A couple of very good points there Crab.

COST
Costs in the previous contract process were like an uncontollable creeping fungus as the bean counters tried to guess what was going to happen across a 25 year contract period. I know that there was concern at the Treasury and I know that down through the DfT to the MCA and Coastguard, every civil service manager has received the message that this new contract process is a cost cutting exercise. :uhoh: That legacy has made it that little bit more difficult for those chasing a competent technical specification. :ugh:

Scapegoat? Certainly, one has to ask why moves that took place in early 2007 and mid-2008, and had been raised in a number of fora, took until December 2010 to emerge as a serious problem. :confused:

SPARE AIRCRAFT
Up until late 2012, spare aircraft in the bidders' proposed SAR fleets were something that typically amounted to one aircraft per type for training and one or maybe two aircraft per type for maintenance. That is why I felt comfortable posting here about those numbers at the time. Availability stats were available for aircraft of the same, or closely related, types in recent UK SAR service and the news was good. Reliability was good and servicing times were short. :ok:

Suddenly, sufficient aircraft of each type were required to equip all ten bases. If one type were grounded by the regulator, the service would continue. This happened in late 2012. :hmm: The spare aircraft will no doubt be routinely treated as though it were the local base spare but in truth it is a spare for the neighbouring base that uses the other aircraft type. Therefore, as you say, 'there seems to be no formal requirement for a second standby'.

Interestingly, we moved from a contract process where costs were spirally high above the original estimated range to one where, in spite of a new requirement for maybe 50% more aircraft than previously envisaged, costs came in 19.9% cheaper than the estimated range.

Both 139's and 189's on regular training sorties.

S92 training ops currently being run from Humberside and Inverness.

Thank you Shetlander. Very pretty.

Now tell us about the Performance and about the AFCS SAR modes.

Bristow has given up on Manston and will go to Lydd, according to its MP.
BBC News - Manston loses search and rescue service
Thanet council made little effort to get Manston reopened and then moans about loosing the SAR base...!
mmitch.

Shetlander good pics

If you need a copy of the RFM I will send you one.

What the esteemed regulator thinks of what is in the RFM might be the interesting bit.

Well Jim...... I'm certain that the "esteemed regulator" as you call them, will be sure to call you up and ask your "esteemed" opinion on the AW189 autopilot as you are clearly an expert in this area ............ or are you just s##t stirring yet again?

Yeah, OK. Sod the issues that are about to hold back deployment of the aircraft with the contracted capability. What the people who created the 300,000 views probably want is for us to go back to either a CivSAR vs MilSAR or a Fleet Air Arm vs RAF bun fight.

How long have you been flying the AW189 Jim?

Jim, you are indicating that the "esteemed" regulator is not happy with the AW189 autopilot so why don't you just enlighten us as to what exactly it is that they are unhappy about.

With your knowledge of the 189 autopilot you clearly know something so why not share rather than just hint/imply.

Or is just the case that you you know nothing about it.

P3B and Same Again

You two seem to be in the know (and very proud of the fact) so while you're on your high horses, could you let us know what rules and regs Bristow will be working under for NVG flight? A lot of people are dying to know and with a little over a month before the first bases take over, I imagine you know them off by heart. Specifically, please tell us:

Cloudbase limitations (training and ops)
Visibility limitations (training and ops)
Minimum operating heights
Minimum separation criteria (or equivalent)
The obstacle plane values on which you'll base your heights
Safety rules if known obstructions are not seen by a certain distance
Where your obstruction data will come from and how often will it be updated
Any other regulations of note that may prevent you landing or approaching a winching area.

Thank you.

Jim please note. Those are questions for someone else, not you.

That is on a need to know basis my little orange friend and apparently you don't need to know.

What a pathetic non-answer. In other words, with a month to go, either you don't know or they don't exist. Welcome, people of Britain, to your new SAR service. Spin over substance, time and again.

There may of course be legal reasons why not such as ITAR restrictions. I am sure that even in Bristow there are people not allowed to have ITAR related information, and no I don't work for them but are familiar with the rules around such protected technologies

The query is not about the technology itself but the way it will be used. Knowing the weather minima that crews will be permitted to work down to is hardly likely to be a state secret. Neither is the distance they have to remain from obstructions or the basis for their height calculations.

So come on, as P3B and Same Again have suddenly gone all shy, someone answer those very basic NVG ops questions please. Or alternatively admit that you are way way way behind the curve when it comes to NVG and it's highly questionable whether you'll be able to conduct night overland SAR Ops come April.

Satsuma,


It will be interesting to see if you get a proper response to your perfectly reasonable questions.

I also wonder what special dispensation they will have for operating IMC over the sea below Safety Alt - perhaps it will be glossed over with some guff about take off and landing rather than a documented exception to IFR.

Crab, it may well be covered in ORS4 no 1081.