Wouldn't seem that hard. Uh-60's go 155Kts and it's 35 years old and the new ones have auto hover. At the end of the day I'm not sure what a SAR aircraft needs apart from any other cargo aircraft other than a winch and some autopilot functions which is pretty basic stuff really that any production aircraft can do.

llamaman - the VNE for the S61 is 157 kts! Yes fatigue would be an issue but most of that comes from vibration because the Sea King has no vibration absorbers unlike the carson head which has bifilars.

Those that flew the aircraft in that configuration in the US during tests said it was v smooth at 140 kts.

Shenanigans - you are right but the helicopters that are often put forward for SAR are not 'cargo' helicopters they are corporate transport.

Multo Rapido Sea King ???????
 

I had the opportunity to fly the AS 61N1 Silver in 1982 and we were scooting along at 144 knots but the collective was under my armpit, the Tq was 86% (max Cont) and the thought of that horrible gearbox would be too much to bear. The CT 58's were sucking up so much fuel you could watch the gauges fall before your very eyes.

G.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...tage-2-sar.pdf

"The companies shortlisted to participate in competitive dialogue are:
1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd
3. CHC Scotia Ltd
Each of these companies has submitted bids for each of the three Lots."

That's a dissapointment. I was hoping NHV might get through for Lot 2 instead of all the usual bunch. This "competition" is looking less like one as each stage seems to go by.:ugh:Didn't the 139 look good last night? Lot 2 SAR by Royal Appointment - well that will suit me!;)

Royal AW139
 

An excellent aircraft for VMC transportation of Royals and business men - pity it's such a c**p SAR aircraft...

FT Article
 

A relevant FT article FYI.


Groups vie for search and rescue contract - FT.com


Pig

Sorry, but I don't know how to quote! However, back in July, Thomas Coupling commented

"......but the juicy bit, the pointy endy bit, the product end is always and will always be decidied by commerce. It is the contractor that will hold the customers hand and lead them into temptation, coax them into buying 'essential' this and future proof that. The customer has no way of outwitting the contractor in this regard as they have no SME in this area. This is why one ends up with a product that is modular/common/has synergies with other areas"

Actually, the MCA and DfT have recruited a team of SME's from the RAF and RN who are current operators. So they may not be as green as they are cabbage looking!

Green cabbages?
 

Actually No Vote Joe, the boys straight out of the RAF/RN have no 'commercial world' experience...that is the problem that leads to the issues that are being alluded to. Lack of understanding = the end product for the coal face will not be the optimum option that can be afforded and provided. Not disrespect to their SAR experience, just it is military based i.e not real world.

To keep their fat DFT salaries they will be 'yes' men, in the end it all comes down to money.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Mil SAR and Civ SAR were different? Surely picking up some poor chap from the bottom of a cliff is virtually the same whoever does the rescue?

Several of the gents involved are some of the most experienced folks the military have. No, they have little experience of contract law and high finance. However, they do realise when Company A states it can do a job with Aircraft B, and it will be so much cheaper, that in reality the aircraft is not suitable, practically it cannot do the task required and is therefore not Fit for Purpose and will cost shed loads more in the long run, or produce a lower level of service than currently provided.

Or is that too simplistic?

ps Still no idea how to quote!!

Well no, actually. If the poor chap is below the High Water Mark then, by statute, the Co-ordinating Authority is different from if he were above it and may be the same organisation that it writing the cheques for the aircraft. In a real-world situation, this affects relationships between the organisations involved, reporting and recording, aircraft selection, training objectives, budgets, and, inevitably, to some extent, results on the ground. Only extreme care in the design of the contract process, open-ness, inclusiveness w.r.t. all SAR organisations, and a good grasp of commercial reality, will ensure the best outcome for all classes of SAR operation.

