PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)
-   -   UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/511282-uk-sar-2013-privatisation-new-thread.html)

Thrust Augmentation 4th May 2017 17:03

Caught a glimpse of the AW189 over Fort William this afternoon, presumably training or recce of some sort?

I'll miss the S-92 when it goes, but the 189 looks to be a considerably more nimble machine that the flying box that is the S-92. The 189 sounds like the offspring of a Lynx & EC135 - much confusion & running to windows for a good look!

jimf671 1st Jul 2017 18:10

Changing of the guard.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDqBCReXgAA9NMT.jpg:large

TipCap 1st Jul 2017 23:06

Nice picture Jim

jimf671 2nd Jul 2017 00:44

Not seen any jobs. Maybe it was a playstation shift at PIK today. :E

S-92s off to Stornoway.

Sad times at Portland.

bigglesbutler 2nd Jul 2017 00:57

Nice picture :)

jimf671 2nd Jul 2017 20:58


Originally Posted by jimf671 (Post 9818542)
Not seen any jobs. Maybe it was a playstation shift at PIK today. :E


Or maybe not.
https://twitter.com/ardrossan02/stat...57666257760256

jimf671 20th Feb 2018 15:43

The full fleet is still not deployed on this contract and it is not yet clear when this will be complete. The scenario keeps changing.

A Bristow Group earnings forecast of a few days ago still shows money for the remaining four AW189s available only in September 2019 yet two of those aircraft were transferred to BHL on the register just a few days before that was published.

Yesterday, Golf Uniform landed at Lydd to join Golf Papa for a work-up period (6 wk is typical???) prior to taking over from the 139s.

So what does this do to the programme for St Athans and Inverness?

Has BHL financed these a/c in a different way?

Has Government levered this?

Anyone know who got the job at MCA Aviation prepping for UKSAR-Gen2?

======================================

New Info: Fri 23rd, Golf Papa returned to Lee-on-Solent to be replaced at Lydd by Golf Victor. So the two newly transferred (to BHL) aircraft appear to be doing work-up at Lydd.

drugsdontwork 20th Feb 2018 19:22


Originally Posted by jimf671 (Post 10059384)
The full fleet is still not deployed on this contract and it is not yet clear when this will be complete. The scenario keeps changing.

A Bristow Group earnings forecast of a few days ago still shows money for the remaining four AW189s available only in September 2019 yet two of those aircraft were transferred to BHL on the register just a few days before that was published.

Yesterday, Golf Uniform landed at Lydd to join Golf Papa for a work-up period (6 wk is typical???) prior to taking over from the 139s.

So what does this do to the programme for St Athans and Inverness?

Has BHL financed these a/c in a different way?

Has Government levered this?

Anyone know who got the job at MCA Aviation prepping for UKSAR-Gen2?

I don’t know the answers to your questions. I do know however that I feel I am providing a more effective service with Bristow than I did in mil SAR and I feel much, much safer doing it. Opinion my own. Sorry to those who bristle reading this.

[email protected] 20th Feb 2018 21:02

No need for bristling - we (milSAR) would have been far more effective and safer with all the shiny new aircraft but were never given a chance - a big shame but we have moved on.

Just remember though that you are part of a money-making business now so let's hope the finances keep going.

drugsdontwork 20th Feb 2018 21:36


Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 10059713)
No need for bristling - we (milSAR) would have been far more effective and safer with all the shiny new aircraft but were never given a chance - a big shame but we have moved on.

Just remember though that you are part of a money-making business now so let's hope the finances keep going.

What kind of a reply is that? Outside of the military it’s all commercial. And hell the military wasn’t immune, it was ultimately money that led to it being offloaded.

Pray tell, what selfless, non commercial, immune from financial risk branch of rotary aviation are you doing now?

jimf671 20th Feb 2018 23:44


Originally Posted by drugsdontwork (Post 10059749)
... ...

Pray tell, what selfless, non commercial, immune from financial risk branch of rotary aviation are you doing now?


Not expecting a full answer are you?

jimf671 20th Feb 2018 23:45

I believe that we now have a world-class service of a calibre that even many developed nations can only dream of. Its equipment and focus is different from many other nations because of our latitude, seas, terrain and climate.

