HAL9000,
Good idea.
And just for balance, lets have a list of recent defence procurements, with the same parameters.
TD

TD, I am not a fan of major defence procurement projects either. Your suggestion is valid and would result in a 0-0 draw! SAR-H would appear to be double b*ggered.

HAL

Geoffers - I see where you are coming from but promoting people to their level of incompetence is hardly exclusive to the military. The flip side of the civilian world (from friends who are there) is that people in positions of power can get to stay there longer and jealously guard their jobs by stifling innovation and change. People who might bring new procedures and change just don't get interviewed or shortlisted - at least if the people are forced to change their jobs every 2 -4 years, that scenario is avoided.

The problem of handing stuff on to the next guy is far less of an issue in the non-management aviation world and tends to have far more impact at the strategic/management level - notably in the military at Wg Cdr/Gp Capt where the Peter Principle seems to appear frequently.:)

The reality of SARH is that it won't be a vital/synergistic/self improving system - it will meet the terms of the contract and no more. If the contract says a winchman doesn't have to do night wets more than once every 6 months then it won't happen.

Whilst some things are easier to change in the civilian world - anything that adversely affects the balance sheet is going to be difficult to sell to the management.

The Dilbert Principle
 

Another amusing contribution to the debate of management techniques

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle

Make of it what you will in these contexts. The problem with trying to apply 'general' rules of thumb is that don't fit all situations. In the FAA we used to see Mr Peter and Mr Dilbert at work at squadron level.

If you think that, in the military context, a change of strategy that costs money would automatically be taken up just because it is 'better' then you are living in a different world to the one I live in.

It's coming guys, whether we like it or not. Lets try to make the most of the situation, think positively and sueeze the very best deal we can out of the situation we find ourselves in.

G
:ok:

SAR Helicopter
 

As my old brain recalls, the S61 (Sea King to me) was specifically designed by Sikorsky as an SAR helicopter, with an on water t/o and landing capability.:ok:

As we have agreed before Crab, SAR H depends on the quality of the tender document sent to hopeful contractors and the subsequent contract. Just out of interest, who sat on the committee that wrote those documents? If it was written properly, then the country will get what they deserve, regardless of profit. And do bear in mind that the contractors involved in this bid made their money independently of public money's, thereby being different from almost all other private financed contracts. These companies have got very good at keeping aircraft serviceable and they don't have to lie to do it. At the end of the day, an aircraft lying broken in the hanger is costing a fortune. You don't become a huge mulitnational company by a) taking a gash approach to serviceability and b) having a lumbering bureaucratic maintenance philosophy.

I thought the Seaking was designed as a sub hunter, though I'm pulling on my schoolboy knowledge here..

Droopy - I agree that it will come down to the contract - the tender document was, as I understand it, constructed by the MCA with assistance from the MoD in the shape of the SARH IPT. The fact that constraints were placed on the content of that tender will have shaped the bids and flawed the process from the start.

A fundamental problem throughout has been the reluctance of the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to have anything to do with the process, despite the fact that the outcome has huge implications regarding emergency services and homeland defence/security. There isn't enough left in the military pot to do the latter once you disable military SAR and such elements are not included in the SARH bids. It's your country - you decide what you think is best.

I have not said that Bristows or CHC could not run an efficient SAR operation - they have already proved that they can - we will see if civilianising our engineering (SKIOS 2) this year improves our present serviceability and demonstrates Westlands ability to deliver.

Any News?
 

HAL9000 asked for a list of successful PFIs to support the optimism that some hold for SAR-H. Just thought I would bring this topic back to the top of the list to see if there was any news.

Here's a list (and by no means comprehensive!)

AWE (Aldermarston)
DHFS
Brunei
84 sqn Cyprus
DFTS (all MoD comms)
MoD white Fleet
HMS Clyde
Flagship
LAFT
Tucano/Linton

Not all strictly PFIs but all having many of the principle ingredients.
I will now retire to the bunker now - as some measure success in many different ways! :ugh::)

PS - An Mod (RAF) officer/pilot drafted the operational requirements not the MCA - although clearly they are stakeholders (along with the RN), and the wider bid requirements were covered by specialists in commercial, legal, infrastructure etc etc etc - it ain't just about airframes!!

