CAA FOI's fly with SAR crews as part of their inspection visits. They revalidate the TRI/TRE's separately. Oversight is present and has been since the first dedicated civ SAR unit in Manston in the 70's. Does that answer the question?:ugh:

It would do if they had recent and extensive SAR experience and were able to check the performance of the aircrewmen.

From bigglesbutler:
Do you think BB might know what he's talking about?

He does (and still flies regularly with a SAR unit)

Bristow also has its own Global Standards division, a separate business unit who role it is to set and monitor operational and engineering standards throughout the company. This includes crewmen, since a member of this unit is an ex and very experienced (and originally military) crewman. This unit is very independant and not profit motivated, and quite used to making themselves very unpopular when they find something wrong!

So compared to the mil, we have our own internal standards division as the mil do, but we also have external monitoring from CAA, some of whom as has been mentioned, are experienced SAR pilots.

Therefore those ranting about the lack of standards / supervision / checking are talking out of their .....

How does a CAA pilot check the performance of the aircrewmen? He's a pilot!

Bristow Global Standards = Self-policing. Who will determine that they've adequately replaced the capability of military SAR? That's what should be being reported back to the Transport Select Committee in a few years from now. Of course Bristow Global Standards are going to say their crews are up to the job. Why wouldn't they?

1m2

Give it a rest now. You've been on this forum for 6 months and never started a thread, just done the armchair judge bit on everyone and everything else.

In fact - you're not even a pilot perhaps that's why you can't grasp the way this industry police's itself? :mad:

The way this industry polices itself
 

Great answer. One that confirms the fears of many.

1m2
How independent are CFS Standards then? Are trappers (or whatever they have now) not internal policing?

Is im2 a journo? I think he and Pitts should get together - match made in heaven!

I don't know, but maybe his username gives an idea of how wide his horizons are.....

OSM
I think the replies you are getting represent the tediousness that everyone is feeling with your groundless argument. Why do I say groundless? It has already been pointed out to you that the success or otherwise of the UK SAR contract will in no way be measured by whether “the winch op” can do drums on one particular day of the year or whether “the winchman” can face forward during decks on a still wind day! Any more than you could accredit the success of otherwise to “the co-pilot” or indeed the “the captain” having a good or bad day during wets or on an LPC. It’s nearly a £2 billion contract and I am sure that there will be sufficient checks and balances to prove to Jonny public and the Transport select committee that things are as they should be.

You accuse contributors’ to this thread of ignoring your concerns but you continue to ignore their replies. Is the current so called "golden standard” SARF (RAF and Navy) externally validated or not! I know the answer to this as well as you do but though it’s been mentioned several times you choose ignore it. The answer of course (for those who don’t know) is NO. So how do you maintain such high standards and how are the public to believe that they are high and not just what your SAR STANEVAL claim (this is the very same argument you are using btw)? Moreover, as your standards are internally validated, how on earth do you propose that any independent organisation (who would not be privy to MOD SARF standards) could measure Bristow rearcrew to see if they could meet your amazing standards?

As you are well aware there is no crewman licensing atm so as with the SARF no external agency or standard exists that crewmen can be measured against! So how on earth does the current military exist and measure its self? I would suggest it’s due to a great deal of professionalism and pride! And you OSM, with your continual ranting on this subject are effectively suggesting Bristow and all civi SAR crewmen have none, and that dear chap is very narrow minded.

So rather than moan incessantly, come up with a valid solution (maybe you could be the CAAs first crewman examiner) or join the other side and use your professionalism to help keep the standards up in the future. Beware though, there are plenty of very professional crewmen already outside so don’t expect to jump in at the top, which I personally think this topic of yours is all about.

Snakepit - well said!

Hear, hear. Well said.

Now OSM can go about setting up his own SAR rearcrew evaluation unit as part of his obsession with high standards that no one but the RAF or RN operate under.

Last chance to answer the question OSM or leave this topic well alone: which external independent agency audits the work you do?

OSM, the fears of the many are usually based upon a position of ignorance. It can be a long hard path drilling down through the mists of time, the rather chaotic unplanned evolutionary nature of previous services, the really cr4p Sea King myth, the obscurations of the SAR workload by incompetent departmental reporting, and the years of highly specialist knowledge and experience that stand between the external observer and the practitioners.

After a lot of time spent asking stupid questions, my conclusions are that the contractor is up to the task (as would their 2 nearest competitors clearly have been) and the CAA is up to the task. In the early stages, I expect the same minor capability droop that one would expect with any introduction of new types.

The customer, on the other hand, continues to be a concern. The customer is the DfT and they are effectively British Rail by another name. They have done a pretty good job of handling the two recent SAR contracts and the specialist help they have recruited has resulted in a good set of requirements. The customer's agent is clearly specialist in Maritime and Coast matters. So there we have specialist knowledge in Rail, Maritime and Coast, yet the overwhelming majority of the UK SAR jobs are Land. That is where my principal concerns about this service currently lie.