Many of those providing the service are same people who provided it before but with four or five thousand shaft horsepower and some of the best 21st century kit available.

At a meeting earlier, I acquired the task of arranging another two helicopter-MRT training exercises this year. I will do that knowing that though they may be cancelled due to jobs on the day, at least the aircraft won't be broken, have major performance issues, rubbish comms, major leaks, burning power supplies, ....

Some small problems still need sorting. The one big problem still outstanding is that the 'Westland Affair Mk13' as I call it drags on and on slowing AW189 deployment across the Lot 2 bases. Latterly though, it appears it might be as much a Houston problem as a Yeovil one.

Maybe we'll see AW189 operating in the Brecon Beacons, out of St Athans, by the end of 2018 but I've stopped trying to guess when they'll be deployed at Inverness. A smaller and more agile aircraft available for tricky mountain jobs in the north could be a big plus with a S-92 from Stornoway still in the picture for wide area searches. It could be 4 years into a 10 year contract before the promised spec is in place. Not clever.

[email protected] 21st Feb 2018 08:10


What kind of a reply is that? Outside of the military it’s all commercial. And hell the military wasn’t immune, it was ultimately money that led to it being offloaded.
You forget that SAR was unloaded from the MoD because everything at the time was Afghan-centric and we weren't seen as 'core' military business - therefore they were never going to prioritise replacing the Sea King when we needed more Chinooks and a re-engine of the Lynx along with the Puma 2 plan etc etc.

Also, remember that the SARForce was specifically excluded from both the competitions so the actual cost of MilSAR was never properly established - probably because the decision had already been made that SAR would go Civ - not least because there was a very ambitious Chief Coastguard driving things along. You would have been working for Soteria if the first competition hadn't been fouled.

I am quite content that my current employment is revenue generating and I don't have a problem with a private company being paid by the Govt to provide a service - however, when a company is only kept afloat by one Govt contract (Big Bristow is apparently suffering financially) it doesn't take a genius to see that Carillion-style mismanagement could easily happen in order to present a 'happy' picture to both the shareholders and the Govt.

drugsdontwork 21st Feb 2018 08:25

I’m still not getting it. Yes, Bristow could go bust. However, it looks to have weathered the storm largely now. It’s a risk, for sure, but it’s a risk every company has. As is, being offloaded by the MOD because of higher priorities. The MOD is a slave to the politicians who can and do slash and burn willy nilly, with no real regard to the wider picture, because big boy decisions have to be made with limited resources. The MOD is just as much of a risk for having SAR, if not more so given the precarious state of their budget and defence reviews around every corner. My point is, there is risk no matter who has it. That’s the reality. Another reality is the quality of kit we have, the protection from being beasted with excessive working hours, etc etc. For gods sake we didn’t even have a TAS in the Sea King, never mind TCAS 2, EPGWS and all the other toys that are considered essential to keep us alive in the busy airspace of the U.K.

drugsdontwork 21st Feb 2018 09:23

I have to say as well that the attitude to risk is better now with civilian SAR. It was a bit of a shock when I came across and learned that we don’t commit the aircraft for training. And it’s a bit of a pain in the backside now when we want to achieve certain training elements. But I shudder now when I look back to the hours and hours of being committed to night drums, the SMIT or other boats, and probably more often than we care to admit, to the top of a bunch of MR guys and girls. You and I Crab both know how quickly the cab would drop in a hover advanced single engine exercise. Yes we endeavoured to commit away from hazards but where was the data set to support that decision making? Mil SAR brought a mil approach to risk. How many times did we commit to nasty hover taxiing up hills for a twisted sock? All the bloody time. All of us did it. We got away with it largely thank god. Civvy SAR has its frustrations but if you want to talk about risk it’s mitigated much more these days than it was.

[email protected] 21st Feb 2018 10:26

Yes, I understand the risk issues but we were military pilots who might be asked to do far more dangerous things than just hover committed - it was more about mindset than anything else. You don't find SH pilots bleating about operating near the limits of their aircraft in hostile conditions but unfortunately, some in the MilSAR force forget they were actually in the military and became slightly Prima-donna-ish about such things.

Yes, the risk/reward balance sometimes went the wrong way but you know as well as I do that the initial scramble report may be wildly wrong about the nature of the injuries and you don't want to be the one who played the 'safety card' when someone was bleeding out on a hill.

