I do not think it will go back to your military as:
a) they are not bidding
b) they do not have the right aircraft anymore and military purchase will definitely take longer than commercial.
c) it is still not your government policy

I understand Bristow can do it with a profit now.
As their current aircraft are not at their end of life, I think they can make the best proposition.
But this will also allow the competitors to submit a bid with not-brand-new aircraft.

I don’t think that the use of AW189 will be continued.
Perhaps only UK executed upgrades/outfitting.
That might give some competitors a chance with young second hand repurposed and upgraded Offshore aircraft.
S-92B and AH225 come to mind.
Although the last will be controversial (but very cheap).

Time will tell.

That's a bit like national service. The military has no appetite for it, neither has the public and if it ever happens then it is a generation or more down the line. We would have to be taking a far broader attitude to national defence than we do now.

The last contract was set out in two lots with a third lot, as in the winning bid, encompassing both lots. It seems likely that lot structure will happen again although it's not certain. The transition-out plan is certainly laid out in that way.

It is certainly a worry that so many of the usual suspects have had serious financial woes or lost interest or both during the last few years. In continues to annoy me greatly, as it probably does other ppruners, that those usual suspects once blossomed and thrived under the leadership of people who could fly but now that they are run by the MBA's they flit from one financial disaster to the next. :ugh:

However, Bristow maintains the Alan Bristow rescue ethos and if that is not apparent to you now then I suspect it may become so across the next five years or so. That makes them, along with their new friend, still a player. :cool: A few others, even from amongst the injured, maintain just enough technical and commercial weight to pick up one lot, whether alone or with partners. :ok: Ask BIH and NHV if they'd like a piece of the action. :ooh:

It is of course possible that the 'big bruiser' crowd will get a piece of the action. The likes of Lockheed Martin, when they're not too busy bossing governments around :E, might see it as prestige contract and simply employ some riff-raff contractor who actually knows what he's doing :8 to make the day-to-day stuff happen.

Splitting it between contractors might cause a increased problems with the practicalities of providing the 'Common Standard of Service' that featured in the Post Implementation Review of the current service. That is something that might be easier to fix if the CAA took more interest in setting standards for SAR Tech Crew, which also featured in the PIR.

The 225, although I personally like the aircraft, is not an option for UK SAR mountain flying. It appears to be optimised for those long heavy crew change flights and it's unlikely it would have the required lift and hover ability unless AH did some clever mods.

As for the AW189, you have to remember that it is currently out there doing the job well in two British territories on contracts with two different UK departments of state, so it scores a lot of points for that. Once you run the numbers for mountain and maritime in hostile environment SAR, the number of options get less and less.

SLB,

why don’t you think the 189 will have a future in UK SAR?
I think the 92 is more at risk than the 189.

I didn’t say it has no future.
I think it will not be a requirement or a benefit in the tender to have half of the aircraft to be produced in the UK.

Ah okay but I wasn’t even thinking of the political gains for a particular bid. In my opinion the 189 has a better future than the 225 and 92. The size and cost of the 92 has to be questioned against the 189 which will improve with time.

Agreed about the S92. It is costly and a generation behind the AW189 in terms of avionics, although I am not saying the AW189 is perfect. One of the original reasons for specing an aircraft such as the S92 at 5 bases was the perception that it offered a significant range advantage over the 'smaller' (Lot 2) types - the reality is that an AW189 could probably just about match the ROA of an S92, somewhat negating the requirement for the larger and more expensive type.

Was it not more to do with survivor capacity?

In the current spec, Lot 1 (S-92A) is 8 rescued persons, 2 of whom are on stretchers. Lot 2 (AW189) is 4 rescued persons, 2 of whom are on stretchers.

You could do 6+2=8 in the AW189, and of course it has turned out to have good range and endurance, but it would be a hell of a squeeze and winching those in would be a struggle. Also a struggle to do any proper work on a patient in that cramped situation. H215 and 525 are hot'n'high-winching-capable but not really any bigger. You end up looking at the S-92 (and the B is coming of course) whatever way you slice it, unless you have a Norwegian sized budget!!!

AW-101 An Option..?
 

Is it possible with the second phase of UK SAR the AW-101 is possibility for UK-SAR..? Or still to costly to operate..?

The 101 would be too costly and too big. You may as well stick with the 92 rather than going 101. The other half of the business (if O&G contractor wins) would most probably already have 92’s so adding another type to the fleet would be unnecessary.

Jim, what are the stats for the last 10 years in terms of casualty numbers. Do we still need to have 92 size aircraft? Where do you draw the line?

The HK GFS are getting on really well with their H175s....

A slightly different environment than the UK in the winter.

You can pretty much bet it will all be about the money and any compromises will be glossed over. The recession/depression caused by Covid will leave the UK coffers dry and dropping a no-deal Brexit on top will just add to the pain.

