Hear Hear Handysnaks. SURELY it's time to stop sniping from the trenches, give the new guard a fair crack at the whip, and celebrate the good work they are already doing.

Take a look at the Australian model for an interesting glimpse of how well a civilian SAR service can work. (and thanks to the VIC police helicopter boys who pulled my unconscious - carbon monoxide poisoning - mate off his boat this week, whilst it was doing 10 knots in circles; GREAT work, you saved his life. Bravo Zulu).

Talking of celebration you might be interested to listen to BBC Radio 4 this Sunday when Sue MacGregor's programme "The Reunion" brings together five of us from Fastnet '79. It was a sobering experience to record it alongside Nick Ward, the last man to be pulled out alive that day, and the author of the extraordinary book "Left For Dead"

SAR is about PEOPLE who have lived for several decades beyond what they might otherwise have done, due to the skills and dedication of many of the contributors to this forum, both military and civilian. It's about highly motivated people working together to achieve a common and worthwhile aim. IMHO this forum should begin to work in the same vein.

JerryG

it's a pity that the truth re the Fastnet has been suppressed, and you were too junior at the time to know what was going on.
The RN controlled the whole debacle and the professional assets of the RAF were rejected - to quote Culdrose Cdr Air "keep your nose out, it's a navy show". I had three SAR Wessex crews under my command and ready to go from Valley. Two Whirlwinds at Brawdy were available and at least one new Sea King HAR3 at Culdrose, manned by the most experienced RAF crews (instructors), was ordered to return to dispersal when they self launched.
Following the Fastnet tragedy, RN SAR came under the OPCON of the RAF RCC's.

I explained this to Nick Ward who was a tad surprised; unsurprisingly the BBC were not interested! :sad:

A video of Rescue 951 in action at Ben Nevis. :ok:

Last time I looked at my payslip your name was not there Cyclic.

If you need to know about ANVIS then write to the manufacturers.

So that'll mean that Stornoway and Sumburgh are also in the ... em ... eh ... dark? :(

A few 'ifs and maybes' at the moment but it looks like there will be a SAR base at Lydd for about 12 months. Then if Manston can be reopened it will move there.
Manston Airport campaign gets 'double boost' from government - BBC News
mmitch.

What's that about being in the dark?

The only NVG capable asset north of Hadrian's Wall is a Sea King at present....

How many days in are we...? :ugh:

It's not as if there wasn't enough time to get this sorted out before the 'no less capable service' was rolled out.

Perhaps they should have prioritised getting a SQEP with extensive SAR NVD instructional experience into position 18 months ago......perhaps someone with a proven track record of delivering both initial and front-line SAR NVD training and extensive operational experience to back it up:E

Or maybe it is just regulations (which have had even longer to get sorted) that are holding them back!

Either way, the night capability, especially in poor weather overland, is seriously degraded and someone needs to get a grip - there is plenty of darkness at lower latitudes even in the height of summer so how are tricky night jobs going to get done then without NVD?

They'll be carried out without the sour grapes and closed mind that infect your repetitious posts Crab. Was it not that long ago that "offshore SAR is impractical without a 360 degree radar"?

So it is my closed mind that has led to the new SAR service being launched ( and the mil aircraft and crews stood down) without NVD capability is it???

A bit like my closed mind that led the HMCG to launch the 139 into service without any night over water capability a few years ago.:ugh:

As for the radar, not impractical, just not as safe:ok:

I wasn't referring to Anvis, I know plenty about them thanks - get over yourself. If you don't want to share anything good about the new service then don't - I'm sure HMCG & Bristow will be thrilled to have such a representative amongst their midst. I want you all to succeed, what I and so many others have contributed to over the years is too precious to lose.

Most of us 'contributed' in a previous military life too. Which is why the new service will run perfectly well in more capable aircraft flown by competent crews who all want to do a professional job of work. Judging by the recent tasks completed (including one at night believe it or not) that is exactly what is happening.

Sorry Al-bert, I can't let that go by without some very specific responses

Junior ... very possibly, but I was a bit busy that day to be arguing politics on a telephone!

136 lives saved in one day is a "debacle" is it? I'm afraid you go beyond the bounds of inter-service banter Sir.

Wrong. The RAF Nimrod, as an appropriate asset to the task, was gratefully received by us all and did an outstandingly professional job

The boys at Valley were admired by us all for their mountain expertise. Furthermore, although I concede that I'm guessing here, Wings would have been making a balanced judgement between Wessex from afar versus Seakings on his own doorstep manned by pilots whom he knew (and whose suitability he could therefore judge) personally.

