Not only have some issues not gone away but they may be about to amplify. In less than a year, tasking will pass to MCA Aviation.

Since the beginning, MCA Aviation, and their Coastguard predecessors, have been poor reporters of SAR helicopter activity. In 2001, 'quoting the NAO findings [from 1998(?)], a UK SAR working group wrote the UK SAR helicopter Provision and Coverage Report and noted the lack of DETR/CG data for inland incidents.' Further comment was recorded in a report of 2006. No change has been observed. :ugh:

Thanks Jim - as you have said before, a less transparent organisation than MCA would be difficult to find.

The contract will look perfect because they are marking their own homework.

When the defence ministry looks open and thorough in their publicly accessible reporting and another looks secretive and barely competent then there is definitely something that needs fixing.

There is some excellent work that has been done by the DfT/MCA Aviation to get us to where we are now but to achieve the equivalent service that they say they are committed to they must report in a thorough and open manner that properly demonstrates contract compliance and value for money.

can you not do a request for information, as it is public body?

Today I received copies of the NAO report back in 1998 that is said to have kicked off several of the early questions about how the Coastguard deals with helicopter SAR.

When I get the time, I plan is to go through it carefully and identify the points that link to the subsequent provision and coverage reports.

Skimming through it this afternoon it is interesting to observe how far we have come, or not, in these 17 years. Most notable, is the slow pace at which not only the Coastguard-branded aircraft but also the Fleet Air Arm aircraft were integrated fully into the previous system (19 years after Fastnet!).

What is worrying is that no-one in authority thinks it is wrong to wait for a Non-NVG capable flight (whether that be temporary or permanent) to turn a job down before tasking an NVG-capable flight instead.

Or deliberately tasking a milsar flight instead of a civsar one to avoid getting in the way of NVG training or affecting the early RS15.

Very disappointing since this smacks of collusion from the military hierarchy.

This is supposed to be all about the casualty, not face-saving or politics.

Crab et al
 

After all that's gone before that's a touch naive methinks

G.

Although I appreciate the point you are trying to make Crab, I don't think it is as clear cut as that. Remember, there is no HAR3/HAR3A in Scotland apart from a museum exhibit.

No, but there are at Chivenor, Wattisham and Boulmer - look at the flights near to them.

Have just seen on another forum that 'B' Flt at Wattisham(e) stand down tomorrow at 13.00

A round of applause for Wattisham for continuing six weeks past your original close date.

And a round of applause for Bristow for getting a fourth base on line. Shame only one of them is compliant with the contract, what with two not being fully NVG capable and one not having an aircraft big enough to carry the required amount of survivors.

Perhaps if they hadn't been sending their UK SAR trained and contracted aircrew to fulfil a lucrative commercial SAR contract in the Falklands for the past few months they'd have a few more fully trained aircrew in the UK.

We are not there just yet but we'll done to Bristows for getting up and running for Lydd in a very short time. I know there will be plenty of crytisics our there but not bad for such a large contract with high demands. Before anyone tries to disagree please only comment with eqaully as good results, therefore military contracts do not apply.

Hmmm - hope the standard of your spelling and grammar isn't representative of what you judge to be good;)

Okay, so I had a few beers down me when I wrote.
I should have known there will be some .... person who would correct me should I make a mistake. In my merry state it looked fine to me but then again so did my thoughts about Crab.
Don't drink kids, it make you think of stupid things!

Crab, why don't you become a lover rather than a fighter!

Satsuma,

It's likely BRS were using the 'lucrative commercial SAR contract' as a training base for their people for UKSAR. It's normal to do after all. Why would you spend a fortune training people in the UK (or elsewhere) when you can send them on contract and have someone else pay for it?

because my love was for the Military SAR Force of which I was proud to be a part rather than what appears to be becoming a tacky commercial enterprise where cost-cutting (as nowherespecial has correctly identified) and contract politics is the name of the game.

I quite fancy a pint or two of what you were on jeepys:ok:

Nowherespecial

So from what you're saying, one of two things could have been happening.

1. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by trainees

Or 2. The Falklands duty SAR S92 has been manned by fully qualified SAR crews.

My guess would be the latter in which case they have been depleting their UK resources to man a commercial hydrocarbons SAR support contract. Shouldn't those aircrew have been in the UK doing what the UK taxpayer expects them to do, namely train for and man what is widely recognised as an undermanned UK SAR project that is behind on its training?

Or 3. They were qualified on type and gaining experience in role (on type) and fulfilling the FI contract when there wasn't space or capacity for them to fly in UK.

It would have been an excellent place to conduct NVG training but they clearly didn't have the resources or foresight for that.

I think we need to consider that a contract thousands of miles away in the southern hemisphere with part-time maritime LIMSAR really cannot provide any kind of support mechanism for a contract of the size and complexity of the UK SAR contract. And it is only S-92.

I don't think that on 26th March 2013 either party to the UK SAR contract thought that there would be three types involved for up to a year at the beginning. OK, so with common systems on two types it is almost like 2.5 types (2.673 types anyone? :E) but it is still a much increased training load at a difficult time in the contract when they are already trying to ramp up a wide range of capabilities.

I remain slightly concerned about NVG at Inverness though I am confident that they will be sorted for the winter. I am not going to get all excited about other bases going down on NVG capability or paramedic strength for a few days at a time. With the obvious extra training load and the size and complexity of this contract, a few glitches will happen as staff arrive from Managed Transition and Transition Teams get moved around to fill the gaps. Let's have a rested and properly trained pilot and paramedic on base tomorrow instead of an accident today. :ok:



And a big round of applause for all those who were doing this before there were any goggles or paramedics. :ok:

Option 2. Money talks (and is obeyed), the taxpayer has a little moan in forums such as this and is, essentially, irrelevant.