Perhaps it is a generational thing and the fact that I did more than just SAR in 32 years but I have always been comfortable with the risks involved - once you start worrying yourself about that too much you would never get airborne.

I agree entirely about the advantages of all the new kit and I am the biggest advocate of things like TAS - I wouldn't fly without it now - but I still maintain that using 'power-by the hour' or similar COMO terms would have retained out Mil capability whilst equipping us with the best kit available - I think we threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I know Bristow have the best people - I used to work with most of them!

Thomas coupling 21st Feb 2018 15:24

drugsdontwork:

You missed something:

The military have a word the civvies aren't allowed to use in commercial ops:
ATTRITION.
The MoD builds in attrition when they mitigate risk, which is why several of their "Ops" are ALARP'd in the red sector. Something the civvy world would run a mile from.

Is it a good or bad thing?

In the mil - the saying goes: Couldn't take a joke.....shouldn't have joined.
In civvy street, risks cost money. Money rules. Don't take (red) risks.

IE: Don't do SAR training if you can't hover on one engine. Only do it in anger.

retreating blade 21st Feb 2018 15:43

Risk and Safety
 
I find this conversation mildly amusing but respect your understandable modern day concerns.
Life was far more simple in my military SAR days in the late 60s and early 70s when we only had one engine to worry about. I cannot recall failing to launch ever.

drugsdontwork 21st Feb 2018 16:09

My comments on risk may be amusing, I’m glad they are. It’s not my own aversion to risk, I’m quite happy with that, like you say can’t take a joke etc etc. But I’m not sure it’s fair to extend a cavalier, it’s only atttition approach to the MRT and others who huddle or dangle under the aircraft. They didnt join the military after all.

[email protected] 21st Feb 2018 17:32


They didnt join the military after all.
No, but they are all volunteers and expose themselves to very risky scenarios on the sides of mountains in atrocious weather so you shouldn't deny their willingness to accept every risk. Yes. try to minimise risk where possible but SAR isn't a risk-free business (well unless you don't actually want to rescue anyone) whether done by MRT, RNLI, heliSAR or anyone else.

The engine-failure in a twin is so unlikely nowadays, especially in modern, state of the art helicopters that avoiding ever training when not OEI capable is frankly overkill and makes training properly far less likely.

The aversion to hovering committed became very high-profile on the Sea King following the OTG problems - not actual engine failures - and plenty of people got very precious about it. During the period we were trying to mitigate it, the quality of our training went down dramatically.

Remember, you are not training for the easy jobs, you are training for the hard ones and, if you don't accept some risks in training, you will be poorly prepared for reality.

jimf671 21st Feb 2018 18:18


Originally Posted by drugsdontwork (Post 10060170)
... ...

... How many times did we commit to nasty hover taxiing up hills for a twisted sock? All the bloody time. All of us did it. We got away with it largely thank god.
... ...

There. Reality.


However,
the risk-taking of UK MilSAR was easily eclipsed by the military flyers of some allied nations. I have heard several scary tales of daring-do from SAR Force pilots describing their experiences while training in other territories (the helicopter near miss with the bus always sticks in my mind :eek:). Some of the civilian rescue flying in other EASA territories raises eyebrows in these parts and the rate of European Human External Cargo accidents is still too high.

So UK MilSAR flying was safe in relation to many other examples and now UK CivSAR is safer. And the job is still being done very very well. :D

Thank you to all those working to keep us safe on the wire. :ok:

[email protected] 21st Feb 2018 20:40

So when there is a need to hover taxi up a mountain in cloud, will it only be done if the casualty has life-threatening injuries (if you actually know that at the time) or will there be times where you just say 'f88k it' and leave them to it.

Jim, you know that many helicopter extractions are often conducted because leaving the MRT to do it would put them at significant risk with a stretcher in poor weather on treacherous terrain - how do you feel about the 'super-safe' SAR crew letting you get on with it because there is a 1 x 10-5 or even 10-6 chance of a single engine failure?

What next? No night decks because you might end up in the water if a donk stops?????