WHIRLWNDS! ... on Fastnet day? ... you cannot be serious.

I reiterate my plea that this forum be used for handing experience forward. In that context why don't we old f^rts put aside 35 year old (plus some) grievances and discuss how that event would and should be handled if it happened again tomorrow within the new SAR framework?

Remind me how long it took them to get NVG?

Tell me about their thermal imaging capability?

Is it banter .....or is it boring? I'm losing the will to live over this subject.
The UK is/has been undergoing a dilution of assets (mil or civvy) in various shapes or forms since (probably before) 2007. For reasons other than the financial meltdown we found ourselves in (this simply accelerated the process). We (the UK) have outgrown our usefulness from a global positioning perspective and we need to restructure ourselves accordingly and align our current status with those already aligned to the 'new world order' (namely: Norway, Denmark, Germany et al). We cannot continue to run a world leading military order -simples. So paring back is the way to go. RAF SAR lost its raison d'etre - god knows how many years ago. It was surplus to requirement (as a military outfit) and several senior officers and politicians knew it. It just needed the right moment for it to be tipped over the political edge.
The government continued to squeeze further savings after the debacle that was SAR(H) in 2010. - Realising that this was far to generous a package handing over and so they grabbed the opportunity to 'adjust' SARH2 to within an inch of its monetary life by dicing up the new contract into much more manageable chunks. And so we are now left with a wafer thin (rescue) service like a lot of other 'public' services which will almost certainly not stand the test of time (look at the railways, GP practices, social care) without further financial injections at later stages or Bristow operating only to the bare minimum of its contractual obligations - and you can't blame them. Blame the government.
Further - SAR is a 'hidden' public service - the man on the street doesn't have the faintest idea what is going on in SAR, doesn't care and it isn't a vote winner.....don't expect miracles or even a par with its previous incarnation. Voters don't care.........................:rolleyes:

TC - Agree with you wholeheartedly. The easiest way to determine whether a subject has the interest of the public vote is to see how many column inches the editors allow for the subject. Not seen an awful lot in the general media & even the specialist media is not really picking up on it. Apart from the die hards on here & linkedIn etc and Bristow public relations putting out the odd rescue story when they happen for the same people to 'like' no one cares....yesterday's news is today's chip wrapper! Shall we all move on now?

Yes please

yes you can blame them - who undercut the competitors by huge a huge margin that the rest of the bidders were left floundering?

If it ends up as a 'wafer-thin' rescue service that needs bailing out when it becomes a political football, what exactly has been achieved??? Certainly nothing for the good of the country, its populace or travellers around and across our SAR Region of Responsibility.

So, to paraphrase Edmund Burke ' All that is required for crap things to happen is for those who know better to stand and watch politicians F**k them up'. Sad old world really.

No crab - you still cant really blame Bristow. Perhaps blame those that reviewed the bids and accepted theirs as compliant & achievable.....although to be fair apart from a few commentators on here who may or may not have much fact to base their comments on, there is little factual evidence that suggests the Bristow operation so far is non compliant. The lack of 189 flying has been managed appropriately with S92 cover which is still compliant...

SW

It is too easy to blame those who reviewed and check the bids for compliance - I know some people who were involved and it was a nightmare of a job checking every fact and figure (often stuff that should have been correctly referenced and presented by the bidder) - you have to draw your subject matter experts from far and wide and those with the best knowledge might not be the most experienced in this analysis discipline.

Whether or not the contract continues (or has even started) to be compliant will only be known by Bristow, HMCG and DfT so I won't expect any revelations here or in the press - we just won't know.

Perhaps then dont look for anyone to blame until there is factual evidence that something is actually wrong...

And whom screwed up SAR10?? Not Bristow, one hears that someone in light blue was feeding info to one of the other bidders. If that hadn't come to light not only would the contract have been overpriced but no doubt pockets would have been lined with our hard earned taxes.
So far all we hear is rumour that the NGV is not up to speed, supposition that there arn't enough bases and what seems like hope that the whole thing will fail and the good fairy will pay billions to the RAF to save the day.
As the RAF can't even police our coast and doesn't seem to have enough air defence aircraft to protect UK I can't see them getting the call from Number 10.
Lets put the mud down and watch how it pans out and if there are any FACTS that show that things are not as they should be then lets put in a post.

