Is a lack of NVG in some cases a reduction?

Not during the day;):ok:

So, chaps, if you were sitting with MCA Aviation management in Southampton, what questions would you be asking them?

Where are we going for lunch? ;)

Excellent reply Hilife but I think that particular point has probably been covered already and far too many times in this process.

Given the upcoming election and almost certain further squeeze on government department's budgets perhaps something along the lines of "Have you discussed plans for cost recovery in relation to SAR helicopter tasking and, if so, what recipients of the service are likely to be targeted? "

Interesting. A very tiny dent in the cost of twenty 8/12 tonne 4000/5000shp helicopters with a crew of four could be made with a difficult-to-collect couple of million pounds but billions were saved by dropping the PFI and letting this contract.


Was there a particular format of political suicide that you thought might attract our legislators and their agency?

Scenario 1
We cannot transfer your premature infant to the correct unit hundreds of miles away by air because neither your household insurance nor your private health plan cover the cost.

Scenario 2
Please text your insurance certificate number to the following HMCG number before using this coastal path/beach.

Scenario 3
Our database shows that your NFU membership has lapsed and therefore your chest and head injuries will have to wait until MRT are mobilised to your location.

I started to read the posts here last year as I naively thought that I might learn something from the wealth of experience that individuals might be willing to share. I was disappointed to discover otherwise - as are others I work with.

I am quite sure that if I choose to visit these pages again some time in the future then the same sad few will still be complaining about something regardless.

Meanwhile those of us who are actually doing the job will continue to enjoy the most rewarding career in aviation. ;)

Cost Recovery
 

Jim
I’m not trying to compare the previous (aborted) contract with current one. Personally I didn’t and don’t see either as a PFI.I’m quite comfortable with Bristow operating the service on behalf of DfT and MCA and am confident they will do a very professional job and provide value for money for beleaguered taxpayers.
Previous SAR helicopter contracts to HMCG involved a fixed amount for the period of the contract with additional payments paid by HMCG to the contractor per mission to cover fuel, operating costs etc.Does the UK SAR (2015 onward) contract have the same arrangement?Get me an answer to this and I may expand further.
I’ll get back to you on scenarios 2 and 3 but as regards scenario 1 that is already covered and has been for many years i.e. the responsibility for premature infants lies with the NHS.Other categories are covered such as hospital to hospital transfers including ECMO. Requests for SAR helicopter assistance in this area is subject to certain criteria – one of which is whether the requesting authority – ambulance control and exceptionally a hospital - is prepared to cover costs. This currently applies to HMCG contract, RAF and RN SAR helicopters.Costs are recovered from the requesting authority – not mum and dad, household insurance or private health plan.

This lot may help.

CONTRACT ON BUSINESS LINK

Pull down the Tender Documents menu to access contract documents with redactions.

Pricing Schedule is at Schedule 7.5.

Schedule 7.5



I cannot say I have looked at 7.5 thoroughly. I have concerned myself chiefly with Specification: Schedule 2.1.

Oh dear - that doesn't appear to have been met yet or is someone using the 'flares or external lighting' sentence as a get out of jail card?

and, when you have done more than 5 mins of it, you might come to realise why some of us care so much about the SAR service.

Oh quite a few years actually Crab, and many more to come in a different uniform and a shiny new helicopter :ok:

That makes him a crab.

FeD - :ok:

Bet you don't miss the smell of burning. :E

From Same Again;

Didn't take you too long. For 'some time in the future' read 'tomorrow'!

Whereas your contribution to Rotorheads, mostly on this thread, has been a continual round of complaining about and abusing others. If you had actually provided some helpful, valid or factual responses to questions then I would support your thoughts but not once have you done so.

Sarcasm should never be confused with wit; you seem to have a disproportionate ratio within your posts :=

Fastnet 79 on BBC Radio 4 this morning. "The Reunion: The Fastnet Race Disaster".

Available online.

The contract to me reads that NVG compatible cockpit is required, but NVGs themselves arent, flares/lighting/FLIR all satisfy the night time low light requirements.

But, as anyone who has done searches at night will tell you, NVG is the only way to safely fly the aircraft and give good search coverage.

FLIR isn't light amplification, it uses a different part of the EM spectrum and is often useless when there is moisture in the air or when there is no thermal contrast.

Flares and external lighting are nigh on useless looking for a person, especially an injured one who may not be able to attract your attention.

