All of the below are facts:
The road show cometh - April.
Those who apply to Bristows and get offered a slot through the managed transition route will have their PVR tailored to their needs. It will mean their pension will be ringfenced.
Those who circumvent the MT, resign and then get offered a job will not have their pension ringfenced.
New rules coming out regarding ringfenced pensions, in.......wait for it...............June :ugh:

TUPE:

When does TUPE apply?
Service provision change
• When an activity currently done by MOD in-house is outsourced to a contractor.
• When a contract for an activity that is currently performed by one contractor is re-competed and is won by another contractor,
• When an activity is being performed by a contractor, but MOD makes a decision to undertake the activity in-house, (in MOD). Inward TUPE.
• Transfer of a function from one part of the public sector to another, where there is a change of employer, (Eg:transfer between MOD and a NHS Trust).

When does TUPE not have to be considered?
• Transfers of assets only.
• The contract is to provide goods only and does not contain any service element.
• Reorganisation and transfers between central government departments and agencies (i.e. within the Civil Service) as there is no change of employer.

Who decides if TUPE applies?
In outsourcing projects, in line with Government policy, MOD will give a view on the application of TUPE in the contracts information issued to companies competing for the contract. Unless there are exceptional circumstances this will normally be that TUPE should apply. Bidders may agree with the MOD’s view or offer an alternative view that takes account of the way they propose to deliver the services required. As the
contracting authority, MOD may accept a bidder’s proposal that would mean that TUPE did not apply, but there would need to be a robust case to justify that the delivery solution offered better value for money than any other options when all costs had been taken in to account.


All the below are "for discussion":
100/250hrs on type and how and where these hours will be accumulated.
Allocated bases cannot be guaranteed. You cannot elect to work at a designated base.

For 'mil' crews, I would suggest: "Hold fast"....let the MT take the strain...this has been a long long time in the making. Bristow cannot afford to fail.:suspect:

Rats from a sinking ship?
 

Love to see the crab fats shifting sideways at high speed now the ink has dried. The years of slagging off the civilian SAR to now be faced with the prospect of becoming one, has most of us in fits of laughter:}

Reality check complete...:{

1. Get your licence sorted.
2. Get your CV in to 'BRISTOW' helicopters.
3. Impress the selection team with your ability to play nicely.
4. Wait your turn for Command if you have to.
5. Mil to Civ TUPE doesn't apply....sorry crab, no private schooling, golden pension etc, etc.
6. Sumburgh & Stornoway will grow on you, most of the current team did time there too:ok:

TUPE
 

TC

From a little further down the document:

Does TUPE apply to members of HM Forces working in the undertaking?

No, it does not apply to regular members of HM Forces or to reservists serving full time with regulars for a predetermined period in a specific posting. For some contracts, MOD may allocate HM Forces posts to work with a contractor as an integral part of the delivery of the service requirements.

Those who apply to Bristows rather than Bristow might not find they are successful. It has never had an "s" on the end.

Since when does that differ between the Military and Civilian Life?:uhoh:

TUPE Is indeed a minefield. Nobody seems to understand exactly how it works or how it is defined.

How it is applied depends on how desperate the successful contractor is to acquire staff and how many.

As an example when Bristow were awarded the Humberside BP contract they wanted the engineers, but not all so they initially drew a line by saying any engineer with a restricted licence was not required.

They (not CHC) then made redundant those who did not cross the line.
As it happens one guy took redundancy and the others were retained by CHC.

Because TUPE is so Byzantine there is a feeling that accepting it is sometimes easier than trying to argue against. There appears to be a gentlemens agreement between CHC and Bristow to apply it as in the case above and when Bristows lost SAR to CHC. I am sure it will be applied again for the comming exodus fron CHC SAR to Bristow SAR.
However they will only take the numbers they need and can make redundant the excess. Not that there will be any this time.

Interestingly when Bond won the Blackpool contract from CHC I believe TUPE did not get applied. No real difference between the two scenarios.

My own personal view is that if a contract runs it's course and a new contract is drawn up TUPE does not apply.

If contractor X is purchased by contractor Y half way through a contract and the staff are transferred as part of the deal then TUPE does apply.

These observations and they are only observations are based on personal experience.


As an after thought the Bristow-Bristows issue is reminiscent of Rolls Royce. Employees of that fine company only speak of working for Royces
never for Rolls, something to do with the history of the company.

dieseldo,

That ties in with my understanding, too. I just can't see how TUPE can apply in this situation. Different contract, different equipment, different locations, different licensing requirements.

TUPE was designed to preserve existing Ts and Cs for existing staff during contractual ownership changes. The military SAR "contract" is coming to an end.