I remain interested in the details of other matters such as pilot or rear-crew standards, or aircraft capability and SAR role fit. I cannot fail to be impressed by the highly professional individuals that I have met and communicated with who are progressing such matters.

The DfT and the MCA have two years to notice that this is not same old same old and that the workload on the ten bases is not Portland or Sumburgh writ large. I wish them success.

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
 

Jimf671
We are going to have to stop agreeing old chap! Makes for a mighty boring thread! He he

Do you mean the bit about me asking stupid questions? :O

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
 

Yes and me getting you to smash mugs lol

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
 

The good news is that the CAA have indeed allocated an individual to oversee Rear Crew standards.
The bad news is he is also the CAA Chief Cabin Crew Safety Inspector. His background is as a flight attendant with no Rear Crew helicopter experience.
When I quizzed him on this, he indicated that the CAA do not deem Rear Crew Standardisation and oversight important enough to warrant it being a fulltime position allocated to an individual experienced in the role.
I hope and pray once the transition is up and running, they realise the folly of such an attitude but I'm not holding my breath.

Splendid. So all is not lost regarding the demise of the Sea King water boiler? :ok:

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
 

Yes, new additions to the Crewman patter....'chicken or beef, chicken or beef!'

Tell him you have questions about the Welsh version of the safety brief for Caernarfon, the Kernow version for Newquay and the Gaelic version for Stornoway. That should keep him out of the way for a bit.

Dear God, please tell me that is a wind up?!?! Have these people really so little understanding of the nature of SAR? Aghast! :ugh:

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
 

No it's not. So for those who wish for CAA oversight. Be careful what you wish for

CAA Vs rear crew
 

Snaggle

Sorry no wind up, tis true:{ But if you feel so highly qualified perhaps you and One Square can apply for a position with them and oversee what has been happening quite well for 25+ years. OSM isn't really welcome in the new SAR picture if indeed he is even remotely qualified to apply.:ok:

Nicely put NRDK. The current system works and doesn't require any ex-mil self-serving input!

queueaitcheye, an interesting point. Without us how will you man UK SAR? I try to be inclusive and judge people objectively on their merits. Try it one day. Just for a laugh.

Mil input is fine and most welcome. It is the agenda-pushing that is distasteful.

I have no agenda. I just think it makes sense for SAR helicopter rearcrew to be overseen by someone with experience of that role. If they have no experience they have no credibility, n'est ce que pas?

Snaggle

The reason you are linked with OSM is that you too seem to suggest that civi (mostly ex mil) rearcrew need some form of validation that only you or he (or a trolly dolly from the CAA) can provide.

Just maybe thats the agenda that queueaitcheye is referring to?

I think you and a few others on this thread could do with a dose of your own medicine.

You are needed and will I am sure be welcome if thats where you want your career to go. Just be inclusive of the organisation that you might (MIGHT) be trying to join!

Miles Gustaph, could you offer any further insight into the content of the roadshow for us?

Many thanks :ok:

SKD

Miles,
Somehow your post ended up in the wrong thread. You posted in the grown up, facts only, corporate knowledge based discussion but instead it ended up in the hysterical, wild ignorance based opinion, Daily Mail letters-esque thread.

Nice post though! :ok:

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
 

212man
Humour? And a suggestion of facts? That's not allowed, wash your mouth out

As already stated maybe contributors should educate themselves. I added the BRS PowerPoint link and webcast link in the hope that interested would so just that . However it never ceases to amazes me how this thread can turn into pure BS. In some case some of the contributors only prove that they will not or cannot accept civil SAR but will still try and get a job when the the time comes. It's too small a world .

In relation to SAR crew external validation some of their skills sets may be receive external validation and auditing from the NHS / HPC .

This thread would be humorous if it wasn't so full of ill-informed crassness.

Meanttobe, thanks for the links - I wish more had followed them! You're comments about how small a world it is are probably lost on some.......!

212 agree completely its lost on some. But not lost on the people who have being following this and the original SAR H thread over the years . I'd go as far as saying some of the contributors and their comments may have changed the entire rational about filling the bases with personal directly from the Raf and RN.

Quite! There are some individuals who have written themselves (literally) out of the equation. Some have gone very quiet of late.......

Somehow I doubt that Bristow's recruitment strategy will be massively affected by what is posted (anonymously) within this forum. For every dim-witted opinion expressed within these pages there are plenty more that are worthy of merit. Bristow will recruit whom they need to fill seats with enough experience to make it all work. Some of them will be ex-military, some won't.

What, you think the recruitment strategy will be HR based? You honestly think they will recruit 100 pilots for a SAR contract on anything other than a client based requirement? Gap-SAR will be a test, I think, based on other stakeholders demands.....