Llama, I think you'll find crab has it right.
Crab, the time it would take, yes and the money, to get a NVG compatable 92 for the FI contract would not have been possible. It all takes time. Also unless things have changed in FI civ aircraft can't fly at night so no NVG training. Nice idea though.

Seems a waste to drag one of their key NVG trainers down there to provide a bum on a seat. Oh, my mistake, that will be the option that incurs less of a financial penalty. It's simple really - commercial pressures trump operational effectiveness. Like the opposite of the military (in simple terms).

Sevarg - what I find rather laughable, and somewhat sad, is that a 'SAR' contract is fulfilled to provide cover for the O and G cover in the FI but only during daylight hours. If a last light rig transport aircraft goes down, who will they call to perform the SAR? Oh yes the military. How is that fulfilling a contract? Talk about minimum capability.

absolutely and the whole reason the privatisation is a bad thing.

Remind me Crab, for how long?


And the people you know who will be doing it after that: are they any good? Are they Crab-trained? Or maybe they trained Crab?

Shocking if that's true. Absolutely shocking, considering the non-NVG debacle going on in the UK.

Crab, Sats and Llama,
It's the the British Military, also still running the SAR in FI that doesn't permit flying after dark. Something to do with the type of transponder the Mil require. NOT BHL or the oil company. So no amount of NVG gear is going to get the training done down there.
One could say that the RAF are deliberately not helping to get things up and running, if an NGV compatible aircraft was available, which it is not as they are all on contract to the CG. Now what would you all say if you found a GC 92 on an oil SAR contract in the FI's??

I'm pretty sure that there have been both CAT and SAR(trg) flight in the FI at night. Are a few people stuck in the past?

Hot lz. Check 2224 where I said unless things have changed. As no one from the Milsar supporters club had said otherwise I guessed the rule was still in force.

Sevarg - I haven't been there since Jan 14 but I think the SSR thing is a red herring - it wouldn't take much liaison to get a conspicuity code for local training in a specific area on specific dates.

If the mil say no to that then it is not an anti-Bristow thing, it will be purely down to threat assessment regarding potential foreign aggressors (you know who I mean):ok:

Why should non-NVG capability be more of an issue at Inverness than anywhere else? If a rescue needs to be effected at night, overland in poor weather then surely such a reduction in capability would be of equal concern no matter which was the relevant base?

You're absolutely right. All rescues will be "AFFECTED" with non-NVG capability :ok:

Vespel,

Post edited, thank you grammar-police!

Llama

The SAR AW139 based at Lydd lifted a crewman taken ill off the MV Kent, a preserved tug in the Medway estuary on August 17th. He has since been released from hospital.
mmitch.

Good to ease themselves in gently with a nice, daylight, flat calm medrescue:ok:

To be fair, I think they eased themselves in with an NVG assisted search on the Friday night.

Perhaps because it's not about one crew member not being NVG current for a couple of days.

I suspect the pour soul(s) who are denied a rescue, or face a significant delay, don't really care why a particular callsign is unable to attend. The fact remains that bases are routinely declaring non-NVG capability despite the new service being sold to the public as "better" than the one it was replacing. It may well be in time but that doesn't excuse the less than ideal situation in which the UK SAR service finds itself. And before I inevitably get accused of whinging for the sake of it I'm not, just stating the facts. Senior people who hold gravitas within the SAR community (both civilian and military) read this forum. If we all toed the party line and harped on about how great everything was then they would be getting a skewed picture of the reality.

Trouble is, that is exactly what they want - there is no way anyone from Bristow or the MCA (or even the military for that matter) will openly criticise the new service as they have all been given the 'Gypsy's Warning' and, quite sensibly, want to keep their jobs.

Let's get real here.

The service that has existed pre-2015 has had up to 4 providers and all of them had major short-comings. There were reduced numbers of aircraft in some flights, poor aircraft availability, poor contract specification, absence or late introduction of critical role equipment, resources diverted to war-fighting, poor and unco-ordinated reporting, no de-icing, poor communications, and late introduction of a unified tasking regime.

Add to that the 60 year public love affair with the pretty yellow helicopter and the recent 'support our troops' ethos on the milSAR side and the contractors being constantly held back and tripped up by 40 years of rubbish contract specifications from the Coastguard on the civSAR side and a less level playing field would be difficult to find (so long as we discount the pitch at Kinlochshiel Shinty Club: but at least there you get to change ends at half time :E).

The UK's first entirely planned SAR helicopter service is under way and is out there doing dozens of jobs every month.

There are several things that could have gone a bit better.

- The Coastguard contract technical specs could have been sorted out 30+ years ago.

- The 24 year introduction phase for NVG could have been shorter.

- CAP 999 could have been sorted out 20 years earlier.

- SAR rear-crew licensing could have been part of that.

- Unified and co-ordinated standards of public reporting of SAR activity as identified 14 years ago.

- The AW189 could have been on time.

- Manston could have stayed open.

- The roof could have stayed on the Inverness base.


Toeing the party line is exactly what we have all been doing through decades of milSAR. :ugh:

.

Jim,

Thanks very much for the (thorough) lecture, you've kind of missed my point though. I make no claim that the service that has gone before was perfect and I also do not wish to take anything away from the excellent work that is being undertaken on a daily basis by the new bases as they stand-up. A forum such as Pprune is an avenue that facilitates the likes of myself airing frustration at a situation that is less than ideal. Nothing more. The issues of the new service will, in time, be resolved and UK SAR will continue to evolve (and improve). In the meantime, if we all keep our little mouths shut, nothing will be heard.