TUPE is certainly a minefield. I have been peripherally involved in another arena.

I certainly think that if anyone wanted to argue it, there would be a good chance of rejecting the application of TUPE:

- different contract
- different aircraft
- different bases
- different government department as the prime mover
- completely different set of qualifications required

etc.

So how does this fit with harvesting existing SAR local knowledge?

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
 

Easy Jim,
You keep/employ some locally and the new guys have to learn it. It was ever thus as the military get posted every 3 years (except Chivanor)

OK. Lots of wishful thinking posts popping up. However, truth is there is a plethora of current civilian SAR pilots available to Bristows together with a load more ex military SAR personnel in different civilian markets. All of these would be more desirable than 'pure' military crew. Sure managed path has been mentioned. Maybe a managed path to junior FO at an undesirable base will be considered whilst they learn the trade. Time will tell.

I was wondering for the mil guys, as SAR pilots (RN or RAF) are you instrument rated? (Full) ?
Cheers...

Brutal - RAF SAR pilots are procedural instrument rated, RN SAR aircraft do not have the procedural IF capability - however, none of our our military IRs are recognised by EASA or the CAA despite the almost identical profile of the testing.

So in short, no, we do not have civilian IRs, although some have paid their own way through it following completion of the bridging package last year.

Sea King Driver...

..if that's the case then you may struggle to fit in, civvy crew rooms love a bit of that attitude ;). How else can you debrief the trip? ;)

But exactly the same task in the same places with the same basic talents. This explains the need for Managed Transition and why it must surely be a vital component of any plan for FULL VALUE ON DAY ONE.

But it isn't just the military with those basic talents Jim.

But who will be the independent arbiter selected by the DfT to make that judgement? Who will form the team that four years down the line are able to say categorically that there has been no loss of capability since privatisation of the service? Are the CAA capable of independently judging whether a wholly privatised SAR service meets the same standards as the services it replaced?

As long as the shifts get covered and the aircraft don't get grounded 225-style, it will appear to the politicians and civil servants that everything's working perfectly.

It's not good enough to simply state that there will be no loss of capability without a yardstick to measure this by and that requires a team of experienced external assessors.

I'm merely highlighting that some posters seem fixated with the argument that 'only the mil are good enough'. I've seen both sides of the fence and this just isn't true.

The maintenance of standards is an entirely different issue to who is recruited. I would suggest that the assessment /quality assurance procedures currently applied to CHC, and soon to be employed on GAPSAR, will be sufficient for the individual aircrew at a base level. Or are you suggesting that the current civvy bases are winging it?! Surely we're not headed for the mil aircrew V civvy aircrew argument all over again?! http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/.../eusa_wall.gif

As for the contract in its entirety, that must be done at a higher level than individual assessment of the guys and girls operating.

But who are/will be the external assessors and what is their SAR pedigree? We have Ofgem, Ofwat, ofcom etc? Who will form Ofsar? Someone has to be able to report back to the Transport Select Committee that everything's going fine and they'll need to base that on hard evidence that capability hasn't been lost. The public demand it these days.

Correct.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/444...ml#post7026647


It can be really easy to tell from the ground, no matter what colour the aircraft and flying suits are. However, it is almost certain that there will be a dip in capability in a part of the service and it has absolutely nothing to do with privatisation. There will be a new type on the scene and only an idiot would think that there will not be a significant period of learning how to get the best from that type. The same thing will happen in Norway when the 330 Skvn are re-equpped and in Sweden when the CG get their AW139s.

The S-92 is sorted and, with the new kit, the only way is up.

You could ask who's providing the external* audit of Mil SAR?
Or perhaps more pertinantly the current Coast Guard SAR provision?

*And no Flying Standards visits don't count because it's the Mil auditing the Mil, I'm sure you wouldn't be happy about Bristow saying their SAR operation was great because they'd checked it themselves.

I thought we were talking about the (lack of) need for a managed transition?!

I see no reason to expect a loss in capability. In fact, it will actually be enhanced by the new aircraft and facilities. The new bases will be stood up with the same standard as the bases very soon to be operating under GAPSAR. The contractor will be responsible for maintaining these standards. Surely that's enough? Or are the mil SAR aircrew suggesting that they, and only they, could be the future guardians of SAR standards?

I don't think anyone is suggesting anything of the sort but checks and balances have to exist in the public domain nowadays - although we don't want to descend into the box-ticking madness that prevents the NHS from doing its job because there are so many govt pressures to achieve maximum waiting times and minimum wasted bed spaces.

One problem with the perceived capability gap is that there has been no visibility, from either side of the fence, of what the other side do or don't do other than anecdotal information passed by those who have seen both sides.

