the proverbial.
|
Vie hits the nail on the head.
|
your big moment could well turn into the proverbial. |
Jungliebeefer - I have seen so many incident signals from the RN where winching has gone wrong due to lack of practice and currency with the crews that your comments become risible. It's all part of the Navy myth that anyone can do SAR and that statement is never qualified by the terms safely or effectively.
Try asking a Lynx crew down South who cat 3'd their aircraft because they wouldn't listen to the advice from the SAR crew about how to winch a stretcher - they knew better because 'anyone can do SAR' - oh yes, of course it was their engineer acting as winch-op instead of someone properly trained and current! Was it an RN crew who winched in so far out of the overhead that they dragged the winchman and 'survivor' across the deck and through the railings? Oh yes, but 'anyone can do SAR' and 'winching is easy'! the ability to recover drums/survivors is not a black art and is in reality a quite easily acquired and maintained skill. SAR is not just about hovering. |
Oh dear. Is this now where we have RN crews digging through incident reports to find equally 'embarrassing' examples of where RAF crews perhaps got it wrong.
Crab. Did you witness any of these? Thought not - so you're basing your ridicule on heresay, rumour or a biased slant on a report perhaps? Isn't hindsight wonderful? Every time there is an unfortunate incident there are generally many links in the chain. I doubt even you crab have never made a mistake, despite your extensive experience and training. Picking holes in each other is hardly promoting a professional military service SW |
C@S
At the beginning of my career I spent a most enjoyable hold over on a SAR squadron acting as "survivor", spending time on the wire for any number of boat / wet / cliff evolutions. This certainly provided me with a great opportunity to fully comprehend the challenges and professionalism of SAR rear crew. Subsequently I have instructed on both Junglie and RN SAR squadrons. Wet winching in the Sea King with its stable hover and LVI doppler meter is a relatively easy evolution to pick up and most pilots do so very quickly. "SAR is not just hovering" Actually in terms of the main physical ability required of a SAR helicopter pilot that is exactly what it is ... can you hover next to a boat / cliff / survivor / confined area!! The difficult bit is not this, appropriate initial and continuation training ticks this bit quite nicely. Once established in the hover then the control of these situations rightly falls to the rear crew. A successful SAR crew is a team led by a SAR Captain who has that combination of Airmanship, Professional Knowledge and Leadership to consistently make the right calls - teaching/imparting/fostering sound SAR captaincy is the difficult bit. Your general comments about the lack of capability achieved by RN crews deployed around the world in the SAR role is wrong, I know this because I have been there deployed at Sea as well as on land on a permanent SAR base and I am therefore in a position to make a considered comparison. Over the years deployed crews have achieved a plethora of rescues in some of the most challenging of SAR scenarios. Throughout their careers, crews will complete continuation training in the full range of capabilities required including those SAR related ones. Your use of single examples is meaningless, i'm sure that a quick trawl of the RAF SAR incident signals would also throw up events that when quoted in isolation would seem to show what is a professional and capable force in a negative light ... This is the perennial non-dedicated SAR RN problem - 'yeah we've done a couple of grapple serials over the oggsplosh so we are good to go any time any place any where.' The fact is that there is no problem, the large number of rescues carried out over the years prove that this is the case. Your throw away "a couple of grapple serials" comment is so far removed from the truth, that I seriously doubt that you have spent any significant period deployed with a front line RN unit, because surely you must have at some point in the past to feel justified to make such accusations. |
A well balanced reply JB - well IMO anyway. What is for sure is that both the RAF and RN over the decades have delivered excellent SAR capability, sometimes in the most extreme circumstances. Sure, things can go wrong, and Crab is right to a degree. Sometimes some fairly iffy decisions have been made and things have gone notably wrong. However, given at least 5 decades of such operations, its a testament to all and their overall professionalism that so few significant accidents have ever happened - lets hope it stays that way!:hmm:
What I think we could all agree on is that sufficient quality training aligned with continuous experience delivers top quality. It is only right that some question whether a commercial operator is motivated to fund enough training of the amount and quality required to deliver the best service. While the RAF in particular has enjoyed well funded SAR training until recently, in the present situation, its hard to believe it was ever going to be sustainable. What is for sure is that Bristow, Bond and CHC seem to deliver a competent service with the latest aircraft. While they may not do as much regular training as their military equivalents, it is foolish to say they don't have good people who don't understand the issues, manage them as well as possible and seek the highest standards. Whats more, the CAA under their new SAR regulations will be doing their best to underpin this. For those who think the MoD manages the broader fundamentals better, I have only one comment: Haddon-Cave!:{:ooh::(:eek: The bidders for the new service must be working overtime at the moment. Isn't the next bid due in later next week? |
2020
In about 2020 the SAR helicopter service will have consisted entirely of civilian contractors' aircraft for over 4 years and we could be entering the early stages of a contract process for a replacement service to start transition in 2023 through to 2026.