Agreed in respect of the geo-political framework. We are a little NW European country scrambling to get over our long-held delusions of grandeur. :ugh:

However, I suggest that a broader interpretation of the task of defending the British people could have been taken. SAR Force, Fleet Air Arm SAR flights and ARCC could have morphed into something new that resembled the Norwegian model. The Coastguard, with European Parliament ambitions for their extinction and limited authority within the current regulatory framework, needs to put down strong roots in new areas so that they can feel important and secure. Morphing into 'UK Rescue' fits the bill and if you don't have the skill set then just buy it in. :E


Agreed. The Treasury definitely had it in for SARH25. To put numbers on just the basics of that, if an aviation contractor is expected to estimate what something is going to cost in 25 years time then the estimate is going be HUGE. At 10 years, uncertainty is much more manageable.


Yes. We've been doing this since 1971. Somebody in government should have got a grip and sorted it out. No chance. Scrappy little contracts came and went without significant progress in the technical specification and the way they addressed the wider SAR pcture. :ugh: :ugh:

Without the challenge of a full and appropriate technical specification, the contractor kept bidding on what was there. As I understand it, it is not the regulator's job to stick their nose in and decide what the job is. The customer initiates the changes in the regulatory framework by specifying the task and the operator then has to work with the regulator to develop a safe way forward.

Now we are left with a huge step-change in the technical specification and therefore the regulatory framework. What it comes down to is that this was the job thrust on the shoulders of Liz Forsyth and John McIntyre last week. Good luck folks. :ok:

(From Casbag 36.) "This stuff is all new to us (MR) but we are not alone. No civilian operator has ever had a contract like this operating in a regulatory framework like this before. The CAA has never regulated operations like these before. That goes some way toward explaining why this has all taken so long and why incremental changes continue."

(As I posted elsewhere.) "Bristow will be experiencing all the problems you might expect with a major public contract of this complexity. Most of those problems will be ironed out and we will never need to know anything about them. Whatever mistakes Bristow make there is a good chance that they will also be made to carry the can for any mistakes of their customer or the regulator."


Yes. The voters don't care. That's because nothing has gone badly wrong, so far, as we approach election time. :eek:

However, perhaps around a million internet posts in English on UK sites have been posted on this subject. That doesn't count comments on internet press articles which might be another million or two. So it took more than a couple of dozen sad ppruners to produce that lot which means that quite a few people are ready to care. Also, the world is watching and contractors and governments around the planet are waiting to see what happens.

-----------------

La oss gå flyr. :cool:

Oh dear Sevarg - not ex-RN by any chance with that anti-RAF drivel?

No-one is expecting the RAF to save the day - the deed is done and we can only hope that the new service gets up to speed as soon as possible.

There may be regulatory issues preventing the NVG ops but these have been in the pipeline for a long time - DfT need to get a grip.

Meanwhile, HMCG have shown their grand plan for reducing bases and streamlining operations hasn't gone smoothly - Swansea CG was closed based on the incorrect assumption that Milford could cope - now they are desperately recruiting ex-Swansea staff because they were a. competent and b. had local knowledge.

And these are the guys tasked with managing UKSAR - they were proposing to monitor the UKSAR aviation contract using the same chap who monitors vehicles and other contracts - no aviation knowledge or experience at all. I hope they have finally got someone in who knows something about SAR, particularly aviation provision of SAR.

And who was the customer oh yes that would be HMCG.

There is a rumour that military rearcrew are being asked to bring their own safety equipment (immersion suits, helmets etc) when they start training with Bristow - the lead time on company kit is 4 months or so apparently. More fantastic organisation!

In Reply Crab
Oh dear Sevarg - not ex-RN by any chance with that anti-RAF drivel?
No afraid not ex RN, ex RAF but one that thinks for myself, as I have said before the brain washing didn't work.;) In fact I've been out so long and now retired, I would call myself an ex civilian.
Re the NVG RUMOUR of regulatory problems. This is up to the CAA not the DfT. The CAA or EASA are not behold to DfT nor should they be. Not that I am saying for one minute that they are not with out their faults. In this case I think it's the CAA and they are Quote Wiki:-
The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many other countries, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work. It is classed as a public corporation, established by statute, in the public sector. The connection it has with the government is via the Machinery of Government and Standards Group of the Cabinet Office.
So that's the cage to rattle, not much hope until the elections over.
I'm not defending the CG, I admit I know little of their workings and have had no contact with them for 15 years.
Lastly I see no point in commenting on the latest RUMOUR on rear crew safety equip, you say yourself it's a RUMOUR. I know this is a rumour network but here they get treated as facts.

Sevarg, apologies for assuming dark-blueness on your part.

If the CAA is established by statute, is part of the machinery of Govt and presided over by the Cabinet Office, then the DfT is exactly the cage to rattle - but I agree the election will prevent any actual action.