The current contract was based on a 'no less service' than that which the military provided and memories are short so don't be surprised if some erosion od standards occurs for the sake of lowering the cost.

As for aircraft types, you would need an honest appraisal from the CG concerning the S92 - how often has that big lift capability been used and how often has that big downwash been an issue? If the 189 is as good as claimed and can do 95% (or more) of the S92s jobs then perhaps a mix of 189 and 169 might be the option.

189 and 139 would work well.

True but we operated the Sea King quite successfully with no blade ice protection for years. We just stayed out of the ice and even in the Scottish mountains and the FI, it was rarely a big problem. The 175 is actually quite good in icing conditions by the way.

Ill play this Game, Aw189 OR Bell 525 relentless and AW139. any one that bids 225 , s92 or 175 will be on the naughty step. oh and all new machines, whats the point of getting a contractor in if using old machines.

AW189 is more 'proven' than the 525.

Using old machines was on my assumption that Bristow is allowed to bid with their aircraft in place.
Then they must allow others to bid with old machines as well.

But of course when operating costs of S92 and 225 are much higher this makes no sense.
Please enlighten me why bidding with S92, 225 and 175 would be on the naughty side?

S92 is too expensive and "old tech" the 225 because of its reputation in the north sea and and old tech, the 175 is just a body kitted 225 with low service life of mgb components.
Other opinions are available

Not sure the mass casualty evacuation argument is relevant due to the plethora of stats gathered under this contract.

The next contract will be set by statisticians and run by accountants

I am aware that there are AW139 out there across the planet doing SAR and doing a decent job of it. However, when you put a couple of well-qualified paramedics, or the EMRS team, in the back of a SAR helicopter, up to a couple of hundred miles from their destination, they are there to do real work on the patient that will advance their survival chances. :8

I have listened to CHC rear-crew talking about how little they were able to do in the back of the AW139. I have listened to MERT guys moaning about how small and cramped the Merlin (AW101) is to work in. :eek: Yes, to Chinook folks, the Merlin is a small and cramped work-space! I am convinced by those voices of comprehensive red and sticky experience. :ok:

The Norwegian and the Falkland Island SAR flights have had recent experience of really big evacuation jobs, so I am convinced by the need for larger aircraft for the occasional job like that. An entire crew of a decent sized fishing boat fits in a S-92. You then also have space for deploying large teams of MRT or CG for big search jobs. :cool:

We should give the DfT and MCA credit where credit is due. They have been landed with this by virtue of already have done maritime SAR contracts in the past but instead of a sitting in their maritime silo and creating a restricted service for their own purposes, the current contract serves the wider emergency service and civil contingency needs of the entire country. :ok: Take a bow. If the next contract takes the same approach then that too will be world-class in that respect. We shall see.

The DoT will have to cut costs and this must be seen by a public mostly unemployed and on UC. So I see a 3 base solution with a 175 each in Aberdeen and Norwich and a 169 in Blackpool that will also be available on O&G work for our decimated Offshore industry. The 2 hours per day training nonsense could be reduced and money saved by using less paint on the machines. Yellow would be a nice, conspicuous colour. Pay is also far too generous so a 50% cut is in order and crews will be grateful that they still have a job. Brave new world.

Well said jimf671. This thread was heading off in a very strange and pointless direction IMHO.

Here we go again... My chopper is bigger than yours routine.

We all like a big chopper however and it is a big however, The tasking for the last 5 or so years fully document how many people and in what scenario they were helped.
The ONLY factors which will decide the next aircraft are the Facts .Not supposition or what ifs.
The government has a duty to provide a service at a reasonable cost. 100 year events of the Titanic sinking again in the channel will not factor in to that .
The reality is the tasking carried out by the 92 could have been done cheaper with a smaller airframe it would be irresponsible of the government not to know that fact and act accordingly.

Oh and I'm a big Fan of the 92 and it saddens me write this.
Did it do a good job ? yes

Is it the most cost effective way of achieving that job? probably not.

So there's a lot of folk talking about cost, with statements that sound like they know the facts.. Does anyone care to quantify the difference in operating costs of different types, based on reality rather than conjecture?

Once the aircraft DOCs are established, anyone care to add on the fixed costs associated with a crewed SAR machine, based on facts rather than conjecture?

Then we'll all have an idea about the real (rather small) difference in cost!!

The Award Notice figure of about £1.6bn is the fixed cost for the entire contract period. At the start, MCA Aviation expected that fixed cost to be about 85% of the total. That ends up as £1.88bn but I suspect oil prices have been doing them a favour although I have no indication of how the real variables have panned out.

There are a number of things about these costs that are regularly overlooked. One is that in a 24 hour SAR operation in a 'hostile environment' (45deg) with mountain and maritime work, the training load is massive. The other is the same thing that many overlook in the COVID-19 situation: people ARE the economy, so losing people is damned expensive and it is well worth saving them.

