Interesting times
 

With bases going live[or not] it seems a fascinating time for the new CIVSAR. 3 types being juggled around and bases becoming active.
No doubt the AW189 will eventually mature into something of a sucess,but it may require a lot of patience.
The handling person i met yesterday at NWI said bristows have 3 SAR 189 based [and 2 crew change too] ,but SAR evaluation flying has slowed.
There was a St Athan bound 139 there too, somewhere, plus its partner which was last seen 'heading south'.
The 'kent question' makes for interesting reading, with the manston/lydd permanent base dithering. Maybe just build it at wattisham.....well done btw to 'B' flt for quietly plodding on.:D

Presumably, that's the second pair (G-CILN and G-CILP) out and about?

Looking like three a/c at Lydd the last few days then.

AW189
 

Had a look around the 189 at Yeovilton Air day; quite impressive actually. Bigger than I thought, although it was internally clean with no SAR Eqpt. Still the poor rear crew can't stand up, but I think it may have potential. Just need to get the bloody things off the production line......

It's a Bristow plan to save cash - only PORGs can stand up in the back and they will probably work for less money;);)

The 189 rear cabin is the same volume as the S-70 Hawk's (without those Pavehawk auxiliary tanks!!) but a wee bit wider and wee bit shorter. There will be bags of room compared to what was required in the spec.


Does anyone know if the Bristow layout is
- still roof-mounted displays at rear corner seats?
- using any equipment mounted on the port door?

Not quite:

3 pre-planned runs to conduct basic winch man 'touch and goes' with the Cleethorpes ILB - something that unfortunately had yet to be practiced with this particular crew/boat prior to the event despite Humberside SAR's intensive training work-up period prior to going live back in April. Wets were certainly not intended or indeed planned.

1st run was simply a dummy to facilitate boat positioning training using weighted bag; 2nd and 3rd being live runs. All runs had to be curtailed earlier than planned due to the ILB running out of water depth below her keel due to tide conditions.

The ILB crew had never exercised with an S92 helo before and were training two new boat drivers on the day which was far from ideal hence they for-mated on the winch hook/winchman rather than remaining below the aircraft door as expected. They also did not follow the approach/departure SoP that is expected...

There is only so much you can do in a 'role demo' versus full on SAR demonstration. I'm sure the crowds were pleased to see their local SAR helicopter put in an appearance after all... :ok:

So a pre planned exercise went TU, now for the real thing:{

For "the real thing" if there was any question about the ILB crew's competency the helo crew would ask them to stop engines, deploy their sea anchor and treat it like a dinghy. Simples.

sometimes, don't you just wish there was a 'like' button on this miserable forum? :D

Except, as I'm sure you know, that is far from simples as the downwash causes all sorts of problems and the run-in has to be quite fast and precise.

As for the role demo - RNLI crew inexperience doesn't answer why the winchman was 'bounced' horizontally into and out of the IRB - looks like a good way to pick up a back injury to me.

If they sit beneath the aircraft door, how will you get the winchman to the IRB since he will be behind the 'underhead' due to wind drag?

Yes Crab, I know. :)

Sometimes, as I'm sure you know, it's not as easy as I make it look. :ok:

modern winchpersons - bunch of lightweights then? ;)

Yes, I understand - I've been doing the same for many years:ok:

I gather things are still progressing well...... apparently the RCS this week had Caernafon, Inverness and Humberside all declared as No NVG and No Paramedic!

Brave new world...........

If things dont stay the same they will change and vice versa
 

..........apparently things have changed for the better this week wrt RCS status of the MCA aircraft. All three sites now declaring a PM and only Inverness without NVG.

Once we've seen one aircraft serviceable in a fleet of twelve, a true equivalent service will have been achieved. Not likely to happen fortunately.


Let's not forget that the NVG status has not always been available or thoroughly expressed on RCS. More progress.

it never needed to be, it was a given.

As for serviceability - we'll have to wait 20 years or so to see how the modern helicopters stand up to the test of time:ok:

I know that you have a sound knowledge of the history of UK helo SAR and the development of role eqpt across the years Crab so I am disappointed not to see that reflected in your recent post. The progress made by each of the four providers has been different in the absence of a single guiding authority or requirement.

As for waiting 20 yrs, I think we can easily see where this is going when a major takes about a week instead of three months.

Jim - not sure how development of role equipment over the years is even slightly pertinent to not having NVG capability or enough paramedics in one of the busiest times of the year.

I know it will get sorted - because it has to - but it is disgraceful that the new service is being stood up without being as capable as the old one - all very forseeable.

As for the aircraft - the 139 was supposed to be the all singing and dancing SAR aircraft with low down-time - right up to the point it was introduced to the maritime environment and flying hours at SARTU and promptly started breaking and corroding.

When the number of S92 hours flown in UK SAR is up to the same as the Sea King flew on an 'almost' constant basis, you can start crowing about the new aircraft.

For instance, flying on NVG was introduced in half the UK SAR fleet in 1993 and will be introduced for the entire UK SAR fleet by July 2017 (with the base that probably needs it most being last). British efficiency shining through again. :ugh:

On paramedics, it has been discussed at some length previously on this site whether this is the one of the essentials of SAR, since SAR is not Big HEMS. As with NVG, the previous developments in this area have not been either uniform or subject to fleet-wide planning.

I suggest that once a complete fleet is rolled out there will be a sufficient pool of trained aircrew available that such events will be very rare indeed during most of this contract. That situation does not yet exist.


Disgraceful? :rolleyes:

Unfortunate.


I hear you. Not AW's finest hour and there are repeat performances of a few of the problems currently in progress. However, AW189 arrives as we reach one million AW139 hours and examples breaking the ten thousand mark with the 700 examples flying around the world, including a significant SAR population, showing what an unproven aircraft it is. :ugh:


I don't like everything about the S-92 but it is a sound aircraft that has been in successful SAR service in the UK since 2007. There are no indications that anyone blinked when the customer asked for 98% availability on this contract. As far as I am aware all the main players intended to operate with one or two spare aircraft of each type until the DfT changed their spec to two aircraft per base in late 2012.

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?