Geoffers, simulators are wonderful things for some sorts of training but absolutely cock-all use for the sort of stuff Jim is talking about.

You can assume your ground staff will perform to the required standard they have been taught in the classroom, right up to the point there is a noisy 10 ton helicopter hovering near them - at which point half their brain power and most of the training escapes them. The only way to get people used to dealing with helicopters is to do it for real - that is one of the reasons that stage one training was always required for troops.

Equally, tabletop exercises can prepare ground commanders for basic scenarios but there is nothing like controlling a real helicopter in real time to acquire proper skills.

Can all this training be done without? Yes, if you want most SAROPs to turn into running goat-f*cks with comms and equipment faffs alles uber der platz and the poor casualty sucking the hind-tit as everyone else tries to get their poo in a pile.

The harsh fact is that training requires hours - the crews need their specific role training and the other agencies need their exposure to helicopters - try doing a RIB transfer with a trained RNLI crew against an untrained one and you will see what I mean.

What is your source for that statement, meanttobe?

UK oil & gas looking attractive over Bond:ugh:

You Mil boys are welcome to pick up the pieces on this one.:ok:

Virgin rail fiasco all over again....:}

I sometimes wonder why I bother
 

Crab has his agenda and presses on regardless. There is nothing in what I said in my last post that suggests that training should be reduced, is unnecessary, a waste of time or anything like that. Likewise I DID NOT SUGGEST that simulators can REPLACE live training..... BUT.... if you chose to wash over such facilities then you hand the naysayers a weapon with which they can beat you.

We are duty-bound to ensure that every 'Op' is analysed and debriefed to learn lessons and if you are not doing that then you have handed them - the £££-focussed ignoramuses - another stick to beat you with.

Please Crab, stop and read before lapsing into automatically chucking rocks at the next post to appear that doesn't say WELL DONE ALL CRABS WHO FLY YELLOW PERILS. We CAN be on your side without actually having to be so sycophantic that I request the next opportunity to lick your backside. Wise up.

Happy Christmas

G. :}

That’s certainly an interesting rumour and could come back to haunt the DofT.


Another rumour doing the rounds is that Bond have pulled out of the heavy bid to concentrate on the medium, leaving the heavy bid a two horse race. Hope they employ little piggies!!! ;)

Ref:- meantobe's inane quality comment regarding Bond.
 

Guess meantobe is well informed. Maybe not?...

With Ex RAF/Navy SAR standards front and rear on Jigsaw we must be barking up the wrong tree when it comes to quality? But what would you know?

.....except your obvious lack of knowledge!? HAND..

Some interesting rumours regarding the UK SAR bid, what I don't understand is a thread dedicated to CHC has become about belittling and openly bashing Bond? Did Bond not win the Jigsaw contract and have they not traditionally had fantastic people who work in finances?
If the rumour is true about Bond not bidding for the Heavy's, then surely it's now a one horse race, not two.....?

RRPMp

yawn............... so come off the fence, don't mince your words. why are us ex- Central Flying School (H) pilots such low quality? Pray tell us why our supervision, training staff and pilots are so useless? I joined Bond 3 yrs ago and am massively impressed by how they do business. WAY better than some operators that I know of. I await you telling me of my bottom of the barrel skills........ k@@b.

Piglet, you can stay at home and have roast beef. Your rumour is very close.

I know that simulators will help the guys in the front seats with any number of new situations and in the next couple of months I fully expect that there will be a lot more simulator hours for SAR helicopter pilots than has been the routine in the past. I would love to learn more about this simulator training and particularly about how good the simulated dogs, snow and climbing ropes are.

I am mainly with Crab on this one. It would be most helpful if the CAA was as well. Some of the words in the public version of CAP 999 appear to support that point of view in its references to provisions for Ground/Maritime Emergency Service Personnel. However, current interpretations appear to fall some way short of realism.

Just on the matter of downdraught/downwash/outwash there may be a few problems. Downdraught mitigation on maritime and land SAR is going to be a serious matter for the new contractors and for anyone who works with them. There have been UK downdraught accidents and one was with a 135, so it's not all about S-92 and Chinooks. There have been deaths in other territories, and at least one organisation in SAR is to seek downwash/outwash diagrams from all appropriate aircraft manufacturers to assist in development of mitigating procedures.