No vote joe - you are right to probe this corner of the universe, but still a little green behind the proverbial. Sqdn Ldr bloggs or Lt Cdr sproggins who leaves to join such outfits is better than nothing, undoubtedly, but when it comes to the juicy bit where they select the "right" aircraft, it's down to the band of lobbying contractors who have been exposed to all this time and time again. Atleast the winning team will have several in their team who have masses of commercial/legal/technical/strategic experience based on what the customer wants but biased to what the supplier needs to sell.
At the end of the day, the customer doesn't really know what they want (without being derogatory), they rely on the supplier 'advising them what is going on outside in the real world, what is good, what is bad, what is coming, what is lapsed, what the enemy have, what the politicians need. A most complex game led by some very charismatic and enabling individuals, who eventually 'hook' the client with the best interests of all concerned....you understand:rolleyes:

JimF : Are you inferring that if a chap is picked up in Bridlington Bay then it will be paid for by a different body than if he were on the top of Flamborough Head, and hence different pressure/lobbying will be applied to these organisations?

I appreciate the Police control overland rescue and the MCA maritime rescue, but I thought it was all coming under a DfT umbrella?

TC: Surely the DfT does know what it wants - no less of a service or capability than is provided by the Mil/Civ mix at the moment?

So if a company claims it can be done by a certain airframe, and the DfT's co opted military SMEs say "Be wary, we don't think it can" or "It may be able to technically, but it's very impractical", then the DfT should have some ammunition to fire back at the silver tongued lounge lizards and put the onus on them to prove it?

Or am I still green?

No Vote Joe
 

Didn't say they couldn't do the SAR job.....said they don't know the outside commercial world and as such may lumber the Nation with some Froggy plastic fantastic promise after a fine trip across the channel lashed up with shiny trinkets and lunch at some EC type place. Not to mention, over burden the commercial operator with the sort of over the top MOD dream plan, that has cost the tax payer so much and drained the coffers.;)

Ah, I get it now. So when you say "with the sort of over the top MOD dream plan" and the DfT say "No loss of capability, No lesser service than now", it actually means we'll get what we can afford, we'll get what we pay for, and the deficiencies will be spun away and suddenly become enhancements!

Sounds like the Mil SMEs that have been working hard for this project are really wasting their time :(

Methinks you might be one of them too:suspect:
They are very low down in the pecking order for such a contract as this as to be almost imperceptable with the naked eye:ouch:
Contracts like this incorporate numerous strategic inputs: have the successful incumbents got a good track record in this line of work? Will they deliver? Can they guarantee spares? Are they robust enough in the eyes of the CAA/EASA?
Is the airframe futureproof? Will there be work for the british unemployed?
Is the deal for 20 x EcSH1392's a good long term deal? Can the public pay for it on favourable lease terms? On and on and on...None of which can be answered by several hairy ex pussers or crabs who know nothing else but to drive them!
Look at the previous lesson to show you what I mean:
Would the average SME recommend CHC after the SARH debacle. Surely their "advice" to the DfT/MCA would be: "Don't trust these guys". Yet...who is on the short list for a second bite at the cherry??? And who will NOT be persecuted in any shape or form for what happened last time: CHC.
It's not what you know old boy...it's WHO YOU KNOW and how they develop that relationship (short of corruption).

Look around you - show me a MoD/McA/DfT/government contract that's gone smoothly and I'll show you a contract where the SME's have been listened to!!!
Enjoy your SME'ing............................and welcome to the tribe:suspect:

"Contracts like this incorporate numerous strategic inputs"

Damn right they do; this is someone else (the government) spending my money. If all NHS contracts were decided by a panel of nurses, and all policing contracts were let by plods, and squaddies decided how many regiments there would be, and motorists who drove the most miles in a year made the decisions on where new motorways would be built, who would look after my interests as a taxpayer? No government-funded services should be perfect, they should all be adequate and cost-effective, and insiders don’t vote for either.

"Methinks you might be one of them too"

Not me, but I know a man who can!! :ok:

The SMEs have a very limited remit - they have to confirm that the claims made by the contractor about the aircraft's performance and equipment are backed up with appropriate factual documentation (the RFM generally) and that said factual information is included in the bid.

I think there is only one aircraft type actually in the running as it has already proved itself at 2 MCA flts (and I'm not talking about the 139;)) and all the bidders have offered it.

At the point where we have to concern ourselves where the casualty is and who will pay before rescuing him will be the point at which UKSAR ceases to be the world-leading organisation it has been for so many years and the point where all the concerns about privatising SAR come true - let us hope it never gets to that!