With a token yellow blade to make it fair ;)

The only things that look better in dark blue are Wrens:)

If anyone wants to see how not to run a SAR setup then see the CHC operation out of Stanley for the oil rigs. Only because 2 ex-RN SAR guys were employed is there any semblance of professionalism but that is because of their efforts, not the company's.

The original plan was to have the aircraft engineer act as the winchop and lower a basket to the survivors!!! Bear in mind this is for an opeartion in the South Atlantic where sea state 6 is normal and the sea temp is plus 5 at the moment.

Fortunately the ex-RN chaps have begged borrowed and stolen (not really stolen) sufficent safety and role equipment from UK SAR contacts to at least provide a winchop and winchman combo who have a chance of actually rescuing survivors - at least by day because their aircraft has no auto-hover or rad-alt hold!!!

Now even this would be almost forgiveable if they hadn't been operating the rig shuttle for several months before the SAR capability became a reality (which was only a couple of weeks ago).

So, in summary, a professional helicopter operator gets a lucrative contract to provide rig shuttles and SAR cover and tries to do it as cheaply and minimally as possible - surely not the attitude required to run UKSAR!

you missed the BHL CG, Jigsaw and GFS bit.......

212man - I'm not sure what you mean by that, please elucidate.

As deplorable as the company-proposed response might have been, they will only have been providing what the customer required. If the customer only wants a big hook dangling under a Bell 47, and only offers enough money to pay for that, then a contractor wouldn't be either likely or able to provide an S-92 or EC225 with all the bells, whistles and SAR-experienced crews. The fault would lie particularly with those who decided on what was required in the first place...unless, of course, the Bell 47 was genuinely sufficient for the customer's requirement.

Besides, with an RAF SAR unit just down the road, why pay for an all-weather(ish), day & night capability?

Louis

Iron - so you think therefore it is OK to put oil workers lives at risk (because that is what is happening) because it is only a 1 year contract:ugh:

Please define 'limited SAR' - you can either rescue people or you can't - you would seem to define it as pretending to be able to do the job in order to get paid without actually having any of the required equipment, training or personnel. Is this really the reality of civil SAR and if so who is regulating it?

The rigs are over 200nm away from Mount Pleasant so, with the best will in the world, at night or in poor weather we won't get to them for 3 hours or so - even if anyone hears their mayday.

Their 'limited SAR' aircraft doesn't chase the ferry aircraft so there would be a 2 hour delay by day if they ditched at the rig.

Such delays might be acceptable in the relatively benign conditions of the N Sea but in the South Atlantic???

Oh, did I mention that 2 of the pilots have never hovered over the water before and there are no training hours allocated?? What a recipe for disaster. But it's OK as it's only a 1-year contract!!!

Oh - and if 'gold-plated' means being able to do the job you are paid for and expected to do - then surely all aviation should be 'gold-plated'.

Crab you're shouting at the wrong people:

Is the sad state of affairs when it comes to contracts, that is defined by the client not the provider.

No that is not what Iron is saying, again the client probably decided this and the provider is supplying what was required. The cost of a person's life is what the oil companies play with not the provider. Feel free to join the many anti oil company rallies around the world, but it is a sad fact of life nowadays.

Si

P.S. What has this got to do with the thread title?

Ah Crab,
You have dipped your toe into the world of commercial offshore flying and contracts. Something that a mil pilot wouldn't understand.

Contracts and the way they are run are regulated very closely by the customer and their aviation advisors/HSE. I should know i deal with them all the time.

I hope the 2 Ex Navy SAR pilots you mentioned apprechiate your post. :ooh:

I admire your passion for MILSAR and long may your posts continue on this subject.

:)

Worth pointing out that BI who were servicing that contract were refused permission by the UK CAA to conduct precisely the type of "Limited SAR" currently being provided by CHC, even though there was plenty of ex RN (and RAF) experience available.

They have achieved this by operating on the Cayman Islands AOC....some of us are very upset at the obvious double standard being applied!

May we get back onto subject, damn THAT's why my teachers always got angry at me at school.

Anyone heard anything about the new, (new?) contract?

Si

All potential bidders for the "son of Interim" contract had to have their applications in by today. So expect we will hear a bit more soon about that one. :rolleyes:;)

A brief googling only brings up Bristow as a contender. Guess we'll know more in the next few days.

Would CHC have the brass-neck to tender, I wonder?

Bigglesbutler - there will only be more speculation and wild-arsed guessing as far as the new new contract goes - anyone with hard int won't post it here.

I should have emphasised that the 2 ex-RN SAR guys are rearcrew, not pilots and that is the only reason the back of the aircraft (not including any wet-fit) is adequately prepared.

How on earth do CHC get away with operating on a Cayman Islands AOC in the Falklands???? What is not clear is who is actually responsible for regulating aviation down here, one would have thought the CAA would be in charge given that it is British territory but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Back to the thread - will CHC have the brass-neck to bid for UK SAR again? Of course they will, it's big bucks and big kudos.

Aircraft registered in UK overseas territories (including the Cayman and Falkland Islands) are regulated under OTAR's, which are essentially watered down CAA regulations, administered by ASSI. Google otars and all is there for you to read. The person responsible for regulating aviation in the Falkland Islands is the DCA, Mr. Andrew Newman, based in Stanley.

BIH operate G-registered aircraft, and therefore have to comply with CAA regulations, operating under a British AOC (I think), from which dispensations have to be requested from the UK CAA.

There is certainly one ex RN pilot working for CHC in the Falklands, and I'm sure they have other pilots perfectly capable of adapting to the role, in whatever definition of 'limited' is being used.

The only reason this SAR cover is being set up is because the serviceability record of the MPA machine is nothing short of appalling (I have heard 50%, which surely can't be true?). No SAR cover, no fly, with the result that for every day the oil fixed wing charter is delayed costs £100k - hence the quick fix. However, in the event of a real emergency, I'm quite sure MPA would get the first call, if they were serviceable.

Word on the street is that CHC are broke, and maybe going under?

I hope so.
What with the jungle drums bemoaning the lousy terms and conditions the pilots and rear crew are getting together with the debacle surrounding SARH, makes you wonder if they are on a suicide mission.
Plenty out there to fill the gap they leave behind though;)

50% sounds rather unlikely (and anyway, it's 'machines' not 'machine'!). Crab might be able to provide more information?

Oh absolutely, I couldn't agree more, damn I agreed with crab must need my head testing:E.

I suppose I was trying to prevent further mil-civ battles as there are other threads with such subject matter.

Si

Also an ex-RAF SAR pilot down there as well which escaped a mention.

Anyway Crab if you are not happy about it why not take it up with CHC management instead of slapping your gums on here. Google CHC and I'm sure a number will come up.

Wiretensioner

And what may I ask is wrong with that! :} Enough techiebashing crab, I'm SURE he would have done a sterling job. Raised strand / birdcaging on the winch cable, pah; do a trip. Hydraulic leak from winch return line; where's the ragspanner. How are those casualties doing? Casualties! Sorry was to busy listening to talkSPORT on the ADF, they'll be right, do a trip!:E

So onwards to 'Gap SAR', which appears to be the new name for the MCA contract. I see that the 'IPOD consortium' are bidding for the contract. Can anyone shed any light on which companies are in this group? CHC, not surprisingly, will be bidding to retain the contract.

Any knowledge of other bidders?