I have worked closer with SAR helicopters than most people imagine would be required. On one occasion that I particularly remember, in a tight gnarly gully, several of us were sliding along the side of a partially-landed S-92 to deliver a loaded stretcher to the door. The blades were low, the ground was difficult and kit was snagging on the aircraft. The job got done, the aircraft was safe, nobody got their head chopped off and faith in our SAR helicopter providers was reinforced. Without regular and appropriate training, the outcome could easily have been different.

I hear from through the grapevine at CHC Ireland, that all is not well over there. Management are beset with Industrial Relations problems and are pleading poverty despite winning a circa 500 mil contract for 10 yrs. Also have been taken to court by an ex Navy or RAF lad a couple of months ago for wrongful dismissal (It will or has cost them a few bob that one.) Seems to be falling down around their ears a little bit.

Good to see someone talking pragmatic good sense.

Some people don't half put some tosh up on here! I know its a rumour network but really! There's a fine line between provocative wind ups and litigation attacting libel.

Meanttobe you just sound like a hasbeen that is pi**ed orf cos you were turned down or sacked by Bond. Your standard of input is appalling and unwarranted, and I dont even work for Bond. The word is Troll isn't it?


Having said that, it also concerns me that people are picking up stuff from people (maybe evaluators or civ servants in the ministry), and if they are blabbing they are in severe danger of bringing the whole show down again as the last crab did.

Some might think that a good thing but dont kid yourself. If this race stalls I am not sure the governement will do anything sensible given there's no cash anymore.

Happy Christmas

Geoffers, I don't think Jim was washing over simulators as a valuable training aid but, once you accept their limitations on the sort of training Jim has in mind, you are left with the fact that you need to train with the real aircraft - and that means flying hours.

The new DfT/MCA SAR Force runs the risk of re-inventing the wheel if they don't learn from what exists at the moment and how much liaison and mutual training is required between agencies.

I do have my constant message, and that is that SAR cannot be done 'on the cheap' no matter what the bean counters believe.

Out of interest, our current 6-monthly simulator package includes all the emergency stuff you would expect but much of it is set within SARexs both day and night with rig landings, mountain flying, deck landings, multiple aircraft ops etc etc etc. Now, will the new contract ensure such high-quality training is conducted or will they just tick the required contractual boxes.

I think Jim's (and my) underlying point is that if the contract isn't perfectly written to ensure corners can't be cut, then the SAR service as a whole in UK will suffer.

I'm hearing meanttobe might not be far of the mark in relation to a certain bidder being now out of the race.
Im hearing it from what I would class, a reliable source. Surely a press release will be issued?

Me too.......

I believe this is part of a message that was sent to all CHC UK employees:

Subject: Update on U.K. SAR Bidding Process


U.K. Colleagues,

Late Thursday there was a big development in the bidding process for U.K. SAR helicopter services that you need to know about. The net: CHC won’t be asked to submit final tenders for this contract. That’s disappointing news. While we never take contracts for granted, we go into the tender process intending to win every one that we choose to bid on.

At the same time, we’ve got to make sure that the business we take on comes with a sufficient level of profitability. That’s in the long-term best interest of CHC and our customers, who benefit from our reinvesting in important new technology and other capabilities. The U.K. Department for Transport advised us that another bidder tendered at more than 20 percent below the price we submitted.

The process we followed was professional, disciplined and thorough. We think our final proposal would have provided a robust, high-quality solution; unique capabilities; and great value for the U.K. government and general public. We don’t have insight to the financial or other motivations of competitors. But we know that the economics at a price 20 percent lower than our interim bid simply aren’t right for CHC.

Best regards,

Peter Bartolotta
Chief Operating Officer and
President, Helicopter Services

CHC out.
 

A press release has been issued.

It's genuine info.

I have seen it.

:ugh:So he may be but he should keep his language sorted. If CHC are out, then it looks like the DfT has the 2 horse race it was looking for by this stage. After all thats what the bidding in October was for. Ayway best I get my CV posted off then. Will it be B or B? Life is so full of hard choices!!;)

Is meanttobe a bonafide Bond hater - or just stirring the pot, or both?

I would suggest that Mr. Peter Bartolotta institutes a top down look at CHC's cost structure very soon.

I have been involved quite closely with other recent CHC bids and this is not the only tender where CHC has been 15-20% above both other bidders.

Maybe what goes round comes round for CHC. Maybe the DfT are still pissed about CHC's last unethical attempt at winning the competition, Maybe CHC are finally staring their future in the face..........................