Crab wrote "I'm not sure the MCA are ready to manage all the inland jobs (50% of our tasking)."

The MCA is already working inland and something tells me that their 17 MRCCs might just be able to cope with your inland work.;)

Afterall, many MRTs are now working with them, plus, consider the % of the MCA work that doesnt involve MIL SAR aircraft.

Oh, there is also the small if not slightly hot topic that is forever following this project around...............ARCCK and one of the 17 MRCCs being on a joint location:eek:

It won't be that often. Delete the words, "more than once every 6 months" and that'll be closer to the mark.

Revenge
 

Clearly anyone wishing to get back at the rear crew community might just slip the pen and put down every 6 days for night wets! Trouble is they would love it!

I do believe Tall SAR has a point! The airframe requirement is just one small part of the total package required by the competition. To say its MCA or its MOD just isn't true. What you can say is that it covers all the areas the current service does and, depending on choice of platforms made by the bidders, could cover a lot more too.

Crabb always assumes that the bidder will give the least amount? With 3 bidders still in the race, something has to put blue water between them so that eventually one gets selected. With a 30 year PFI, doing night wets every 10 days or 20 days will not alter the price of fish much! So, some will offer services that exceed the contract and offer value-for-money. That's a competition. The clever bit is getting the IPT to turn that into a contract so the higher level service is delivered for the lower level money! I think thats why its taking such a long time!

SARREMF - I hope it won't be the cheapest bid but in order to offer more and make the package attractive (and high scoring on the review) there may be a temptation to skimp on the core issues (platform, training etc) and window dress with some other fashionable elements.

One reason for the legth of time taken is that each bidder can put in one main bid and 3 further subsidiary bids making a total of 12 to wade through and evaluate.

Sadly there isn't an MOD bid in the pot as it would make for interesting comparison and might put to bed the myth that contracting will be cheaper and better.

Crab,

You say there is no MoD bid in. However, my understanding of the acquisition process for programmes of this size is that there has to be a Public Sector Cost Comparator (I might have the terminology slightly wrong). The function of this is to ensure value for money by making sure it can't be done cheaper by the public sector (eg the RAF assume responsibility for all UK SAR).

If the SAR-H IPT has not done this comparison it is in serious breach of regulations and the whole programme is on thin ice. Can you shed any light on this matter?

Have just found this definition of Public Sector Comparator (PSC):

Definition of the term: A comparator is a benchmark against which value for money is assessed. A PSC is constructed on the assumption that the procurement is undertaken through conventional funding and that significant managerial responsibility and exposure to risk is retained by the public sector.

All good management type speak but as far as I am aware (and I have no contact with the IPT), the actual costs of running the SARF by the MoD have never been established let alone any proposed costs for taking on all UK SAR.

One inequality, I suggest, is that of locations - ie all the mil SAR flights are on mil land which is subject to huge depreciations because of the way the accountants see things. That cost is presently borne by the MoD but if the contractor takes over the exisiting bases, they may pay some ground rent but won't have the full cost of the sites to bear, this will still be met from MoD budget.

The SARF Cdr has written a paper suggesting a military solution which looks very good (apart from the shutting Chivenor and keeping Culdrose option) but it won't be part of the SARH selection.

All we really needed was a PFI to get us some new aircraft so we could crack on with our jobs.

I know there are those who robustly defend the practice of contractorising and civilianising the military but, just like Maggie Thatcher's belief that competition drives down prices and improves service, the dogma doesn't actually deliver (see supermarkets or utilities as examples) since the only way to reduce costs is to cut quality or manpower or both (as they are inextricably linked).

Crab.
Sorry, I have to disagree there,(now there's a surprise).
Manpower can be reduced on SAR without any degradation in quality by simply looking at how a flight is supported. Agreed, you cannot reduce the amount of people who are required to crew the aircraft,(please don't start the second standby thing again, we have done that to death!:eek:) But just how many engineers and support staff do you need to support the unit? A civvy 24hr. SAR unit will run with 9/10 total. (Well at least when the transition phase of the current shambles sorts itself out anyway!:))
I am not having a go there, the way military servicing is carried out and signed off is different to the way it is done in the civvy world. The engineers also cover various other aspects of day to day stuff, from fuel management to being CAA approved fire crews to being storemen. Again not a dig but how many engineers and other staff, WAAF making the coffee etc., (I really enjoyed mine by the way, coffee that is,) are at sunny Chivenor? Translate that into salaries and there are your savings, quite a lot across the SAR force I would imagine.
I am surprised that no one has established a cost for miltary SAR. We had at least two visits from high ranking RAF(not she whos' name must not be mentioned) and MOD officers in the two years before the harmonisation project was announced! They were allegedly costing both Civvy and Military SAR. In fact they had just come from Leconfield. So what was that all about then!:confused:
3D

Take a look here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post3915870

Does this narrow the choice for SAR-H by at least one aircraft type/company or, and this should come as no surprise to anybody, will AW still be in the running?

3D - we are about to find out if civilianisation works as all the SARF engineering will be supplied by AW/VT contract. AW have a vested interest in making it work but are rumoured to have said they will accept a loss of profit on the contract before a loss of face (ie failure to meet availability). They are the provider of the spares and the Design Authority for the aircraft so whatever goes wrong is their fault!

Your flying hours are less than ours which means we have more servicing to do and therefore more people needed - add to that the fact that we do have a remit to supply 2 aircraft on standby and you start to see the need for more engineers. If you had the same engineering task, you would need more engineers as well.

Yes we have dedicated storemen and safety equippers - you just pay guys extra for the extra duties, which rather implies they are not busy enough in their primary duties:)

The WAAF making the coffee runs the ops desk and is responsible for keeping all the flight info, maps and charts, notams etc up to date and is the main point of contact when the crew are airborne - I guess your engineers do this as well;)

Crab.
A couple of points.
Yes you do have more hours to fly because you have the second crew and other commitments than SAR. However, our units are also required to supply a second, serviceable machine. If this machine is u/s or needs maintenance then it gets worked on by the duty engineers, and off shift engineers working on overtime, who also cover the duty aircraft! Afterall, you cannot carry out maintenance on that one.:eek:
Back to my question, how many engineers/ support staff do you have and how many will good old Wastelands bring along?(More taxpayers money down the Somerset drains!):ugh:
Where do you get the idea that the engineers get paid for extra duties??:confused: If that were the case then they would be taking home more than the Chief Pilot!:D
Safety Equipment servicing is carried out by approved and qualified people who use it ie. the winch crews! They are the only ones on the unit to receive extra responsibility payments! And quite rightly too!
Notams, maps and charts are the responsibility of the co-pilots and one of the winch crew, alongside their normal hectic schedule.:)
Oh. by the way, yes the engineers are the point of contact when the aircraft is airborne! If messages need to passed, talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey!( Not that your WAAF is a monkey he adds rapidly:):)!)
3D

Miitary SAR Manning Levels
 

Crab,

I agree with 3D on the manning levels issue. I have experience of both military and civilian ops, where as I think you don't. The first thing that will strike you if you are ever join a civvy unit, is the lack of people. We run 24/7 on 6 people per shift. As 3D says we are expected to look after weather info, notams, amendments, wash and clean the aircraft, SE, help with blade/engine changes etc etc etc... Have you ever hoovered the cockpit, cleaned the windows, or helped tow and re-spot the aircraft? I suspect you haven't, it is up to all those engineer chaps to sort out, which costs money.

The good old days
 

It may have been before Crab became a SARBOY but the fact is that once upon a time RAF SAR units didn't have an Ops Clerk. The duty crew were responsible for NOTAMS/CHADS/CALFS etc. When we went flying one of the ground crew used to man the Ops desk/radios/telephones etc. If you fly for 4 hours per shift there are still 20 hours remaining. What do you do with all that time?:ok:

Clever Richard

A Public Sector Comparator (PSC) is not always required. Where it can be difficult (impossible?) to calculate the genuine cost of the public service, it is acceptable to construct a 'should cost model'. Don't loose sight of the fact that cost is not the only driver behind PFI, transferance of ownership and risk are also powerful attractions to the governments departments involved.

Can SAR-H Survive the Defence Cuts?
 