The whole point of having all the best kit is so that the technology mitigates some of the inevitable operating risks (through increased reliability and performance) of doing the job in the way it sometimes has to be done.

cyclic 21st Feb 2018 20:40

Who is joining at the bottom of civ SAR? Sooner or later the talent pool will run out and all those who trained hard in mil SAR will be gone. You can train your own but there is a real problem brewing for all commercial operators. During the downturn there has been no investment, schools have closed and the pool of available pilots is drying up. I’m not talking about rich 200hr Robbo pilots but those with the experience necessary to sustain the service we now receive. People are paying for their own S92 ratings as the big operators are reluctant to spend the cash on an uncertain future. SAR will find itself in the same situation and the quality of new entrants won’t be determined by their talent but more their ability to pay. Contracts are being accepted that leave zero margin for anything other than regulatory training. The next renewal may not be so attractive to HM Government.

drugsdontwork 21st Feb 2018 21:01


Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 10060794)
So when there is a need to hover taxi up a mountain in cloud, will it only be done if the casualty has life-threatening injuries (if you actually know that at the time) or will there be times where you just say 'f88k it' and leave them to it.

Jim, you know that many helicopter extractions are often conducted because leaving the MRT to do it would put them at significant risk with a stretcher in poor weather on treacherous terrain - how do you feel about the 'super-safe' SAR crew letting you get on with it because there is a 1 x 10-5 or even 10-6 chance of a single engine failure?

What next? No night decks because you might end up in the water if a donk stops?????

The whole point of having all the best kit is so that the technology mitigates some of the inevitable operating risks (through increased reliability and performance) of doing the job in the way it sometimes has to be done.

No one says “**** it”. What they will do is assess whether the risks to be taken are appropriate to the task and act accordingly. The “super safe” SAR crew is going to weigh up the risks involved in flying or winching MRT and act accordingly. And as I engage with MRT regularly, let me tell you Crab that they feel just fine about that.

P3 Bellows 21st Feb 2018 21:46

Just when you thought this willy waving thread was history, someone has to go and breath life into it.............. really!! ��

drugsdontwork 21st Feb 2018 21:57


Originally Posted by P3 Bellows (Post 10060866)
Just when you thought this willy waving thread was history, someone has to go and breath life into it.............. really!! ��

Good point. Apologies. I’m out 👍

[email protected] 22nd Feb 2018 04:51

Suggest you read cyclic's post - no willy waving required, just an ability to look at SAR without rose-tinted 'brave new world' glasses.:ok:

I have the greatest faith in my ex-colleagues to always make the right decisions regarding risk - some of the others with little real SAR experience....I'm not so sure.

P3 Bellows 22nd Feb 2018 09:10

Crab,

With that final swing of your willy you prove my point. Well done.

P3

jimf671 22nd Feb 2018 09:43

Crab is providing a useful service. :eek:

I'm 'IC Silly Questions' and he's 'OC Faecal Agitation'. Necessary team work for ensuring best compliance in a challenging environment. :E

drugsdontwork 22nd Feb 2018 09:51


Originally Posted by jimf671 (Post 10061296)
Crab is providing a useful service. :eek:

I'm 'IC Silly Questions' and he's 'OC Faecal Agitation'. Necessary team work for ensuring best compliance in a challenging environment. :E

Where I work, the non ex mil SAR pilots to whom Crab presumably refers are by far the best operators. Why even now he continues to denigrate them is beyond me. And with that I really am out.

jimf671 22nd Feb 2018 09:57


Originally Posted by cyclic (Post 10060795)
Who is joining at the bottom of civ SAR? ... ...

Like you, I am concerned about the future talent pool. What is evident is that there are some great SAR pilots working in this service who have never served in the military. Some of the best training sorties and ops we have done have been with these guys. So civil pilots can do the job and there will still be military pilots, some with some SAR experience, going into SAR after mil service. What currently concerns me most is the situation for the development of 'SAR Technical Crew'. For the long term security of that skill set I believe that the CAA should take the bold and world-leading step of making it a licensed aviation trade. Yes, more f33kin paperwork, but also major benefits.

[email protected] 22nd Feb 2018 11:39

DDW - do you work at a mountain flight?

drugsdontwork 22nd Feb 2018 11:58


Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 10061419)
DDW - do you work at a mountain flight?

