Handover completed at 1300 today - good luck:ok:

I think I may frame that....:ok:

Well said 212. Do you think he is trying to make amends?

a bit too late for that methinks!

Just trying to be even handed - There are plenty of things that haven't gone right for the start of this contract, some of which can be laid at Bristow's door, or that of the MCA or the DfT - but this was not their fault.

Cheaper if we get all 673 copies framed in one production run. :E :E

Chivenor stand down report.
Chivenor Sea King Completes Final RAF UK Operational Sortie
mmitch.

Nice to see at least one of the support staff got a mention.

Thank you, all who have manned this commitment over the years.

We may never see the like again.

PM

Facebook page with many pics here
https://www.facebook.com/Goodbye-22-...8260/timeline/

Video here
https://youtu.be/fdrYddajiAU


Note the report in mmitch's post highlights the activation of a 2nd standby - will we see that in the future?

Nice video – and a good demo of how an ILB transfer should be done!

Talking of which, Golf India and Invergordon Lifeboat doing 20 knots together along the Cromarty Firth a few minutes ago and GI broken off and now heading SSE (Raigmore?) squawking 0023. 20151010T1508A




http://hmcoastguard.********.co.uk/2...following.html

Bristow Inverness:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...d-rescue-base/

163 jobs in six months. :ok:

(Lossiemouth Q2 & Q3, 2014: 121, 2013: 127.)


390 jobs on the Main contract across all bases in spite of late intro of NVG at Inverness and late start at Lydd. The number from Defence Economics at Abbey Wood for 2014 Q2 and Q3 for the predecessor bases was 348. Q2 jobs have been on a slightly reducing trend since 2009.

The use of the term 'taskings' implies that their figure corresponds to the 'callout' numbers from Defence Economics rather than the 'incident' figures which are lower.

Anyway, it looks like CivSAR works. :E


Next question - Will we ever see proper statistics about UK SAR helicopter work in the future?

Next question - Will CivARCC work?

Next question - Will CivARCC work?

With the MCA running the show? Your having a laugh!

(Re-arrange the following) 'a, brewery, they, organise, p#$$-up, in a, couldn't'

Be interesting to see the breakdown of the callouts and how many persons were lifted etc. Also if callouts were generated on the slightest pretext to justify the new service as it seems rather suspicious that Lossie weren't that busy this year up to the handover.
Civsar is a bit of a misnomer, it's more like exMilsarCivsar!
Anyway well done guys it's an excellent start, fly safe.
:ok:

Surely MCA wouldn't overegg their number of callouts to justify their new service............;)

The Defence Economics (DASA) numbers always had a list for number of incidents and a list for number of callouts. It appears to be the number of callouts for the MCA/BHL numbers in the article.

One might speculate that differences in shift times and other details might affect how aircraft were deployed by ARCC but that would tend to be marginal. There will have been a few where R951 have attended only to be replaced by R177 on the basis of low light capability. Does that count as a job? :=

S-92A, G-MCGY and G-MCGZ have recently appeared on the register. Suggestion of GY in Aberdeen and destined for Newquay.

These appear to be aircraft that Bristow originally had on order for offshore use in Louisiana. Just as well everyone in Louisiana is used to being short-changed. :ugh:

Any ideas on operating cost comparison between SAR S92 and SAR AW189? I would assume with Bristow now committing to put S92 into 2 of the original planned AW189 bases with the associated set up costs, it might make sense to leave them there and operate with 7 S92 bases with 15 aircraft and (in time) 3 AW189 bases with perhaps just 6 machines. This would also provide a saving on one airframe.

Since they don't have a single 189 on SAR duties yet, that might be a bit difficult to calculate.

Yes thank you for your valuable input crab. I think we all know they are not flying them on ops yet :zzz:

But, unlike in the military, such things can and are calculated as part of any contract development. But of course you knew that too. :ugh:

Let it go.

SW

A couple of problems with that.

It dents the government's effort to turn Westland into a proper commercial civil aviation supplier so not likely to happen.

S-92 is Helibus but AW189 is heli-sports-estate and as such has its uses in craggier corners of the Kingdom.

Jim, I hear you on the first reason. I hope in time though you don't regret wanting a sports car in the mountains....sometimes big and heavy is better at coping with those nasty downdraughts!

SW

Except that once you start going down, a bigger helo has more momentum to overcome so less weight and a bigger power margin is a better configuration.

SW - I think they had a good idea about the costs of the 139 right up until it proved how little it liked the maritime environment at SARTU:) Some engineering issues didn't help either but those are the sort of thing you can only discover once the aircraft is in situ and in role - but you knew that anyway:ok:

I hear you SW and I appreciate your point. However, I have been flown around the hills of Kintail in various aircraft from 2 to 12 tonne during the last three decades and the differences are pretty clear. I expect that the diversity of size and specification planned for the SAR fleet will be a positive feature. Of course, it's not like they will be deploying 350s or 135s in this case. The 189 is roughly the same weight as a SeaKing with monster power and advanced rotor technology. Am I wrong to expect such a machine to shrug off a fresh breeze but be a bit easier for pilots to manoeuvre in and out of a tight corrie?

