N I, The only person I ever saw with a Flt Sgt MT Driver (routinely) was Sir John Grandy. Unless it was a compassionate job I can't see any reason for that to be done by a Flt Sgt, normally a job for an SAC/civvy MTD.

PM

Sorry for the thread drift.

When did they start paying the wages for SAR crews then???

When the civSAR flights get pinged for umpteen secondary duties (that they don't get paid extra for) guard duties, detachments, OOAs, zillions of military currencies (weapons, survival, promotion courses etc etc) then you might be able to draw a valid comparison.

You won't ever match what was required for a SAR flight, even when the engineering was civilianised and the manpower cut drastically because the demands aren't there.

One job, 6 -8 shifts a month - sounds like the Fire Brigade......

TOTD - yes, a civvy driver in a war zone for £15K.... someone isn't living in the real world and clearly resents the military...

I'm not sure why you are comparing a SAR flight to the fire brigade but I seem to remember you saying you did apply to be a "fireman" but they didn't want you. Perhaps they didn't have any firemans helmets big enough to fit your ego into. ISTR they only go up as far XXXL :ok:

Er.. the amount of time off to pursue second jobs/indulge hobbies.

In my day we used to do 8 shifts a month, detachment to the Falklands, a week of Orderly Officer and fitness tests and still ask for more work.....:ok:

Have you got a bit of a thing about large fireman's helmets??????

Crab I think you'll find it's all to do with duty hours. The CAA lay down the rules as you well know.

No, it's the European Working Time directive that limits them, not for flying hours, but time at work on standby - each 24-hour shift is the equivalent of 3 normal working days, in theory anyway.

There is still discussion about whether time at home on call counts as duty time or not or if you don't get called out at night and are able to sleep.

Your my bloody hero :D

You're*


(if you had done CMT 1/2, ISS or some secondary duties then you would know that)

So P3, poor grammar and no ability to recognise humour...........

Or Year 4 of a decent Primary School.

I suspect the EU working time directive does not apply.

Exceptions
You may have to work more than 48 hours a week on average if you work in a job:

where 24-hour staffing is required
in the armed forces, emergency services or police
in security and surveillance
as a domestic servant in a private household
as a seafarer, sea-fisherman or worker on vessels on inland waterways
where working time is not measured and you’re in control, eg you’re a managing executive with control over your decisions

Change of subject.


If you had the chance to ask the Coastguard senior management a question about ARCC Fareham, what would it be?



[No Duff. No Play. No Duff No Play. H = 311000ZOCT15.]

How many people with aviation experience in general and SAR aviation experience in particular will he have working there?

I know of one, who is a good and well experienced chap.

Eric - EUWTD does apply - MCA are not classed as Armed Forces nor emergency services (that is just Police, Fire and Ambulance) as far as I am aware and the 24-hour manning would have to be of a non-sleeping variety.

They tried to impose it on the milSAR but the 'military imperative' card was played.

The EWTD is a 'nicety' to observe but it is not a show stopper. What matters is our FTL as laid out by the CAA. We do get quite close to that limit if you work 8 shifts per month with a night call out, where it becomes a 24 hr duty period.
Crab how many fitness tests do you do? When I was serving fitness tests were generally annual events as was your Annual PWT, WHT, etc. However what people did get time off for was daily Fiz, time for expeds and adventurous training, and of course 'personal admin'.
A major problem with the RAF SAR world was that once you were in it you rarely left it, and therefore with the exception of a quick few weeks hop down south, they didn't deploy. Bouncing from one flight to another isn't really what the mil is about, so civilianisation is the right option.
Whoever suggested i had a gripe with the military could not be further from the truth, but when you leave something, then take a closer look at how it really is, then you tend to see its flaws and weaknesses.

my 'In my day' statement was an exaggerated joke - maybe I should have added some smilies or something:ugh:

So, eventually after 10 years or so, you will have the depth of experience that milSAR had - that was the point, it was a service with a specialist core so that others could bounce in and out of it (and many did, despite what you assert) - any dilution of experience was minimal

What you have now is a very few moderately experienced people (standfast some of the rearcrew) whose experience is further diluted by those from SH, junglie, Oil and Gas and a number of others who claimed SAR experience from things like MERT and some with bare minimum (after trg) NVG skills.

Eventually, unless you get a lot of further changes, the experience levels will build but lets not pretend that that state will be reached in a few months or even a couple of years.

How many pilots in Bristow SAR have more than 10 years UK SAR experience (recent experience)? - that's what was removed by civilianisation.

I agree that Bristow has brought in many with very debatable experience, especially in rear crew with paramedics off the street with very little training. Also I am aware that there is a genuine concern regarding some of the Pilots who have been promoted, apparently because they need backsides on seats. However, SAR is not a dark art, you don't have to have seen every situation for one to be able to deal with whatever presents itself. It is better to have a sound base level, with a very healthy dollop of common sense and pragmatism, and take each job as it comes. I am definitely not suggesting that an O&G chap could be sent on SAR Ops without at least a year or two of Co-Pilot duties. There are some barely average O&G guys out there, but I have also seen a lot of extremely competent non-mil pilots, who take as much pride in their profession as many mil guys I have served with. A mix of backgrounds is invaluable; a Junglie would be excellent in mountains but pretty poor hovering over the sea with little references, whilst an ASW chap would find NVG a bit alien but drums a doodle.

