Thanks Jim

Point proven. KPIs certainly do not measure the quality of the SAR service provided by individual aircrew.

So what will? As Hummingfrog said, if they haven't done height hold out night drums/wets/decks in zero wind on a pitch black night then they aren't SAR pilots. Is that done on an OPC/LPC/simulator ride? I don't think so. Yet here we are talking about North Sea pilots filling slots if the Managed Transition can't attract the right numbers in time. And outside of an external paramedic check, who will be ensuring that the aircrewmen are of the right calibre and capable of performing in the full range of SAR scenarios by day and by night? It seems to be accepted that Bristow may struggle to fill the aircrewman slots. Isn't there a danger that the quality may drop if they are forced to recruit from elsewhere?

So my last line check, conducted by a TRE and involving a simulated SAROp to night decks and cliffs, wouldn't count?!

In a previous life, I've seen good guys put through the ringer over a number of days and trying to regurgitate the mechanics behind forward autorotation, geostrophic winds etc. WHY?!! With knowledge creep for 20 years the RAF system has become an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

CRAB - ILS great, Big Boys airspace, where the icing is, not so great! And what a delight when you fly the perfect hold :rolleyes:

That sir, is self-policing.

Did you hear about SSE taking a beating from Ofgem a couple of days ago? This former public, now private service was ripped apart for its selling practices that took place while they were being audited by people who stood to gain from the commission on sales!

Self-policing alone does not work for services to the public. There has to be some external assessment to back it up.

Who currently externally assess the RAF and RN? I am not trying to start a argument... Just wondering if anyone does.

Nobody Lioncopter. Nobody.

TREs are regularly checked by the national CAA. The CAA are able to visit and conduct audits, including observing on flights. They also hold the power to conduct 'no notice' audits should they wish. Is that external enough, or are you looking to generate a position for yourself? ;) The civ system is already more independent and robust than the mil's form of navel gazing.

Neither the RN of the RAF are private enterprises taking over a public service that is at present, highly regarded.

When the KPIs that Jim lists are reported back to the Transport Select Committee in a few years, statistics may give the appearance that everything is working out fine. It is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of non-aviators. Just seeing the aircraft in the sky and seeing it in the news from time to time will be sufficient to convince some that there has been no loss in capability. Unless a team of sufficiently experienced, independent evaluaters are able to report back on the actual flying capabilities of the aircrew, then this most important of performance indicators will be lost. Do the CAA have sufficently experienced SAR pilots and aircrewmen to fully evaluate the performance of an entire crew?

That sir, is total nonsense. TREs are CAA appointed examiners, are you suggesting they turn a blind eye and allow substandard candidates a "pass" in the hope they won't go out and have an incident or accident.

Just how low an opinion can you have of civil aviation if you believe for one moment the authority appointed examiners don't maintain a standard. I wish you the best of luck on your future LST (I would say LPC/OPC but I don't think you'll get that far).

Apart from the audits, CAA & company checking, line flying training with hugely experienced LTCs and TREs and the company wide standardisation undergone by current MCA crew there is a huge professional pride in providing a high quality service. To suggest that this is self policing is insulting and basically uninformed tosh.

...and I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn in to this...back in my box now.

Crab: The RN haven't converted to procedural because there is no requirement for it. If there was, they would have either absolved themselves of any civilian related SAR because of refusals by ATC to enter CAS or converted their cabs to comply with the requirements. The fact is (and remains) that a SAR cab will be allowed access thru Class D and thru A (occasionally) because it is a medical emergency. They have never been refused over the last 40 yrs.
Secondly, you can't do a procedural approach to a hospital, so you fly to the nearest LZ and transfer the patient by road - so the procedural won't help there.
Thirdly, you can use an ILS (provided it is left on overnight) without an IR under SVFR/VFR conditions anyway.

The proof of the pudding is with the Navy - you don't need a procedural to do mil SAR. (SH as you mentioned earlier is another subject and should not be mitigation to defend PIR in SAR).

Crab

"I have lost count of the jobs where procedural IF - esp ILS was the only way to either get home or get the casualty to hospital."

Total ****e. Just shows a lack of initiative.

Always makes me laugh when people harp on about procedural IF as if it is something special or required.