Best laugh I've had all day.
 

You are a wag Jim.:O

I did mention Inverness-shire in my profile so the sarcasm filter should have been operational.

Sorry for any distress caused. (Still not working!) :E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqTawOdIVAc

RAF ends SAR. Tribute.
Farewell to RAF UK Search and Rescue
mmitch.

Manning Levels at Bases
 

What are the manning levels at the Bristow SAR Bases? Are all bases single aircraft? If not single aircraft; is it two of one type (S92)?

Manning Levels at Bases
 

Ok my cohort here showed in the thread that bases that are S92 are two aircraft.
Still have questions about manning; are both aircraft manned 24 hrs or is it one aircraft is the ready and the other is a backup with one crew for both? 24 hr watch? 12 hr watch? 8 pilots or more/less pilots?

This contract has always been based upon the manning of a single aircraft at each base. No second standby is required.

As the contract process progressed in 2012, first one and then a second EC225 ditched in the North Sea during oil and gas crew change operations and the DfT witnessed the chaos that can occur when an entire type is grounded.

At this point the contract changed from being one aircraft per base and 'convince us of how many spares you need to maintain 98%' to two aircraft per base. If you have two aircraft per base then if one type is grounded, or otherwise not available, then you can redistribute aircraft and still have one aircraft per base.

Oh wait a minute, we have one type unavailable now. And we are getting eight extra aircraft. This is fascinating isn't it? :E

One question that is raised is this: Since the costings were based on the 189 and the S92 is more expensive, who is paying for the difference now that there are more S92s than the contract stated?

Someone suggested that the DfT would foot the bill (yes the taxpayer) but surely it must be the contractor since it is a deviation from the contract?

Some progress since milSAR - less shift plot changes since it is £1000 extra to get a pilot to volunteer for an extra shift. However, since it costs £30K in penalties for a flight to be off-state, there is plenty of room for people to ask for more before it becomes too unpalatable!

Any takers for a £10K SAR shift???? Commercial reality kicks in.......

Now lets see. Who told them they needed to buy AW189s? Who didn't make them in time? Somewhere in that mess is your answer.

(Also true that Bristow weren't too sharp with their order process.)

I think they decided to buy 189s by themselves since the contract was for 2 types not 1. They can't lay that one at the feet of the DfT.

Manning Levels at Bases
 

Ok folks thanks for the info and background. But what is the Bristow planned manning level for a base; for argument let's say a two type base manned 24 hrs?

Redhawk, a base will not routinely have a mix of airframes. Either 2 x S92 or 2 x AW189(eventually). If a type is grounded, then the other type will be loaned from a nearby base thereby maintaining the coverage, providing you don't have any aircraft in deep maintenance at that time. Each base has historically been manned by 4 x aircrew and 2 x engineers on a 24 hour duty period. You don't have a fixed crew system, personnel are completely interchangeable. Also you have a (generally) day working Chief Engineer, and when there are times requiring more intensive maintenance you bring your off duty engineers in on o/t. Roughly speaking you have 10 Pilots (6-7 Captains), 10 rear crew, and 10 engineers. Also a part time admin person and a labourer to maintain the hangar etc. Crews will on average work between 6 - 8 24hr shifts per month

6 - 8 24 hr shifts a month for £90K - that sounds like value for money for the UK taxpayer............

Blame the CAA; besides I remember on my last visit to the SAR Flt at Chiv how many personnel were there to support one a/c. There must had been at least 15 engineers, a couple of ops type people, and on passing down the corridor beyond the crewroom, each of those offices had a least two people in them. I estimated that there were in the region of 30-35 'support' staff for one flight. When one considers that generally speaking manpower is the costliest item in a business it is little wonder why the RAF and RN will no longer provide UKSAR. I remember a few years ago when I was still serving being picked up from BZN and taken to Benson by a Flt Sgt Driver. I thought he must be the duty SNCO with no-one else to go and fetch me. But no, the air force actually pay drivers £40k+ PA to drive a car. You could get a civvy to do that for £15k. Now that is a waste of taxpayers money

Manning Levels at Bases
 

Norfolk thanks, that helps me. I was trying to figure out if it was a "touring" type job but sounds like a live there job (or ideally live there). I am surprised by the 24 hr shift since I always thought it would be more stringent than the FAA 12-14 hr duty rules (FAR Part 135 since once the passenger is on board via hoist it turns into that). FAA doesn't allow "on call" etc. Again thanks!

:eek:

Somebody please tell Senior Pilot that the sarcasm filter is on the blink again.

In Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/chooseyourownMiddleEastern****hole?