Too relevant. Please keep it off topic in future...

Has anyone found a slide in these presentation where 'in the vicinity of' is actually defined? Some slides make reference to part 3.1.1 so I presume it is somewhere deep in the tender documentation.

Crab

Here is a link to the document:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-sar-helicopters-services/part-1-instructions-to-bidders.pdf

3.3.1 is the only lace that "ivo" is mentioned as far as I can see. It's probably deliberately vague to allow a bit of creativity between the bidders.

Hope this helps.

Gene

IVO - perhaps by not specifying it will allow bidders to be creative in their justification of locations.

Inverness would be IMHO IVO Lossiemouth,
Glasgow IVO Prestwick
Newquay IVO Culdrose
Wattisham IVO Gt Yarmouth
Lecconfield IVO North Denes

And so on, if you can justify it why not move it? The bases were originally placed for easy access to fast jet bases / training area - sadly no longer required. Although there are equally good reason for the status quo, based on weather, access to low level maritime, ATC environment etc

Pas

Crab
I generally think you have valid points (we have worked together in the past) but you must stop using words like "risible" as I have no idea what they mean and I have no interest in looking them up.
You should not have wasted so much time doing ISS

Not really IVO (110nm away) and certainly not with Boulmer closed. Far too large a gap North of North Denes.

Humberside is more likely than ND for Leconfield (and I know you're only baiting me too but I can't let that gross misinformation pass uncommented on)

Flounder - thanks, I did mean Humberside, that whole flatland area is far too much of a mystery!

Pas

Si aircrew C, no effort required just cut and paste;)

From one of the plethora of documents on the dft website about SARH - there is a costing xls that seems to specify 600 hours training per base per year which equates to 50 hours per month spread between either 5 or 6 crews or just over 1.6 hours per day. But it's OK there won't be any drop in quality because training is for poofs and everyone else just gets on with it and stops moaning:ugh:

Crab, that's about twice as much as they are getting presently with SeaKing serviceability being the way it is. But don't let stats get in the way :ugh:

...which must be about 4 times as much as Navy guys and gals at Culdrose are getting. Studes at 771 currently taking well over a year to get through conversion...whose stats did you want to highlight, TC?

Well TC , I have just flown 3.5 hours of training so don't judge all the SARF by the state of the dispersal at Valley:)

The 50 hours per month are to include sim and HUET as well.

Blimey! That'll leave lots of time for NVG currency then:{

Thats not bad Crab but I did 4.4 Hours on my shift yesterday... but being Civ sar we need all the practice we can get dont we ;)

One point of note if you go to ops only due to what ever... currently that time gets carried forward I imagine it would do the same in the future hopefully.

6 crews? that would be nice!

that's because you have shiny new aircraft that don't go wrong much:ok:

Out of interest has the amount of hours allocated for training gone up since the contract started?

I think (and only think) there was a change but dont know by how much. All I know is every month we end up with a surplus of training hours to burn off and its not through lack of trying. :)

Yeah and there will be another change downwards if we keep telling everyone about our surplus...cheers! One or two months of heavy fleet maintenance and it’s time to play catch up for the rest of the year. The monthly allocation is - in my lowly opinion - about right. What can I say.......we need everything we can get!!:}

How many hours per crew do you fly in an average month?

That's my point every few months something happens and we don't manage to meet the training allowance for a month so it carrys over. So we are always playing catch up which means we never have to worry about going over the allowance. Which is nice. I agree the amount we have now works well and would probably allow us to do currency Training for other skills (such as NVG) with out an increase but It would be a real shame to have it reduced and lose the flexibility that it brings.

10 hours a month per crew seems reasonable, certainly for a crew with a reasonable level of experience. Having read the requirement off the site, its clear some can be carried forward too as now. How much is allocated to an RAF crew Crab? What we don't know is how much Type Rating and SAR role training will be offered prior to deployment on a new SAR base. I suspect it will be a good deal. Despite the naysayers, there is no way any of the credible bidders want to expose themselves as not delivering a high standard of service and capability. Everyone can argue about a few hours a month here and there, but the reality is that military SAR has had it good for too long in terms of flying hours allocation, so its time to get the balance right across the whole UK SAR show.
Despite Crab's pessimism I think there will be many experienced RAF and RN crews that will come over to us, so that will underpin the intial capability in depth. I know that at least one of the Bidders has a good training pipeline for new aircrew too so that will help sustain the longer term, and along with the CAA now looking at a proper Technical Aircrew licensing system, its hard not to believe that there is too much scaremongering going on here.:ugh: