B50& lionc- Fair comments. It happened in my last year of flying seakings before I retired from flying at the end of 2008,I am fairly confident because the year before I was in Florida flying Jayhawks. I will have to find my logbooks to provide a name, of which there are many! I didn't ring the unit, we were told by ARCC that the S92 considered the weather out of limits.

Anyone who even considers flying in thick fog is an idiot.

Tallsar, as you were involved in the last competition and seem to still be involved in the new - your opinions of what the bidders did is somewhat biased.

Try talking to the guys who actually were the SMEs and ask how far they had to dig into performance charts and specs to validate or invalidate claims by bidders to meet the contract specifications. I am sure that some elements were just errors but others were not. If there is no scrutiny of the bidders claims we run the risk of repeating the S-92 saga with claimed RoA not being true (until finally a tank was installed) and the AW139 fiasco of being introduced into service without night overwater capability.

The 139 is a space-age aircraft, perfect for what it was designed for - which isn't UKSAR. It is just too small to fulfill all the roles required - as mentioned can't carry a MIRG team, can't carry 2 stretchers and couldn't carry a baby in an incubator from Jersey to Southampton the other night. If that is what you propose for UK SAR you had better make sure there is another, bigger aircraft on standby somewhere close to do all the jobs it can't.

SAR/EMS AW139's in Australia do this every day. Offshore AW139's can carry 15 oil workers in the cabin so I don't know what your problem is but it is not the AW139.

I am aware of a number of dry jobs in the north where communications of one form or another have not been of a good standard. This means communications at a number of levels and by a number of agencies.

For a start, not having the MCA aircraft under direct ARCC control until April 2010 was a mistake. Therefore, we know that anything told to 202 by ARCC in 2008 about the Shetland or Stornoway aircraft was passed through ... an extra filter.

Throughout most of the 2007 contract, aircraft capability, training availability and a number of other matters have been shrouded in unnecessary obscurity. On the MoD side, there have been problems with comms and aircraft availability during the same period. A lot of work has been done fixing this stuff.

What I look forward to is a time when a document like CAP 999 is in place that acknowledges all the players and gives them their proper place, the contract requirements are publicly available and widely understood, aircraft capability and availability is an open book, all aircraft are controlled operationally from ARCC, the MCA authorise wet jobs (and invoices), the police authorise dry jobs, and all in the world is safe and wonderful.

One day soon?

Winchman/Winch Operator Stornoway/Sumburgh
 

Hi All,

Anyone have any information on this job(s) advertised on CHC's website?
Would it be a good career move to apply at this point in time? For winch operator position, any elaboration of the medical technician qualifications would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. LHSboy :ok:

"Anyone who even considers flying in thick fog is an idiot."

That's me then, (and instructor, Flt Lt N. R...H)

When we positioned for first take off on my 2 day FHT (final handling test) on the RAFSAR Seaking course, at Culdrose, we had to ground taxi as there were insufficient references to air taxi, due very thick fog.

(with diversion fuel for Heathrow)

Er, you don't know much about SAR, do you? Or are you just being a twunt?

I know enough to know that anyone who knowingly plans to fly into thick fog at destination is an idiot. Superman SAR God (or even a Flt Lt instructor) or not.

Epiphany - I suspect that you are not a SAR pilot. The ability to cope with adverse weather is essential and this most definitely includes fog. A properly trained crew in an appropriately equipped aircraft should be able to deal with thick fog. Whether this be in making your way to a fishing vessel with a patient in sea fog or hover taxying up the side of hills to a seriously injured walker. This is the current capability of UK SAR and long may it continue. Additionally I can assure you that in these cases the aircraft captain utilises all of the expertise of his crew to ensure that the risk is appropriate to the situation.

Please elaborate. I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to find out why this is so wrong, seeing as SAR crews have been doing it without a problem for decades. Maybe you could also write to OC 2 Group and ask him to amend SAR Force orders to remove our clearance to do so.

Well then Crab must be lying.

