:ok:

Ultimately only five SKs joined the tour, the sixth responding to a call-out. Image gallery here.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/~/media/...7&mw=980&thn=0

I/C

Llamaman - Comp A jobs were classed as SAROPs if a SAR cab was used as they take precedence over almost everything. I picked up a chap from Heathrow at 6am one sunny morning in a Sea King to take him to Bristol where his father was VSI - in less than 15 hours he had gone from being on patrol in Helmand to being at his father's bedside.

However, taking engineers to a rig hardly counts as compassionate - I presume the ARCCK gave their permission (if they were actually asked)

I'm playing devil's advocate Crab. There are ways and means of utilising SAR helicopters for non-SAR tasking and categorising compassionate tasks as SAROPS is one way the military does it. Bristow have obviously found their own way of working the system. Once the ARCC is embedded within the Coastguard NMOC they will essentially be self-policing in terms of tasking and will lose the element of neutrality that Kinloss currently strives for. It's the way ahead apparently.

I do not think embedded is quite correct for what will be in place for next March. ARCC structures are expected to be separate from Coastguard MOC structures. It may seem a subtle distinction but, in spite of the branding of the aircraft, MCA Aviation is not structured within the Coastguard but under Director Maritime Operations MCA, and key management are DfT guys.

Later, if there is a move towards a JRCC model, it will be interesting to see how things pan out. The DfT will have to play a strong hand since, for a true JRCC, the Coastguard would be just another seat at the table. After the pain of 'Future Coastguard', that might not go down too well.



ARCC Fareham training kicking off as we scribble.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-gear/27/b05/815

That's a fair assessment but the function in practical day to day terms will be a different dynamic despite whatever management structures are in place.

The Coastguard is a customer for SAR with no less or more priority than any of the other 1st response agencies. The ARRC's responsibility is to allocate helicopters on a case by case basis without bias and driven by the urgency of the situation at the time. I hope this ethos can be maintained post-March.

(As posted elsewhere.) ... I take the view that those location should not be in major urban areas. I suggest that successful SAR management will be best served if staff are recruited from a largely rural area where self-reliance is a normal fact of life and everybody listens to the weather forecast.



The current intake to ARCC Fareham can easily pick up on enough ex-SAR (helo/MRS/Nimrod) types resident in the Hampshire area but I am hearing that it is a mix of that and others who are not aviators. They are being trained in an aviation environment at the instigation of an aviation department so there is some place for optimism. I remain concerned but not as concerned as I was a few months ago.

The ARCCK has long struggled to find enough aviation qualified people to act as controllers and had to make do with lots of training to try and bring the others up to speed.

One problem will be money - whereas military controllers at Kinloss have been relatively well paid and often asked to work there for personal reasons, the CG pays peanuts and will struggle to attract people of the right quality and background, especially given property prices in the South of England.

In the same way that the MCA thinks local knowledge isn't relevant in this modern age of communications (they have recently been proved wrong at Milford after closing Swansea CG) - I have no doubt that a lack of quality aviation (especially SAR helicopter) knowledge and experience will waste time on SAR callouts and possibly cause loss of life as a result.

As ever with the MCA there is unlikely to be any transparency or oversight of how effective their operations are and FOI requests are far too clumsy a system to show what is actually happening on a day to day basis. At least as military operators we could always pick up the phone for a hot debrief after a job and run any concerns we had through our chain of command - when MCA is both the provider and the customer, how is that going to happen?

What? You mean they had to use Navy guys? :E :E



Very good point.

I once had to 'explain' to an NRCC controller why we couldn't just 'punch out' from low level and divert to Glasgow for a night stop as we approached the fuel dump at Killin, at night in a blizzard , as we attempted to rtb Leuchars in a Wessex following a successful rescue of a faller on Ben Vorlich. The controller on that occasion was ex VC10 I believe. That was pre ARCCK, it couldn't happen these days surely; could it? :hmm:

It's an RCC Jim - but not as we know it ;)

If it is to morph into a JRCC in future then for it to successfully use that concept the police need to wake up and get involved. So far, in all UK jurisdictions, they have generally been quite happy to let somebody else carry the load. The MCA do SAR helicopters, civ MRT and RAF MRS search hills, CG and RNLI do Loch Ness, ALSAR, and so on and so on. All of which nibbles away at what is Police business in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Trouble is that we have had situations where the insistence on police primacy has delayed the correct use of a SAR helo, despite pressure from MRT.

That's why we need them in the same room.

Jurisdiction matters to sort of course in the UK circumstances but not insurmountable.

I hear that the aviation fraternity amounts to just one of the intake of controllers. While this gent is very well qualified to get the rest in gear, even his mountain of experience will be spread pretty thin...

Cryptic clues?
 

His brawd experience will prevent him from feeling like a duck out of water though TOTD :ok:

An interesting (no doubt controversial!) viewpoint from Major Jean Laroux, 103 SAR Sqn commander for the RCAF interviewed in May's edition of Airmed & rescue;

Some countries augment their SAR provision through contracts with private operators. Do you ever see that happening in Canada?

"I think the private operators are filling a need in those countries and I respect them very much. I truly think that private operators like Bristow in the UK have integrated the SAR community at a level above a simple business plan. It becomes apparent to me that they have a desire to make a difference around them. Having said that, the military is a different machine. We are here to provide the best SAR services to Canadians. The military machine is definitely more robust in risk management, which makes us an operationally focused organisation. The armed forces are built to take and manage risk. Our SAR forces are required to operate at the edge of their capabilities in order to safely and effectively respond when lives of our citizens are at stake. The government is giving the RCAF the equipment and most importantly the aircrews, to train every day and every night to prepare us for every eventuality. I think military SAR will always have the upper hand just because of our ability to constantly train. The military ethos makes us serve above and beyond our job description."

Of course, his stance will always be somewhat biased but I thought his views on risk and training were interesting. Is the military approach better or just different?

I think he is right about the military being built to take and manage risk. He also alludes to the broader interpretation of 'defence' where a nation's military protect citizens from risks other then warlike operations.

Unfortunately, the British military is still thought of too much as an instrument of imperial power (though the empire would probably have to built in Lego) while budgeted mainly as an crutch to British industry.

...and will help him remain Cuillin stressful situations :)

and help him deal with the trossachs and grumpians? ;)

Both S-92A now at Caernarfon as of 1132Z.

G-MCGJ and G-MCGK.