What does work is a combination of NVG, white light and a back up of FLIR - nothing else will match the capability of the milSAR that is being replaced.

chute packer has hit the nail on the head. The MOD and UK PLC have been undone (again) by a contract with inherent weaknesses. Despite all the promises of a like-for-like or even better service that is simply not the case. Trying to provide effective overland SAR at night without a full NVG capability is, quite frankly, cuffing it. As proven by the number of times in recent history that the Lossie flight have been tasked into Stornoway's patch to complete rescues that could only be completed by having crews fully qualified to utilise NVGs.

And for those that see this as just another whinge all I say is that (so far) a UK SAR service has stood-up that does not fulfill the criteria of being equally capable as the one it is replacing. I hope this will not last long.

REALLY? From my recollection Lossie were very reluctant to carry out any rescue in recent times. Unless it was relatively good weather, they had a crew to do so or they generally felt like it.

The ARCC cherry picked the taskings for them...

It's amazing that we now have a S92 carrying out taskings that 137 would have and did turn down.

NIGHT VISION IMAGING SYSTEMS

The contract Technical Specification has requirements that can be met with the current state of technology only by using NVG. It has always appeared to me, from the first reading back in 2012, that the spec was written in an effort not to exclude appropriately capable alternative forms of technology that might develop between now and 2026. :8

Does the contractor have NVG for this new contract?
Yes. :ok:

How do I know?
Because I have been asking them specific questions about this for two years and all of the answers are consistent with the specifying, purchase, training and use of NVG. :suspect:

How would I understand?
Partly because I can read so therefore I do: there is plenty info out there. Partly because I am a professionally qualified engineer. Partly because I am a user of night vision devices and have used a range of such devices during recent years. :8

Is it all going perfectly?
No. Inverness doesn't have the right aircraft and had its programmes further delayed by storm damage to its base. Other bases will be affected by aircraft and base problems that could contribute to training delays. :{

What is going on?
Well what do you think is going on? Read the ADS-B tracks same as I do and it will be pretty obvious. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:





“There is a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” (It is the duty of the rest of the crew to explain the last bit to the winchman.)

Shetlander

That was a rather inflammatory statement criticizing both the ARCC staff and the aircrew at Lossiemouth. I suggest that personal digs are not warranted on this thread, there has been enough mud slinging in the past.:=:=

I suggest that you substantiate your post or withdraw it.

Heads down, look out for the flak

We know that Jim - but why aren't they being used and when will they be operational with them?

Shetlander - the ARCCK does NOT cherry-pick jobs:ugh:

So, apparently the RAF had to do a transfer from the Isle of Wight last night of a sick child. Nothing unusual in that except that Lee on Solent would normally be expected to do that job.

Oh dear, it seems that Bristow won't fly anyone with meningitis:ugh: Brave new world!

Lee is CHC Crab. I wouldn't have thought that would be a company policy. Maybe it was a crew decision. We weren't there were we?

Get your facts straight Crab. I know you don't like Bristows cos they didn't give you a job, but this has nothing to do with them.

Your bitterness is leaking again :=

Oops. Bad drills Crab.

CHC SAR in the UK is a small operation and due to get smaller. If an entire crew were quarantined, would they still be able to fill the shifts?

Crab, I'm sure you can rest easy now - hope is at hand: Latest News - bristowgroup.com

Oh sh1t. Hasn't JHC done enough damage.

It could have been another tasking but the crew from Lee certainly performed a medevac from IOW to Southampton General Last night. Call sign Rescue104.

India Juliet, 2301h - 2342h, IoW - Southampton General.

G-CGIJ - CHC Helicopter - Aircraft info and flight history - Flightradar24

And similar the night before.

What's the matter Crab? Cat got your tongue for once ;)

no, just checking my sources and I clearly owe Bristow an apology since it had nothing to do with them.

However Rescue 125 did do an overnight medtransfer from the IOW from Wattisham so there is some misinformation somewhere.

My own fault for posting on the outside of a few beers after a busy week.

Sorry Bristow.:ok:

Well if they did the local SAR flight and Coastguard Center are totally unaware and there is no incident recorded.

You would like to think that if it is true one of those would have been aware.

All great news for those living on the IoW that providers are queueing up to look after them. :ok:

However, since R125 doesn't lay an AIS or ADS-B track and since the ambulance service or ARCC are the ones who would know the full picture of IoW medevacs, and they will not be answering to pprune, let's leave this one.

From my reliable sources, Wattisham did indeed transfer the child with meningitis from the IoW. The reason for this is the 139 is classed as an open cockpit aircraft (in so much as it is not suitably isolated from the cabin), and therefore the carriage of casualties with a contagious condition is prohibited. Not sure if this is applicable to the 189