Therefore, it is easy to understand the concern that exists when the majority of UK SAR players (currently mil), who know exactly what we do and how we do it, look across to the existing (not future) civilian providers with different equipment levels (yes, including NVG and 330 radar) and wonder how, with the need to fill another 6 flights with qualified, capable and current SAR crews, it will be achieved without the managed transition.

I guess the managed transition will happily work for the mil rearcrew because they don't need licences, IRs, glass cockpit time etc etc. they can also provide the much needed continuity and local knowledge that some posters say is essential (although its incredible how if this is so vital, mil crews have been permitted to hold shifts at other locations or be tasked by ARCC outside of their own patch on so many occasions!) :mad:

There is also a shortage of current civ SAR experienced rearcrew in UK to fill the future contract.

I can genuinely see it being a bigger problem for mil pilots. There are plenty of civ pilots operating in N sea and elsewhere who have a SAR background, either civil or mil. Not all of them will want to go back to SAR but some will. There are also the ex mil pilots being taken on right now to gain type experience in the N sea too.

I can see those mil pilots lucky enough to be given the managed transition will end up in co pilot jobs in the less popular locations waiting to fill dead men's shoes for capt slots...

Bing

You miss the point. A public service, and a popular and successful one at that, is being replaced by a private one. Directors' bonuses and shareholders' dividends will suddenly become part of SAR and that is something that a lot of hard up taxpayers have difficulty with in this day and age. For these payments to be justified, the new service has to prove to those who will be holding it to account that it has adequately replaced the capability of the previous providers. This can't be done simply with rescue statistics, line checks and KPIs. Experienced operators need to be able to independently evaluate what the front line is capable of and where it is falling short.

QHI

Er, no. Self-policing will just not be acceptable for the taxpayer.

and what SAR experience do they have? And what SAR experience will they get in the N Sea?

I don't really, I assume that the DfT will have to ensure the contract is being fulfilled as required which will involve some form of audit. My slightly oblique point was that presumably this already happens for the CHC Coast Guard contract, unless they're very trusting, so logically an extension of that system could take place.

The anomaly I was trying to point out was that the current Mil SAR isn't, as far as I know, externally audited which raises the question of how to prove the new system is or isn't meeting the standards of the old one if there isn't a baseline to judge against.

Some mil SAR pilots are now ex-mil and went to the North Sea and elsewhere some time ago. They might not be currently operating in the SAR role, but the relevant skills and experience, gained earlier in their career don't just disappear. After all, there are pilots out there with more relevant experience than some mil pilots might like to admit.

Some of them might even be current and experienced on the S-92 which would give them a useful head start over present military crews planning to leave the service to join the project. They will have to learn a new aircraft. For some that might come as a bigger hurdle than they have realised.

However unpalatable it might be for some, there will be a learning and settling in period for all, irrespective of their background. Hopefully, counterproductive attitudes / egos can be left well behind! If so, everyone can fit in and do a really good job.

Now, where's that dusty old coasting out and pre-winching checklist..... :E

So will it be - 'right 1 o'clock easy, easy. Steady' or 'boat axis, forward and right 2,1, steady'?
Do you prefer boat axis or aircraft axis? A small point agreed but which method will/do Bristow use?

Shy - I know one or 2 of the ex-mil SAR types who went a while ago to the N Sea but Spanish was talking about those ex-mil who are being taken on now - to my knowledge they are mostly ex - SH not ex-SAR, hence my comments.

I know of at least a dozen ex mil SAR pilots who have been taken on in the last two months. This is why I was previously asking about banging out early and getting into the company!

Ex SH
 

Crab,
You saying that the RAF can't turn out SH pilots capable of becoming SAR pilots??:D

Would imagine that after a 6-12month work up as a co & SAR commander under training that they will be just great in the role. Great team players and versatile to boot. Open minded individuals that have gone civ already in anticipation of having you as their co-pilot. :ok:

No, we have been turning SH pilots into SAR captains for many years - SARTU refresher, then SK OCU then 6 months as LCR then another year as CR then Op Captaincy - about 2 years flash to bang on average;)

I have no problem sitting LHS with less SAR experienced captains in the RHS - it's my job most of the time:ok:

Crab,

You see, that is why the MOD is too expensive. 2 years for an experienced pilot to go live?

Civilian world 3 months Type rate and get 50+ hours (that can be SAR role training on a non-operational unit) Depending on the area of operation and having a winter in that area 6-12 months could feasibly see a pilot of sound background ability attain his command.

Come on...you lot even got WW his command in less time and he wasn't 2-3000 hr ex SH pilot.