It's interesting to think about how much bitching will be going on then. Let's imagine that the main contract, rather like Gap, will go in 2 lots and lot 1 goes to company B and lot 2 goes to company C. :E Will the crews from company B be seen and heard bitching endlessly about the inadequacy of crews at company C? And C bitching about B? Well, they might. Perhaps some of them will and these are the ones that won't have jobs after 2026. The remainder demonstrate maturity and judgement in their understanding that it's just not that childishly simple and that shortly they could very easily be working for the other lot! |
JB - you miss my points entirely - I am not talking about Gannet and 771 SAR crews who train on a regular basis - I am talking about your 'secondary role brigade' because that is where the 2 incident signals I referred to (and I did have personal experience of one of those - the other was subject of a detailed incident report with little room left for conjecture).
You also keep banging on about how easy hovering is for pilots - of course it is, it's our job - it is not very frequent that poor service from the front end causes problems winching, it is lack of skill and practise at the back end because, as we all know, winching goes from 'la la la steady' to 'f8ck me!' in an instant. A SAR captain has exactly no influence on what goes on on the end of the wire - once the winchman is out of the door it is purely down to the winch-op and the winchman himself. All the captaincy and airmanship in the world at the front end can't affect that - all you do is assess the overall risk, approve the basic winching plan and then give the winchman clearance to go out of the door. SPanish - I have been instructing and operating in front-line SAR for the last 10 years and am still doing it so I do have some knowledge of the subject. Jim, it will depend on how open and honest reporting is in the post mil SAR world, at the moment all the form Rs and DFSORS are easily accessible and widely circulated so that fellow operators can learn from other's mistakes and experiences. Since MORs exist in civil aviation and the MCA will have access to all post SAR reports, one hopes that the desire not to air one's dirty laundry in public will not overcome the need for a free flow of information. If we end up with two contractors for the new service, how much co-operation and cross-pollination will there be when KPIs and contract penalties might be at risk? You only have to read some of the comments on other threads (especially the North Sea) to realise that every company will tell the world they are doing a brilliant job and yet the truth from their customers or employees is often very different. |
C@S,
You must of mis-read my post, as it was written defending exactly those RN crews whose prime task is not SAR. Quote: The fact is that there is no problem, the large number of rescues carried out over the years prove that this is the case. Your throw away "a couple of grapple serials" comment is so far removed from the truth, that I seriously doubt that you have spent any significant period deployed with a FRONT LINE RN unit, because surely you must have at some point in the past to feel justified to make such accusations. Just to clarify that SAR was always regarded as a second line tour. |
Ah, the old 'only SH/Jungly flying is front-line' I'm sure the 771 and Gannet boys and girls love your dismissal of the operational capability. Fortunately we still regard SAR as operational even if it isn't war-fighting since bus-driving in a Sea King in the desert is a support task. I think the Apaches do the real fighting stuff;)
The fact is that there is no problem, the large number of rescues carried out over the years prove that this is the case. |
Could you two start a new thread? Call it "My dad's bigger than your dad"
|
C@S
I don't see why referring to SAR as a second line tour is regarded as a negative. As a member of 771 in a previous life, all personnel regarded it as such. It provided an excellent opportunity to spend a significant part of our lives at home with family whilst recharging our batteries before returning to the front line. This doesn't in any way take away the skill and courage required to undertake SAR - all undertaken with an equivalent professionalism to our compatriots in the RAF SAR force. I see that your "head in the sand" comment is clearly borne of a clear lack of knowledge and understanding of embarked RN capability. Surely if SAR is regarded as an operational capability, the light blue powers that be would not entertain civilianising it?:E Manchester Take your point!! |
Manchester - valid point so all I ask is for JB to detail exactly how much live wet winching embarked Lynx, Jungly or Merlin crews are required to complete annually to retain this excellent secondary role capability.
|
For those who read this thread to keep up with the process - it looks like high level bid proposals are due in today, bidder presentations imminent & key downselect notification on 23rd July, if this timetable still stands (P24): http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...n-5-3-2012.pdf
Sorry if all this has already been posted but I only have the heart/time to sift through this thread every once in a while :ok: BM |
It has been shifted to the right by 3 days - 14th June is now the day for the vans full of paper
|
The latest published timetable is on sheet 43 of the 30th April trade day presentation at the following address.
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...april-2012.pdf |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.