Senior Pilot is this thread worth amalgamating with the SARH thread?

T.C. I wish you were right but - Norway – CHC Helikopter Service secured nine contracts in 2012 | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source

I went to a dinner party last week which was attended by a senior oil company man who I have known since the early eighties. While I have continued to bend spanners he has risen to the dizzy heights.

He said he could not understand why the helicopter operators continued to cut each others throats particularly on price.

In their defence I pointed out that whenever the oil companies shouted jump the operators reply was how high. Each jump increasing costs till the point when overheads became massive.

Next stage is a new kid on the block (Bond, NHV, Dancopter e.t.c) leaner and less top heavy.

Then the whole cycle of jump/how high starts all over again.

I really am not a fan of Crab, but I do fear this decision. If the sole driver behind this is cost, then it is bad for the UK and SAR in particular. Whilst I fully appreciate SAR(H) would have been a very sensible and reasonably economically sound programme with excellent platforms, this decision makes me think of a poorly funded and supported contract that will be regretted in the future. How can a company with CHC's experience be out by 20%? The DfT also do not have a good record- East Coast Mainline for example.

"Successful equipment fits and methods of deployment under private contracts are highly dependent upon contract conditions. It is difficult to match the evolutionary complexity and suitability of the previous arrangements.

There may be less scope for improvisation during operational conditions under civilian flying rules thus amplifying contract shortcomings. "

JF
May 2010
(to my MP)

It would be interesting to know where the 20% difference in cost lies, not that we ever will. I imagine the majority of costs to the potential Operators would be broadly similar over the life of the contract (assuming similar types of aircraft/similar operating costs). To my mind that leaves salaries and amount of training as two of the possible variable costs, a touch worrying I fear.

Or maybe the CHC bid included a provision to pay for the Directors' new Astons and Rollers... :E

Err yes, except for that one little matter of profit which can be worked in to a contact 1001 different ways!

Quote:

'Err yes, except for that one little matter of profit which can be worked in to a contact 1001 different ways!'

Profit is not a cost, it's a function of varying costs. Which was kind of my point!

The OP wrote: So there is no direct reference to cost but even if he had worded it "a bid which cost 20% lower" we still don't know if this is contract cost or 'real costs'.

As I said, there are 1001 ways in which companies pad out their submissions for the purpose of accruing greater profit.

What indications have there ever been that this wasn't going to be the case?

The problem is where does the 'happy medium' lie? Anyone with a sensible opinion will agree that the military over-train, which is great for the taxpayer as they can be fairly confident that if they fall off a hill or into the water they're going to get a pretty good service. Not that they don't when the non-military types turn up. This is the safe (expensive) option. The subject of what adequate training entails is an emotive one; there won't be a huge pot of training hours because it will be too expensive. How do those empowered decide what constitutes sufficiently experienced/qualified crews, how much and what type of training should be implemented and how should the whole thing be regulated so that it's a) safe and b) value for money? It's new(ish) territory as far as the UK is concerned but IF done properly should work. Probably.

A Polish version.

I fully admit to having very little knowledge of the operating costs we are talking about here - I just get paid to fly the things and have never taken a close interest in the finer financial details. But given all the fixed costs of salaries, bases, spares holdings, etc - does training hours really form a significant proportion of the overall costs?
How much would (for example) a 100% increase in the proposed 50hr training figure affect the overall cost - 1%, 5%, 10% ?? I have no idea but would be interesting to know.

Could it be that bond have undercut so sharply because they are owned by Invaer or Anvictis or whatever they are called?? Perhaps the parent company can simply afford to absorb the cost?
I also suspect that to come in at this price, Bond will have to bias towards an airframe with cheap running costs (perhaps the 139?). Surely they wouldn't come in at this level AND bring on board a new design like the 189 etc???

Only 3 months to go now.............

ONE
139 is history. One would be crazy to believe it makes it on the survivor count and it certainly can't carry the 'Standard MRT Load'.

TWO
Who says it's Bond that are the cheap one?

THREE
Who says Bond are the only one with a big(-ish) parent?

You have to factor in that the customer is a control freak who can't get a handle on other people being allowed to control who is playing with their toys.

Don't be so sure about the 139 being history Jimf.....

Don't be so sure about the 189 not being in the cheap mix TC

Bond will win the lights and Bristow will win the heavies. Done deal.

Don't CHCs parts cost up to 10 times the market rate?