I'm sure you will be a great trainer, without the RAF BS behind you that you are obliged to follow:ugh: we hope you can turn out our pilots fit for SAR;)

NRDK - it's not that different a time-scale - remember I am talking about starting from a SARTU refresher - 1-2 months and then the SK OCU which normally takes 9 months. It is too long but the system is where it is and poor serviceability doesn't help. Once they hit the front-line, most ex-SH guys and gals will get to captaincy in a year to 15 months.

ISTR WW was 18 months or just under which is about right for an ab-initio (especially a good one).

The problem is that the SH guys on N Sea duties will be getting glass cockpit time but little useful SAR trg - once the Inverness training setup is running it will give all the requisite SAR and NVG training on type but until the contract starts, there will only be 2 bases where they can fly operationally to gain real experience. Who will move out of Stornoway and Sumburgh to make room for new copilots to cut their teeth and where will they go?

Once the contract is up and running, then it is a different ball-game and guys and gals can go straight from the S92/AW189 type conversion to a flight and crack on with on the job training - where, after an appropriate period, they can be selected for captaincy based on a proven track record on SAROPs and regular training.

"where, after an appropriate period, they can be selected for captaincy based on a proven track record on SAROPs and regular training"

and a vacant slot!

NRDK NRDK I agree entirely.

CRAB Nine Months?? When did that happen ffs??
If that's now the case, then added to the Valley Gin Palace, the SARF Commander and his 'whirlpool' of Wing Commanders and 'satisfaction' of Squadron Leaders (collective nouns), I am not at all surprised that Mil SAR has been deemed too expensive; it bloody well is AND there's crap serviceability to boot!

Just for info, I went SAR at Valley in the olden days after two tours SH (a healthy dose of RAFG followed by a distinctly unhealthy dose of SHDNI (or SHNFI). SARTS (as was) had Whirlwinds so I never did the 'long course'. I was on shift as a Wessex captain (D cat) within three weeks, following training officers checks with the Sqn QHI. After eight years I converted to Sea Kings (4 months) and seven months later was off to the Falklands for four months as an Op Capt. Eight years on SK saw me back on Wessex and then when the 3a finally appeared after three years, a week at the sim (no aircraft to fly!) found me back as captain on the first SK shift at Valley.

The actual job, and the capabilities of the crews, has not changed significantly since I handed my watch back. So, what went wrong? :(

Al-bert,

I'm afraid your fears are well founded. In my opinion the RAF SAR Force, to some extent, has become a victim of it's own success and a classic case of empire-building. There are those (not all) that would have you believe that the art of SAR flying is so highly skilled and requires so much practice that in recent times the approved training path for anyone crossing over from SH has meant 2+ years to achieve captaincy. The hierarchy then seem surprised that they have manning issues! It's no wander the Royal Navy sometimes are bemused at the RAF's approach and a commercial operator will clearly do things very differently. I hope that those guys who decide to jump ship, and deserve a seat, are welcomed with open arms but I wouldn't count on it.

llamaman - don't confuse the empire-building (of which there has been a great deal) with the continued push to maintain the highest standards of flying in SAR.

There are plenty of us with no career aspirations who pride ourselves in keeping the standard of the front-line SAR crews as high as possible - that doesn't happen by itself nor does it happen by sitting on your laurels saying 'this is the way we have always done it so that is fine'.

I have been fortunate to work with some outstandingly professional individuals from all ranks and specialisations in the RAF SAR Force and, despite the naysayers, our track record in maritime, mountain, inland and urban search and rescue is outstanding.

Who else has a standards organisation that does no-notice Opevals, checks every SAR flt every 18 months, are specifically requested by overseas govts to assess their own SAR capability and monitor both the training organisations and the operational ones?

Doesn't happen by accident and it continues despite the empire building BS.

Spanish Waltzer - bullseye:(

I think, as the dust settles, it will become obvious that there is a gulf between civvy and the mil approach to doing SAR when it comes to qualifications and standards. We are now seeing tensions rise as the mil come to realise that they can't simply "transition" to Long SAR without going through all the hurdles:
ATPLH
IR
Selection
Type training
On job training
Captain.

For many, this will come as a shock because it involves starting from scratch and no exemptions. The route will be tortuous and the target will continue to move.

Crab: Be warned, Those in the mil who understand what is about to happen - have already jumped ship and become offshore drivers to tick all of the above, ready to transfer across to Bristow when the time comes. The RN is haemorrhaging SAR pilots at an unacceptable rate, but they realise that the MT could be too prolonged.
Many could be sidelined by the time they wait for PVR details and pension rights.
Bristow are recruiting NOW. Have you already missed the boat?