For what my opinion is worth, the RAF should have cycled their crews through SAR every 2-3 years, with overlaps in the changeover dates- giving much more experience to the general RW community. This would be paying dividends with the RAF SH becoming more involved in the Littoral environment.

And the answer to your last is more than you probably think.

If you actually passed the '5 mile march of death' Crab then I salute you. :D

jimf671 wrote;

"If you had the chance to ask the Coastguard senior management a question about ARCC Fareham, what would it be?"

How will the MCA ARCC maintain a neutral stance when considering requests for helicopters from other emergeny services that conflict with a request from a coastguard unit (probably sat next to you in the National Maritime Ops Centre)?

Norfolk - 2-3 year cycle is impractical as you get rid of people just when they are becoming useful and give yourself a massive training burden.

Much transfer between SH and SAR wasn't possible, especially since Afghanistan, because the SH force wouldn't give up its crews (pilots or rearcrew) to go SAR - again because of training burden and also because they would never want to come back.

Most SAR isn't a dark art - right up until something a bit tricky comes up - think Carlisle floods or a quadruple ejection - then it is experience that comes to the fore - not just in terms of flying skills but in command and control and understanding how you interface with other emergency services.

The answer to my last is, no it isn't.

Same again - the CFT, as it was called, that I completed several times on exchange with the AAC was definitely more than 5 miles:)

Good question Llamaman:ok:

Well thank goodness you're there to keep them all right:ok:

I would maybe read up on the EWTD bit prior holding your next SAR GOD masterclass:ugh:

4 Controllers:
1 x ex-RAF, ex-NATS
1 x ex-Sea King rear crew
2 x RAF ARCC

Operators:
Largely ex-military, many aviation, some civil aviation.



Also:

Manager of ARCC reports to Deputy Chief Coastguard.

Work-up will include a visit to ARCCK and Inverness base in two or three month time.

Funny how TG was the only man on the recent training course at Shawbury with any aviation experience whatsoever. Maybe the other skygods destined for the ARCC will be on a separate course?

Also strange how the Shawbury course didn't seem to be on Dougie's radar.



A conversation about this stuff continues. Expecting to understand more about the chain of command, concept of ops and staffing over the next week or two.

Cave rescue team stop coastgaurd helicopter rolling over
 

What is wrong with our bloody helicopters

grough ? Team stops Coastguard helicopter rolling over in Ingleborough rescue

;)

Embarrassing, but these things happen when you are operating out in the bundu. It could have been worse, they probably made the right decision to shut down rather than risk dynamic rollover which would have written it off.

RAF Sea Kings sold for parts :E


http://imbo.vgtv.no/users/sa_/images...%5D=900x506q80

Norway buys 2 ex RAF Sea kings for parts

Video (Norwegian)

Finally - an overseas training sortie for the Mk3A fleet - just a shame it's a few years late and only a one-way ticket:ok:

Crab

How is it in any way embarrassing?

You land; you experience vibration; you shut down.

Sounds like a very sound crew decision to me.

As I'm sure you are familiar,(with your vast experience) helicopters by their very design, are very complex pieces of machinery and things can go wrong when you least expect it.

When you say embarrassing are you now suggesting that there are engineering deficiencies in the operating company?Can't think of any other reason for you to describe it as such. Or are you just up to your usual? I'm sure it never ever happened to the RAF.

P3

I'm sure that Crab was merely describing how all we professionals might feel if we had to abort a life saving mission due to a technical fault; especially when equipped with the mighty shining new wondercopter?

The RN never feel embarrassment of course, goes without saying! :E

P3

You're way too sensitive. Have you considered anger management?

Ggrrrrrrrrrrr

Have you also considered that there may be a connection between the slope and the vibration?

Oh dear P3......... that was a Pavlovian response - crab posts, must reply in angry fashion.

As ever reading things into my narrative that just weren't there.

This is the embarrassing bit Perhaps landing fully on a wet and slippery (and presumably boggy) slope wasn't the best idea when just dropping the rearcrew off for liaison/briefing from light wheel contact might have been an option.

However, you never know when an apparently sound surface is going to give way, especially when a 12-ton helicopter is vibrating on it.

The really embarrassing bit is that it had to be roped to the slope by the people they had come to help.

I think it would be more appropriate to replace 'embarrassing' with 'operational hazard'. Those of us who have operated helicopters for any length of time, especially in demanding environments, know that sh*t happens. SAR involves putting aircraft into situations not normally experienced in most other operations.

Higher risk = higher chance of something going awry.

As the MCA, Navy and RAF have all proved over the years.

It's a bit lame to use this incident as a mud-slinging opportunity. The crew were trying to do their best on a somewhat sh*tty night.

I don't think wet and windy is exclusive territory for SAR helos.

It was never mudslinging and I qualified my opening word 'Embarrassing' with

Don't worry Crab I understood what you meant, P3 How about the pilot must have been P****d about his New cab giving trouble so soon, still better over land :E

That's because they are too thick skinned to be embarrassed. :E :E

Sloping ground limits
 

Just out of interest, what are the sloping ground limits for the S92? Not having a dig at anyone, just curious.:confused:

I'd be surprised if there were any actual limits for sloping ground in a civilian RFM - maybe a recommendation in the Ops manual.

Anyway, if there were any, they might be about to be reviewed:) That S92 is clearly bogged in (in the photo in the other thread).

Maybe the clever counter-rotating weights in the anti-vibration system don't work in the rain;)

WRONG!

From Section 1 of the RFM:
Slope landing limits are 10° nose up or down slope, 13° left or right side of the aircraft up slope.