I am no longer a SAR pilot. When I was I seem to remember that we had weather limits and zero visibility was below those weather limits. However I am glad to hear that these days you operate helicopters that can operate effectively without actually seeing anything and that if an accident were to occur whilst flying in those conditions that the crew are absolved from any kind of legal repercussions or judgement from their peers.

You might not be aware but SAR is not an exclusively UK military based practice. Civilians do it and also foreign civilians - quite well.
.
I don't recall saying that Crab was lying. It is just a fact that AW139's (sic) regularly do what he says they cannot do.

Epiphany - at the risk of stating the obvious - just because your in fog does not mean that you can't see anything. The RN, RAF and MCA use properly authorised procedures utilising radar to make approaches to ships. By hover taxying you are able to maintain visual contact with the surface and control your forward speed so that you don't hit anything. Same applies for climbing up mountains in hill fog - you keep visual by hover taxying up the mountain utilising visual references and appropriate Conn/VM from the crewman. We'd be a pretty useless SAR organisation in the UK if we could'nt fly in fog!!

Additionally as far as I can see this has nothing to do with whether you are Military or Civilian - both are able to fly in these conditions in the UK

Perhaps - but they clearly don't do it very well if they are unable or unwilling to fly in thick fog.

Things have clearly changed somewhat since those long-ago days. Did you know that we also fly at night these days? There are these new-fangled things called Night Vision Goggles, but then you wouldn't want to know about them...no doubt anyone who flies at low level overland at night is an idiot, too...

Epiphany: perhaps it's worth clarifying - no self-respecting pilot, SAR or otherwise, would transit overland below MSA in thick fog (ie cloud). The exception to this, however, would be if he/she and the crew had deliberately got themselves into that situation starting from a position that was clear of fog and he/she was able to maintain visual references with the surface sufficient to maintain accurate aircraft control. This would normally mean a low hover, but (as jungliebeefer states) it could also be horizontal distance from a steep hillside arising from an ascent into the cloudbase. There are obviously other considerations as well, such as having an option open in the event of an engine failure. The end needs to justify the means, as the risk obviously increases, but it's not idiocy. (It had better not be, 'cos I've done it often enough.)

Over water, the pilot doesn't even need external references (until you are 'short finals' to the target eg ship) as long as he/she has a) a suitable AFCS and b) a radar to act as the aircraft crew's eyes. Again, there's no idiocy, just good training, good SOPs, common sense and practice. It's not even an exclusively SAR thing - the RN was doing this in the Wessex 3 years before the Sea King came along, and ELVAs are, by definition, intended for dealing with thick fog.

What type did you fly on SAR? Was it a Wx 2/5, without AFCS? If so, I can understand your point of view (to a degree).

E99

Really? So who did the contract evaluation on the AW139? I think we all know... :=

As I recall the 139 was not the weapon of choice of the SMEs but the politically and commercially preferred option.

You have just reminded my why you were so loved and admired when you were in uniform:ugh:

Have I missed something here?:confused: Has a post been removed?:confused: Someone slagging someone else off? Never!!!
3D

Has a post been removed?:confused:

Yes from Tallsar;)

Several in fact - sorry for any confusion

So what's the point of SME's if the Politians were won over by Swiss Tony at AW? Surely, they should have refused to accept the decision, resigned on mass etc? Or, were most RAF members trying to line their own nest and cosy up to the winning bidder? No names no pack drill...

As even a 4-Star will tell you - and did last week - you can make all the recommendations you like, backed up with appropriate evidence to support your case, but when the politicians have significantly different agendas they choose what they want.

Plenty about AW139, but this, though it wouldn't be my choice for big oceans and big mountains, seems to be a reasonably-sized aircraft in relation to Lot 2 requirements.

- Is there anything really wrong with AW139?
- Is it Lot 2 (and its predecessors) that has the errors rather than the aircraft?
- Is criticism of the AW139 connected, rightly or wrongly, with the ORNGE farce?

JimF - got your PM, thanks - appreciated. Soz, for some reason I can't reply to PMs at the moment, despite trying on 2 PCs!
Louis

Anyone heard anything about the transition-out plan for the MoD SAR bases? The thoughts are meant to have been thought and the meetings are meant to have met but I suspect it's all gone political. NIMBY time.