Crab, with respect, just stop now. I have watched you spread nastiness and sneer at people on here for years now. It is not pleasant and I’m not playing.

jimf671 22nd Feb 2018 12:10


Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 10061419)
DDW - do you work at a mountain flight?

Step away from keyboard.

Please note DDW's use of the term "MRT".

[email protected] 22nd Feb 2018 12:14

DDW - I think you must be a Daily Mail reader with your outrage settings.

Just because I say I have the greatest faith in my ex-colleagues and am not so sure about those with little real SAR experience DOES NOT mean I am denigrating all non ex-mil SAR pilots in any way shape or form - that is a conclusion you have jumped to without keeping my comments in context ie we were discussing risk/reward wrt hover taxiing up hills in cloud.

I am quite aware there are good operators and bad on both sides of the ex-mil fence so I think you should get over yourself slightly and put teddy back in the cot.

drugsdontwork 22nd Feb 2018 12:17


Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 10061460)
DDW - I think you must be a Daily Mail reader with your outrage settings.

Just because I say I have the greatest faith in my ex-colleagues and am not so sure about those with little real SAR experience DOES NOT mean I am denigrating all non ex-mil SAR pilots in any way shape or form - that is a conclusion you have jumped to without keeping my comments in context ie we were discussing risk/reward wrt hover taxiing up hills in cloud.

I am quite aware there are good operators and bad on both sides of the ex-mil fence so I think you should get over yourself slightly and put teddy back in the cot.

Teddy firmly in cot. You are clearly unaware of how offensive you are on this thread. And if you think I am the one who needs to get over myself then you are delusional.

[email protected] 22nd Feb 2018 13:03

I am aware that many of those with vested interests didn't like what I had to say about privatisation of SAR and I may have reacted in the past to some of the insults and abuse that came my way but I have never set out to be offensive.

Some people just want to take my remarks that way because they either don't understand them or read far more into them than is there - it is the nature of the written word that it is open to interpretation and easy to be selective about what one reads.

I am many things but delusional isn't one of them - cynical maybe, but that comes from 57 years on the planet and 32 years of being f**ked about by professionals in the military - I was never one of the 'staff-speakers' who thought if they talked the talk it meant they could walk the walk.

I didn't buy the reasons for privatising SAR and I am still unconvinced by its sustainability in its current form - let's hope, for the sake of all those who might need a world-leading SAR service, that I am wrong.

500e 22nd Feb 2018 14:52

@Crab
I have never understood the rational of privatization either? am I correct the mil still have SAR capability with training if so why not invest in our military to the tune of the contract cost yearly.
I appreciate there is a initial cost but if a private concern can get funding :confused:
We need a longer view, not just in this context either, to meany experts each with their own short term ideas.
A re think of MOD operations & procurement might be a ides

[email protected] 22nd Feb 2018 15:38

500e - SARTU still exists at Valley (under a different name I think) and there will some form of basic SAR trg under MFTS but nothing like the long SAR courses that used to be run there and at the Sea King OCU.

The Navy have SAR as a secondary role but how much specific role training they complete I don't know but I don't think it is a lot.

We traded away an excellent capability with poor aircraft for a good capability with excellent aircraft which cost a big bunch of cash, but that was moved from MoD balance sheet to DfT, in what was effectively a PFI (not that those have proved very cost-effective in the past).

Military procurement is so broken and has been for many years with 'clever' staff officers in London doing creative accounting with budgets, Out of Service Dates and long term costings - ask Tucumseh on the mil forum if you want more details.

As I mentioned earlier, SAR was doomed because it wasn't seen as 'core' military business at a point where the Govt realised how bloody expensive going to war actually was!

jimf671 22nd Feb 2018 17:23

On top of all that the Coastguard need to feel important and AVM Niven didn't want SAR in JHC. Then there is the gaping hole in our war-fighting capability that is our lack of proper independent CSAR on a level commensurate with our strike capability. Then for CivSAR to end up starting at the same time as the Fleet Air Arm start working up their SAR-capable helicopter for carrier service is ludicrous. All set in motion about 20 years ago and effortlessly drifting from one disaster to another across the years it has miraculously ended up with a very capable CivSAR service. Although some of the credit for that goes to the advisors who set the spec for the aborted SARH25 for their professionalism and to MCA Aviation for their tenacity, largely, success is due to the skills of the aircrew.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.