I can only state things as a rumour that I have not personally witnessed, no matter how much I trust the source of such comments. And, as you say, it is a rumour network.

Whilst I have every faith in the crews and aircraft of the new SAR service, I have very little in the mechanisms and organisations set up to manage and monitor what actually goes on to provide them with the best help possible.

A subject hardly worth our attention. However, the Coasties on the other hand ....

If these 'rumours' weren't true, someone would be on here gnashing their teeth.

Ask the ARCC who they'll be sending to night overland tasks in Scotland for the forseeable future. Prestwick or Boulmer, that's who.

As for the lack of immersion suits - it's been the case for quite a while.

Aha. The little orange petulant is back. Are you a Bristow reject by any chance?

I think Satsuma may have a point. The new service was supposed to see no reduction in capability and was heralded by a certain politician as a "better service". However, it is what it is and will no doubt (in terms of night capability) catch up as crews with previous NVG experience replace the transition crews. I'm assuming (read hoping) that is what will happen as the agencies involved are keeping somewhat tight-lipped about the matter. The ARCC has had to cope with no overland NVG capability from the two Bristow gap-SAR flights, it is not a new problem!

I read lots of 'points'. I see that the latest one is immersion suits. I don't know what planet these people live on but where I come from 100+ bespoke immersion suits take some time to appear - as do the measurements of crews not even employed by Bristow yet.

Good God it will be the wrong type of biscuits in the crew room next. Pathetic.

Just to clear up one important point, the biscuits in the crew room are pretty good. :ok: (Not sure if they'll be letting me near them again though. :E)

Calm down! I don't think lack of an NVG capability is comparable with biscuits. I agree that immersion suits may be a logistical hiccup and certainly a problem that has been got round. However, standing-up new SAR bases when not 100% capable whilst on the other hand claiming an equal if not improved service is, quite rightly, something that causes concern for those of us that care. Nothing more.

The alleged lack of compliance or capability that the same individuals keep harping on about is becoming more than a little tedious. You will not get any answers to your questions and snipes here on a public site for the same reasons that you will not find military crews declaring their capabilities on the military aircrew forum. They are tax payer-funded too but the public does have an automatic right to that information.

If you want information then I am sure that you are welcome to arrange a visit to your nearest SAR base where, if they are not out training or on a shout, they will tell you as much as they are able about the operation.

There are very few Bristow SAR crew members who actually take any notice of this forum. They cannot learn anything from it. One person described it to me as 'Jurassic Park', populated by disgruntled ex-military SAR dinosaurs, petulant Bristow rejects and armchair experts.

35 Year old Grievences
 

:ugh:

Jerry G, please don't think this is 'inter service banter', rivalry, whatever. The Command & Control of the Fastnet, probably above 'Wings' head even, was a goat f..k!
Properly crewed and trained RAF assets were offered and rejected. This is to take NOTHING from the RN crews who carried out those rescues - but when one witnessed (on TV) empty strops being dangled towards survivors who couldn't reach them, scratch RN crews being hauled in off leave by local radio bulletins, and the use of helos to fly camera crew (again, not SAR equipped) questions should have been asked of the RN Command. Those questions undoubtedly were addressed since subsequently RN SAR came under the RCC's.
BTW, RAF crews were equally capable over the water as they were in the hills. In my 22 years and over 7k hours I guess I did my fair share of both.

Wishing the new CIV SAR all the very best for the future. Onwards and upwards - now, is it navy patter or RAF patter you use ;)

Fred Flintstone
 

Which dinosaur are you same again and why are you on here? Not bothered though?

not half as tedious as the crap excuses made by the same individuals to avoid the fact that a very expensive Govt contract has been allowed to start without meeting the required spec.

Then, in a pathetic effort to denigrate the credentials of those who are actually concerned about this stuff, the same individuals start name-calling.

Same Again - fortunately I know that you are not typical of the Bristow workforce otherwise I would fear even more for the future of UKSAR.

35 years ago lesson learnt: RN SAR comes under ARCCs. :ok:

5 years ago lesson learnt: CG SAR comes under ARCC. :ok:

Now, lessons not learnt: give ARCC to CG. :ugh:

Thanks for the patronising response Same Again. Much of the discussion on this forum is valid (much is not). More importantly it is a public forum where people are free to express their opinions, if they upset you so much why are you here!!?

People aren't necessarily expecting answers but they are free to express their frustrations. If it makes you feel better by trying to shout them down then that is your problem.

So is the handover going seamlessly with absolutely no reduction in capability or not? That was what was promised is it not?