The RN Junglie Seakings have always had procedural IF kit and procedural IRs, yet have always been rightly mocked by the pinger pretheren for being frankly rubbish at instrument flying.

The average pinger is at as good a standard of IF flying as anyone else in the forces and manages perfectly well without any ILS/VOR/NDB and seemingly always manages to get where he wants to go, as does the RN SAR force. One advantage of having an Observer rather than a radar operator.

:hmm:

None of the people on the ground at a Kintail location on Sunday were Type Rating Examiner (Helicopter) but they knew that was a PASS. :ok:
"Si vis pacem, para bellum."


Yes.


There are probably over 3000 MR people in the UK. Maybe 1000 of those operate in terrain where nobody in their right mind would send a Sea King yet they witness excellent work using this aircraft somewhere in the country almost every week. In an AW189, I expect the same aircrew will be capable of outstanding work, without the compromises necessary when flying our old friend, and therefore with significantly improved flying safety for all of us.

None of those 1000 people are easily seduced by statistics, government reports or authoritative pronouncements. They are led, but they are not commanded or controlled. None of them are being paid and none of them have glorious public careers or ATPL(H) to protect.

My task is to make sure that the guys and girls at this end of the island have the basic understanding necessary to make reasonable informed judgements about their aeronautical support.

If this goes pear-shaped, you'll be hearing from them and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. :E

I can't tell you about the 139, but I can tell you about the AW101 (AFCS is very similar). In Portugal, we transitioned from the SA330 to the AW101 in 2006/2007. Minimum requirement for captaincy was 100 hrs on type, and this was achieved during a transition period of two years (roughly 12/13 crews, can't remember, we have 3 bases, more than 3 million sq km, we manage to get by).

Everything worked fine (zero accidents or incidents), and no one had any previous glass cockpit experience.

Maybe the most difficult part of my transition to the 101 was getting used to having the AFCS fly the a/c more than 75% of the time (maybe more!), including the transitions to and from the hover, we didn't have that in the Puma. Once you realise that the a/c can do those maneuvers much better (ie safer) than you, on a scary dark night 350 miles away from land, it becomes natural.

I think maybe the 250 hrs has this in mind, the use of more complex auto pilot modes, because if you look at accident statistics, the misuse of the AFCS has been the cause of some accidents in the past (CH149 in Canada, AW139 in Almeria Spain).

But I'm a complete outsider, it's just an opinion. :)

PS: does the Sea King have Auto TD and TUP capability?

Oh dear Tourist and TC - so the RAF have procedural IRs, the MCA crews have procedural IRs, all the police and AA have the same yet RN SAR is so special that they just don't need it - Wow, you guys are so tough......or do the pair of you just sound faintly unprofessional????? I trust your attitude is not representative of the RN SAR Force as a whole.

Plymouth Airport (until they closed it) was a prime example where procedural IF was used to get in when the airfield was shut - Plymouth Derriford Hospital didn't have a HLS for Sea King and it is just across the road from the airport.Without using procedural IF to get in the casualty would have to endure a much longer flight to a hospital with better weather conditions. This is just one example and I am sure there are many others across the UK. Oh no I must be talking total ****e again:ugh:

Merlin_driver - yes the Sea King has TD TU autopilot and the 3A has a similar (SN500) set up to the Merlin I believe. You are right about taking a while to get used to the aircraft flying itself better than the pilot but that is why we do so much training with it. The glass cockpit in the 139 isn't so daunting, I found it quite straightforward after an hour or two - it is just a case of knowing where to look for the information you want and adjusting to how it is presented.

And to think, I used to wonder why ex-RAF SAR pilots had such a reputation for being prima donnas! I really hope this attitude is confined to just those in their training and trapping system,:hmm:

Amazing, you don't need to look away for too long before the likes of TC, Crab and Tourist drag this thread back into an RAF v RN v Civvy willy-waving contest and bitch-fest!

On the subject of procedural IRs; surely it's best to train hard and fight easy, if the cab has the required avionics then why not utilise them? Bearing in mind the next generation of SAR aircraft will have a decent icing clearance where would you rather be in foul weather, grovelling around the hard stuff and myriad of obstructions or chilling-out at a safe Flight Level? I've done both and I know what my preference would be, I'm sure plenty of old-school do it the hard way types will disagree though.

