You really have swallowed the big loyalty tablet Jim:ugh:

Nobody has done anything like this before. Not government, not contractor, not regulator. There are other situations around the world where there are comparable situations in one respect or another but not with all these pieces in place.

Could the contractor have done things differently? Well, one could debate the late ordering of the AW189 and it might or might not have changed where we are now. Maybe some dithering here or there but no show-stoppers.
If, but, maybe.

Could the customer (DfT/MCA Aviation) have done things differently? I have suggested previously that principles of Open Government are wasted on parts of the MCA. And then there is the clear and undeniable fact that it took them 30+ years to even think about writing a full and comprehensive spec for a SAR helicopter contract and 40+ years to get it signed up and start implementing it. This magnitude of step-change shouldn't have been necessary.
So that's a YES.

And their political masters, could they have done anything differently? Well many think that the AW189 is a necessary choice for a successful SAR contractor so that AW at Yeovil can be weaned off their fattening diet of MoD cash. But it's probably the only show in town anyway. EC175 anyone?
So that's another if, but, maybe.

Could the regulator have done things differently? If in doubt, reorganise. And so they did. And in spite of having an extra few years to prepare for what was obviously coming, they were still dithering with a few months to go.
So that's a YES.

Could one of the aircraft manufacturers have done things differently? One might expect that AW wanted to sell aircraft for SAR from the beginning. AW knew that the AW189 would be part of this at an early stage in the process. The programme for SAR role fit should not have been an after-thought. It looks very much like an after-thought now. The closer you look at this the easier it is to understand why Alan Bristow punched somebody at Westland.
So that's another YES.


"No plan survives contact."

And so, with all those elements not fit for purpose, we allowed the lowest bidder to win the contract...............

I'm sure it would have been so much better had CHC won the contract..:rolleyes:

Nice one P3.

Going for a Lot 3 bid may not have been the best idea though.

A Lot 1 + Lot 2 bid was expected by some. There are indications that the two Bs thought so themselves. So it might cost a penny or two more but you get redundancy in more than just aircraft number and type, diversity of implementation ideas, less pressure on a single contractor, less commercial risk, and slightly different and potentially more successful forces upon the regulator (and customer?).

So that is the only option with the potential to have equal or greater value to what we have now. Anything else, with a smaller contractor or one in processes of change or chaos, potentially brings us toward the Swedish situation, where nationalisation was necessary for continuation of service.

Oh and another thing Crab: do tell us about Stn 290 cracking. Early 1980s through to VERY recently with 3A and other upgrades not solving the problems and other nations seeing similar problems including the Belgians.

Rather a pathetic argument Jim - we all know the history and serviceability problems with the Sea King, it is a 1950s design that has passed the test of time with flying colours albeit with the odd problem here and there.

Why should we accept similar issues with a 21st century helicopter that is supposed to be so advanced?

The whole point is that a contract was let to provide a service no less capable - not in 6 months or 2 years but right now!

As for CHC - at least they had a realistic attitude to SAR training.

Crab will you be popping in for Coffee at Newquay in the near future?

The clocks ticking.

Why?.....................

doesnt the base start working up soon? I thought you were from that neck of the woods.

.........and a company that is probably about to go Tango Uniform any time now due to its dire financial situation. Where would your realistic attitude be then? I'm guessing the emphasis would be on "at least".

Crab.......do you ever bore your self sometimes?

I didn't say they were financially sound, just that their attitude to training was far better - clearly you don't think that is important and just love to bump your gums about anything I say.

Lowfat - I don't think Newquay stands up until Culdrose stand down from SAR which is Jan 16 if memory serves. I still live in the SW but don't work there any more.

Crab,

Can you enlighten us all please about CHC's realistic attitude to training and once answered then go on to tell us how it differs to the Bristow approach please.

Thanks.

Simples - Bristow has stated their training allowance for each flight and it works out to 1.5 hours per day.

That is not enough to keep SAR crews competent across the wide skill-set they are required to perform.

CHC didn't have such a limit and their training ethos was based on RAF practice not RN.

I've not experienced a cap on trg Crab, if people need stats we go flying and get them. That's in addition to trg front and back seaters for other bases, so we're regularly going over the notional 1.5 hours. :ok:

Over-simplification Crab. I do not know the details of this part of the contract but I suggest that there is likely to be chargeable training and non-chargeable training. One affects the other of course (just as training a SAR Force guy for a captaincy that at another provider you wouldn't need produces training hours for 3 other guys.)

The block charge forms roughly 80% of costs and the contractor will provide trained crews. Contractor's problem. No charges. Not in the "1.5hrs"?

Upkeep is a different issue and there could well be different flavours and different charges.

Is that how it is?

Somebody in here must have experience of recent contracts with similar issues. How do these things normally work?

Bristow briefed on their roadshows that each flight had an allocation for training of 600 hrs under the new contract. That's 50 hours per month or a little over 1.6 hours per day, I didn't just make the figure up.

They then said, when questioned, that additional trg would be achieved on Ops - what they meant is that a rescue could be counted towards stats chasing.

However, anyone from a SAR backgorund will know that the training value of most SAROPs is negligible and using it as a currency requirement is just disingenuous. It means that they can look like their crews are current and offset some of the training against operational hours that the Govt pays for rather than dedicated training hours that are included in the contract.

The result - quality of training reduces, currency looks good so KPIs are met, yet operational capability is gradually eroded since no-one practices anything but the basics.

I have no doubt that there are no obvious training caps at the moment because steady state hasn't been reached on the contract.

I do know that some conversion courses have included precious little SAR training compared to what the military would have done.

The UK is going to get what it pays for................

PS let me know when they start doing night wets and beacon homing.............

Crab,

And how many hours does CHC Lee on Solent and CHC Portland get per month then?

Did a beacon homing 2 weeks ago. Dim snaggio. :ok:

Directed to the RAF contingent out there. In response to Crabs quote of Bristows not giving enough training hours, how many training hours then does a RAF SAR unit get per month for a unit that has fully qualified SAR crew ie nobody in training and how many crew exactly is that?