But that's how these military types get OBE's! For Other Bugger's Efforts;)

Well why dont we use this to our advantage??

If its true that the industry contributors to the recent SAR conference were gagged about 2012 why hasn't the press picked up on the concerns that are being vocalised so openly here? the SAR product - whether it be RAF, MCA or RN is regularly in the news showing off deeds of great heroism. Therefore the media obviously think SAR stories sell papers etc. I think joe public might be interested to know what the future holds. That 4 years away from the transition starting there is such uncertainty about it all that a leading UK SAR conference didn't want to go there. Joe doesn't need to know all the nitty gritty facts, just enough for them to get a sniff that all may not be going according to plan. Interestingly one of the local rags down south which featured an item about the 139s arriving at Lee commented that the reduction in aircraft size was not to be worried about as there were going to be 2 139s based at Lee. Factually correct but I would suggest a tad misleading...

Bertie is turned away; he had missed the dress code!

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i9...u/DSC00220.jpg



Later he got his own back........

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i9...DSC00221-1.jpg

And resulted in a piece of Flamborough Head being renamed!! ;)

Eric's Rock
 

Of course I should have remembered!

It was only on a search around that area one night that I really studied the OS map of the cliffs, and becoming very puzzled, asked the question why "Eric's Rock" had another name attached to it! It was then that someone explained what had happened and why the Flight had renamed it!

Hope the man in question is fit and well and, I guess, enjoying retirement?

SARREMF

It said in the Riverdance rescue blurb that the RAF and Navy would cease to be responsible by 2012............how come they were called at 2016 for that rescue?

Boom boom. Basil Brush couldn't have told it better.

Last time I heard (about as year ago) he was a civvy teaching comms to the baby WSOps at Cranners!

In the interests of harmony............................


http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i9...une07082-1.jpg

licenced or not?
 

Will the military pilots on SAR-H have to hold licences?

Or will the civilian pilots on SAR-H not have to hold licences?

Shouldn't there now be an exchange tour put in place with the UK MCA/contractor for a UK Mil SAR pilot? (To test the SAR-H water, so to speak)

How does SARTU manage at the moment, mil/civ wise?

Any one on PPRUNE allowed to answer these questions? It all seems very sensitive in SAR-H world at the moment!!

Hi BT
There is a line of discussion on this topic on the other SAR thread running on this Rotorhead section - perhaps it would be better to follow through on that one.
As to your questions - the Interim does not make room (unless I suggest CHC are prepared to consider it seperately) for any mil exchange aircrew - good idea perhaps but too late timing wise - I suspect a contract amendment will be required - probably all too difficult for several reasons at this stage of that particular programme.
As for mil aircrew having civ licences - will no doubt depend on which type of registration the bidders choose to operate the service under. I feel sure there will be much discussion going on about this topic within botht the bidders and the SAR-H customer (policy) community. Will also depend on EASA's view of mil pilots/ac commanders operating the UK SAR service too no doubt.
Cheers

Thanks Tallsar.

I've also had a chance today to read Andrew Drwiegas editorial on this matter, in the latest "Defence Helicopter". (Mar/Apr 08)

He has summed up the wrinkles in SAR-H most eloquently.

Bertie - the easiest solution is for the aircraft to be COMR (contractor owned and military registered like 84 Sqn and DHFS) so that mil and civ crews can both operate it to mil limits (getting round the civ NVG regs issues) and meaning that no licences are required for mil crews (or in theory for civ).

Crab
I think that COMR aircraft are flown iaw the civil Flight Manual, This allows the aircraft to return to civil use after the end of contract, after all, these a/c should not be flown in combat where mil limits might be essential. Mil reg allows the mil and civil pilots to fly them without civil licences. As I understand it COMR a/c have their Certificate of Airworthiness renewed at the relevant period when they revert to their civil reg for a short period whilst the paperwork is processed.

Oldlae - but the weather and operational limits would be those of the military therefore civ crews could fly low level iaw JSPs and NVG ops to the same limits as mil. Since the RFM is probably less restrictive than any military release to service there is no problem complying with that and SAR aircraft won't be doing combat anyway.

So a potential manning problem then for the SAR-H IPT:

Contractor with Civ reg SAR; Mil pilots not licenced to fly them. In any case large discrepancy mil/civ 'offshore' salaries (thanks BALPA!). Also no such thing as a mil 'co-pilot' salary wise!

COMR SAR; Potential big pay cut for the civ pilots, to get an 'even playing field' salary-wise mil/civ. Then no maintainance of their civ licences, (so problems if they want to leave!) ...and still the mil 'co-pilot' salary discrepancy thing to sort out. Not to mention pay for training quals!

Bertie - the SARH IPT only have to decide which is the best bid for the project - all those manning/pay issues will be for the contractor to sort out.

The military in their wisdom think that 66 is the right number of mil pers to fulfill our requirements which, when you take the Falklands into consideration, leaves no more than 2 Mil SAR flights in UK so probably unlikely to be mixed crews due to all the reasons you put forward and many more.

so do we guess culdrose for the navy and valley for the air force and everywhere else goes civ?????

Hi guys

2 points re the above discussion:

First - COMR is now MRCA (no not Must Replace Canberra Again (for those of you old enough to remember!)) Military Registered Commercially operated Aircraft (note silent o).

Second - While under COMR (MRCA) mil pilots have been hitherto allowed to fly with no civ licences - the ANO that permits this may becoming under review by EASA - such exemptions do not fit with their pan european standardisation approach of licensing. How it will pan out is clearly a concern to any company operating such a service at present or in the future.

Finally - additonal points! -- not sure why we work out that mixed crewing can't happen or why there will only be 2 mil bases - why has there to be any mil SAR bases as such?

Cheers - have fun - those of you still flying on real SAR!!

Tall Sar

Not sure your point 2 is actually totaly correct. Article 26 [its either article 8 para 26 or article 26 para 8 I forget!] refers to military pilots flying G-reg aircraft without licenses not the other way round [ala Barkston Heath]. So, if the ac is mil registered this ANO is not being used, its replaced with the JSP's. Thus MRCA [Multirole Combat Aircraft - its another age thing albeit later than your version!] could be utilised [perhaps one of the debates you refer to?].

Oldlae and Crabb. Your both right. The aircraft is flown to the civil flight manual [RFM] but OPERATED to the military limits - operational limits not aircraft limits 2 entirely different things.

B.T. Salary differences. This already occurs in pretty much all of the current COMR contracts. Military on one pay scale and civil pilots on another. No one said life was fair! As to SAR_H, well that might well require a bit of market force adjustment in a vertical direction. " hello Mr Contractor, yes I can come fly for you but I earn this much and have a license. If I come work for you I dont want to drop my pay! NO, you wont pay that much, ok i will go elsewhere! Ring Ring Whats that you will pay me that much! Deal"

Only time will tell on all these points!