Yes llamaman, you are right and I apologise but when stuff like gets posted it is hard not to reply - once I have stopped laughing!

The 250 hrs figure may well be an insurance requirement.

old school chums!
 

Llamaman

Great to be in 'Big Boys' airspace (Crab's descriptor, not mine :rolleyes:) in an aircraft with a decent icing clearance and cruise speed, neither of which the SK is blessed with. I merely found it difficult to accept Myra's contention that it was a worthwhile reason for the SK OCU to be more than twice as long as it used to be.
As an 'old school type', with an ATPL(H) and Proc IR (both lapsed damn, CIVSAR took too long to come!) and having done both (but more of the former) I'd rather be on the ground these days :ok:

Once more, do the CAA have sufficiently experienced SAR pilots and aircrewmen to fully evaluate the performance of an entire crew?

Recent and extensive experience would be an important requirement for any credible external evaluater.

Crabby crabby crab crab...who's crabby?
The police don't fly IFR..who told you that. None of the police pilots have IR's except the met.
HEMS pilots might be IR's (because it is a Bond company policy) but don't fly IFR on the job - because they have to get the patient to the nearest hospital from a LZ in the middle of no-where...how do they let down on arrival at scene...IFR? How do they take off from a pub car park IFR?
The only people who use IR's in anger (in the emergency services world) are:
Ferry pilots. Repositioning cabs.
Air Ambulances (not HEMS) from dedicated landing sites to another dedicated landing site with landing aids.
Met police for some CAS flights.
RAF SAR.

Love the analogy re: Plymouth (now shut???). It seems all SAR's end at Plymouth hospital then.....:ok:

What's funny about using an ILS without an IR?

It's going to be interesting, though. Some new Long SAR bases will be on civvy sites, like Caernarfon for instance. So the crew are called out to a sinking ship 100 miles south west of Caernarfon in crap weather. They get airborne OUTCAS Climb to quads, self let down pick up x pax and return to, let's say: Liverpool for an IFR recovery. Land on and stay the night at Lvpl because they can't get to Caernarfon as the rules won't let them. So Wales is without a cab until the weather perks up? :ugh: Glad I had the IR ticket though...got me out of a pickle(not).

What needs to be done for SAR cabs particularly, is for the CAA to authorise the comprehensive use of GPS let downs under CAP999 (when it comes). That'll do away for any requirement to fall back on Procedural IR training, just good old GH IFP.
[Then if/when pilots transfer elsewhere in the company they can bolt on some Procedural refresher course for rig work etc].

TC - what's wrong with a radar letdown to 50ft over the sea and hop over the dunes as we always..............oh dear, no RADOP? :ouch:

Al-Bert.....that odd black thing protruding from the nose of the 92.....oddly enough is a Radar. Don't think for a moment it has not been used to do exactly the kind of let down you mention.

Why is GPS paired with Radar....not approved for Let Downs over the Sea now?

Is it the fact GPS is a Yank DOD thing that is the hindrance?

We ain't talking about a Precision iLS replacement here folks....just a let down to Visual with the Oggiin are we not?

Sasless......I did know that really :ok: :E

Al-bert

I think it is more to do with the rules that civilians have to fly under - once the SAROP is complete and you are just RTU then all the usual IFR/VFR rules apply so no hover taxing up the beach in fog!!

AH - the joys of the Lossiemouth foggy RTU - Radar letdown into the bay - line up with the ILS at 50ft, with RADOP backup, then hovertaxy up the beach find the runway lights and follow them to the turnoff for the flight dispersal. Only hazards were the mad golfers on the course through which the lead in lights were sighted - not sure what the penalty was for hitting a yellow Seaking - lose 1 stroke I suppose:E

HF

There was certainly a Hunter that discovered the penalty! Martin Baker letdown and ac on the 12th fairway after golf ball went through engine on finals.

Al-bert,

I'm not sure that the SK OCU became so lengthy due to crews becoming procedularly rated. This was and still is a relatively short phase (mainly sim-based), any SH cross-overs will already have done plenty and the ab-initios do a stack on the Griffin at. Shawbury these days. The OCU became painfully long due to being co-located with C Flight (guess who gets priority?), poor serviceability, and a dogged reluctance to entertain the thought of fast-tracking experienced guys through.