C'mon Tallsar spill the beans give them the latest dodgy news............

And where did that come from TC?:) - everything about UKSAR seems a tad dodgy at the moment... But all will be well in the end I'm sure!;)

As for transition plans...MoD or otherwise... Who is going to know anything about that? Perhaps in a year or so, when a contract has been signed, the winning bidder will be able to reveal all about their transition plans. As you know, MoD plans to retire all SAR SKs by Apr 2016.... Well that's what the SDSR said anyway... So it's bound to be true!:E

Service commencement dates are published as part of the DfT's publication package. These refer to unnamed bases 1 to 7 but with their Lot numbers specified, across a nine month period from 1 April 2015 to 1 January 2016.

The DfT have been asked if more detail is available. It was expected that by this time the MoD board would have provided an answer. However, no answer was available last week.

While all this is of great interest to flyers and their bosses, on the ground, or on the coastline, or on the launch slip, the foot-soldiers of SAR want to be able to plan for the changing capabilities of the air assets in their area. Certainly within the next few months, and probably over the next couple of years, I expect that a few events will take place to disseminate information and build the necessary new relationships. Hopefully, there won't be too much screaming and shouting between now and a group hug. :)

Let's hope that DfT have not started how they mean to go on. They still haven't announced the PQQ results yet but companies from around the world are now planning the site visits that start this week!

I believe that the visits were meant to be part of the dialogue phase of the process..after PQQ results.

As it stands there will be people en-route to Lossie that may find out in an email on Friday morning that they may as well have an expensive round of golf instead....OK, so it's not all bad!

Now that you mention it, the bar at the Hopeman Golf Club might actually be a useful addition to the visit list. Aircrew, MRS, cas. Perfect.

the future....
 

I thought this thread was about the future of UK SAR!!:zzz:

[QUOTE]I thought this thread was about the future of UK SAR!!/QUOTE]

RAF SAR force always get their priorities right - golf, pub then moaning...

At the risk of going back on thread for which I apologise.

It looks like all potential bidders have passed the PQQ stage, what this means in reality is that DfT didn't manage to assess them properly and as such are hoping for a bit of natural down-selection.

The way to do this is to completely change the time available to react by reducing it, with no notice, from 12 weeks to 4 weeks. This will effectively give those new players no time whatsoever to firm up tentative plans that may have been on hold pending PQQ success. 12 weeks was challenging enough, 4 weeks just plays into the hands of previous SAR bidders.

A sceptic might suggest that this automatically reduces the field to 3, FBH, CHC and maybe Bond if they can secure the right partners, and this may be the aim of the "authority". I'm a sceptic.

Am thinking you are so right Ron, especially if all the PQQ bidders got through. What on earth are the DfT thinking? Mind you, it's also debatable if all 3 of the companies you mention may have done any work either, given it costs money and they will be as reluctant as any other not to spend cash too soon.

I am sensing a stitch up... Big time! :eek::ugh:

So are we set for another fiasco which falls flat on its face at the last moment?

LinkedIn Helicrew Job Forum
 

Has anyone seen the Helicrew Job Forum on LinkedIn? Developing Assets (UK) Ltd are currently advertising for S61, S92 and EC225 pilots on a contractor basis. A little bird tells me there might be a S92 type rating up for grabs paid for by the company which could come in handy in the not too distant future.

Say what you want about life outside the military, this company's not just emerging into the market and currently have 25 operators employed across UK, Ireland and worldwide. Might be worth a punt!?

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=4...k=myg_ugrp_ovr

Surprises in rescue service list of bidders

Press and Journal - Article - Surprises in rescue service list of bidders

The list... Bond Offshore, CHC, Bristow, and the Ipod Consortium, made up of ERA Helicopters and British International.

Shetlander...having read the article myself, I suggest you go back and read it yourself again, and then consider a serious redrafting of the above post. You are in danger of seriously misleading the devoted readership of this thread.... Well that man who calls him or herself crab, anyway!:)

IPOD?? ... I don't think so!