Although the cost per job over the early part of the contract worked out at £78k, it is irrelevant really. The Crown Office, HSE and Network Rail figures have published average figures for the cost to the state of accidental and unexpected deaths. You see, in a highly-developed economy, with world-leading standards of personal safety and security for its citizens, the state gets a bit excited when people die for silly reasons. These published figures measure that excitement at between £1.6m and £2m, averaging at least £1.87m.

Now, if we look at the number of rescued persons, we can tell that not all of them were saved from death. So a conservative estimate would be 1000 lives saved per year. 1000 x £1.87million = £1.87bn, thus saving the state the entire cost of the nominally ten year contract in each year of service.

Now you can argue about the 1000 lives figure or argue about the £1.87million state costs figure but what you can't do is reduce the whole thing by a factor of ten.

There will, no doubt, be ppruners and others who continue to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing but keeping your people safe and able to contribute to society and the economy makes economic as well as social and political sense. It happens to be something that the British are universally good at and so far this service has been an excellent example. I shall be making every effort to encourage MCA Aviation to continue those standards and not drift off into accountant-land "and I commend this motion to the House".

Yet the training hours that were set for the present contract were very low compared to the Mil hours and we were regularly told we were just too expensive and a 'gold-plated solution'.

I must be on the right track if that's all crab can find! :hmm:

The basic training hours number as I understand it are the shift training hours. That does not include simulator work, check rides and other items. Not everybody is an aircraft captain in this system and they are not on a three year tour, so that strips off the gold-plating. I'd say it was still sterling silver underneath though. :ok:

Nonsense. We fly more hours now than we did in the military.

Don't wind crab up with the whole mil vs civ training hours requirement. We all had enough of that some years ago.

Good point. Agreed. Out.

I didn't say anything about what you fly now, just what was quoted as the training hours for the contract at the beginning so calm down.

We now know for sure what the combined company from the Bristow-Era merger will be called.

Bristow.

Has a familiar ring to it I think. Indications are that commitment to SAR operations and business development is undiminished. The Chief Commercial Officer is a former UK SAR Director. The merger transaction is due to complete in mid-June 2020.

On Tuesday 12th May the MCA held the Industry Day in the form of an online meeting. The recording of that is on gov.uk and youtube. It's over an hour long but you can get a strong flavour of what is going on by skipping from one slide to the next in the first half and the second half is a live Q&A.

GOV.UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/second-generation-uk-search-and-rescue-aviation-programme-uksar2g

YOUTUBE -
The MCA team appears to consist mainly of the usual suspects with the odd new face. So they've done this before and had a good result. It's reasonable to expect continuous improvement and an even better result, which is what I'm sure we'll all press for. :E

If "short range rescue" starts turning into a secondhand 365 doing "Mountain HEMS" then I am ready to get very grumpy. :ugh: Are you ready Crab?

The right nerds are in place :8 and the tech spec should be better than last time :cool: so hopefully it'll be plain sailing. :ok:

BBC news article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-52821363

Flight Global
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospa...138754.article

MCA have conducted a SAR Stakeholder Presentation, on the morning of Tuesday 30th June, in the same format as the Industry Presentation that I posted about above. As with the Industry Presentation, it is expected that the SAR Stakeholder one will be posted on the GOV.UK site and the MCA's Youtube channel.

It was attended by representatives from police, mountain rescue, lifeboats and others.

This time we learned that the concept of the 'MRT Standard Load' that featured in the existing contract is to be subsumed into a wide concept of deploying a variety of teams. It will be interesting to see where that goes. :ugh:

Some indication that the MCA might take onboard the idea of actually telling the bidders the size of the SAR Stakeholder training task. :ok:

And just across the water, they move from Sea King to SAR Queen.Commencement of service for the Norwegian All Weather Search And Rescue Helicopter project. This may well become the most capable air rescue service in the world. If not the most capable then extremely close. Something to learn from and aim for.

https://www.dagsavisen.no/rogalandsavis/nyheter/nye-redningshelikoptre-far-navnet-sar-queen-1.1766370

https://www.tu.no/artikler/overtar-for-sea-king-i-dag-nytt-redningshelikopter-har-fatt-nytt-navn/498387

https://translate.google.com/?sl=no

Jim, are you suggesting the larger SAR queen for the Uk?

I do not think that the specific aircraft type is the important feature of what the neighbours are up to. The type is largely the result of a policy decision about jobs involving cruise ships. That is certainly an interesting contrast with the current approach from the MCA analysts who seem more concerned about the large number of small quick jobs than another Fastnet 1979. On the risk assessment course that I did, severity and likelihood had similar weighting. :confused:

Their equipment level is good and they have some interesting sensor kit. The one that interests me most is the Redstreak mobile phone detection. If nearly every person in distress, whether hillwalker, kayaker, fisherman or reindeer herder has a mobile then it's like the whole world having a PLB. See below for other goodies.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....db81f8bff3.jpg