Wow Crab

I must have imagined all the times we took casualties to Plymouth in IMC

Can't imagine how we did it without the wonders of a procedural IR.


Oh, and you should be careful using words like "unprofessional" when you seem to believe that you should be TUPE'd because the job is the same.

YOUR JOB IS TO BE AN AIR FORCE OFFICER.
DURING THAT JOB YOU MAY BE ASKED TO FLY.

To suggest that your job is pilot/SAR just shows the lack of professionalism of RAF SAR primadonnas. As does the fact that you are leaving just because your happy little easy SAR life is over. Go and do some real work with the SH boys.:=

OO Tourist, that's a bit harsh! I believe it might be differant in the Navy. I was commissioned into the GD(Flying) branch, I'm guessing Crab was too. Could have been 'asked' to fly any jolly old kite though - wizard prang! :ok:

On the subject of getting a job in civvy sar and procedural instrument flight, some on here need to bear in mind that to do that you need to be a pilot. To be a pilot you need a licence, and that includes an instrument rating, and that includes the need to be able to fly a competent procedural IF approach. SAR competence is a bit of icing on that cake, not the be all and end all, and no use without the licence and IR. So if you want to be a civvy pilot, best to remember that there is more to it than dangling someone from a piece of string. But I will grant you that it is not just mil SAR guys that have to be reminded of that!

There.....you've all been told!! Suppose that includes me to :O

Don't think you can fly an IMC ILS to a closed airfield for the purpose of cloud break or recovery, as the system is unmonitored for signal errors. Could be wrong and I'm sure someone will keep me right! :ok:

Pig

IFR Piglet - modern ILS are self monitoring and they switch themselves off if there is any degradation of the signal. There will be a panel of lights in ATC that highlights if any of the elements are misbehaving but the old adage of 'if it doesn't code, don't use it' applies.

Moderator - I won't respond to Tourist's post despite its tone in an effort to avoid being yellow carded;)

However, I seem to have been flying where and when I was told for the last 31 years, so I think my taking of the Queen's shilling has been vindicated:)

TC - the funny thing about using the ILS was doing it VFR - why? And if you are doing it single pilot, who is doing the lookout???

Crab: Because if you take off in marginal (VFR) weather and either try to get back in an hour later after the weather has worsened at base, OR..heaven forbid, you go IIMC, the CAA require police pilots who aren't IR, to make use of every safe opportunity to recover to a dedicated landing site like an airfield and if that airfield is marginal VMC, then you have to use the ILS. Can't stay above the clouds all day long can you? I had to mention the SVFR/VFR bit because legally police pilots who aren't IR'd cannot fly IMC intentionally.
I could elaborate, but the bottom line is that Non IR police pilots must in their OPC/LPC, demonstrate an ILS approach.

What's this business about lookout SPIFR??? Where did that come from?
How do all SPIFR pilots do ILS approaches regarding lookout? They are on their own???? They couple the cab and monitor the approach. If "lookout" is what they want to do, then so be it....Don't understand your comment?

To everyone else: sorry to digress from the thread. Crab perhaps we can discuss over a coffee next week.......

I was going to post a reply based on thirty five years of experience worldwide and including a massive amount of SAR and offshore flying but I have given up trying.

Keep up the bull****!

FED - I concurr! Nuff said. Apart from Jesus wept!

Back to the question!!!
 

FED,

It would seem that you and I might be 2 of the few grown ups on here, if you can be bothered I would appreciate your thoughts. Who knows, we might even get the thread back on track but I won't hold my breath.

Merlin driver- many thanks for your views.

Watch out guys! I think there are a couple of grown-ups watching. :eek:

Myra - please feel free to get the thread back on track but I suspect that until Bristow have an accurate idea of where their crews are coming from, there will be little real information available - save for the usual scuttlebutt and rumour;)

Just waiting now for a pedant to point out it should be 'Bristow has an accurate idea of where its crews' etc

I hope Bristow factor in the 10 pilots and 10 rear crew that are coming our way next year.....:ok:

That's interesting - does that mean you are going to have "proper SAR" in Brunei, and does that mean as a consequence you are going to do crew change flights at night?

Yes, 'proper SAR' - dedicated primary SAR machine with 24 hour cover. Not sure about night ops yet. Lots of new 'Linkedin friends'.......