The Service Chiefs have been told to save £1B this year and the Defence Management Board met last week to discuss options. Given that it is likely that the number of military personnel in SAR-H will be far fewer than at present, can SAR-H survive the current drive for savings? Indeed, should it not be offered up as a saving as it, effectively, offers nothing to the military.

One argument against is likely to be that if the military pull out the money will just have to be found from another budget with a net saving to HMG of zero. Or could SAR-H be slid to the right by a number of years? Is this practical and would the OSDs of the current RAF/RN/MCA airframes allow any slippage.

Sorry, too many questions!

HAL,

The points you make are interesting - it does seem that, under current plans, the MOD will have to spend a lot of money on SAR-H for very little return.

There is, of course, a much cheaper and feasible alternative to SAR-H, which has the added benefit of delivering exactly the same level of service which the UK currently enjoys, but apparently this plan has been blown out of the water because it would upset the consortia which are currently rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of being given vast sums of money to provide a potentially inferior service...

Torque - you'll rot in hell for that one:) but I agree entirely. What will happen to the CHC bids now they have been sold?

SARowl do you mean 6 people including the 4-man aircraft crew or 6 people plus the 4 - man crew? If it is the former then you must be magicians keeping 2 aircraft 100% serviceable and flying loads of training and jobs with just 2 engineers - either that or some corners are being cut somewhere.

HAL - the simple answer is a PFI to provide the existing SAR service providers with new aircraft and then we just crack on using existing basing and crewing. Have a 139 and a S92 at each flight so you can use whichever aircraft you feel is suitable for the SARop (just like in Hong Kong) and have all the crews dual qualified.

Crab.
Why do you always assume that the civvy world is cutting corners??:ugh: I gave you the figures in an earlier post but to go over them one last time.... 4 crew in the aircraft, two engineers per shift! Plus Chief Engineer and labourer on days. I personally take great offence in your suggestion that corners are being cut, anywhere!! Safety is the watchword! Even we cannot achieve 100% serviceability and I don't think it has ever been claimed that we do!If one of the aircraft is u/s then generally no training is carried out until it is fixed! If it is u/s for a major component change then the off shift engineers come in on overtime to help! What is difficult and under hand there??:confused:
As for CHC's bid, hmm, time will tell!! The final two bidders are due to be announced at the end of March, early April I think so we won't have to wait too long?
139&92 on each base? Would it be that simple? I don't think so!

Just like that.
 

Yes crab, we are magicians. You will like that but not a lot!
Perhaps you could be the next Tommy Cooper!

So you don't actually run the outfit with 6 people, you have 2 extra in on days and then extra engineers when more servicing is required...now if you ran the whole thing all the time with just 6 on shift that would be impressive but as ever the headline claim is undermined by the detail and the devil is always in the detail:)

Torque of the Devil,

Do elaborate on your last post. Was the option you allude to considered at the Initial Gate point (has the project reached initial gate)? I am familiar with SMART Acquisition but not the details of SAR-H in particular. I would suggest that in the current climate if there is a cheaper option that delivers the capability required it should be taken or, at the very least, properly assessed. In fact, it would be criminal if it wasn't as the money saved could provide badly needed kit for our deployed forces. I'm afraid that whenever I have heard the phrase 'it isn't that simple' in the past it has been that simple. What is difficult is getting the project team to manoeuvre out of the rut they are driving in. This is usually due to the time, effort and intellectual capital they have invested in chasing a white elephant.

I'm a gambling man so I'm going to put fwd MY suggestion as to what'll happen and see how close my "guess" got to the real McCoy when the results are advertised.
Remember it's MY idea and not anyone elses that I'm related to at the mo':

CHC, or First Investment Bank (whoever owns them now) win the contract. S92's go to the bigger sites doing long range SAR and 139's go to the sites doing close in work, like south coast etc. No mixing of a/c at sites, no double quals. One of the existing mil airbases becomes a centre of excellence for ALL UK SAR training utilising S92 and AW139's. There will be groundschool for joint ops (Mil/civvy/police/MCA etc) command and control exercises. CRM courses. Paramedic training for winchmen/divers, dunker trng et al.
There will also be a simulator for the S92 (other than the one at Farnboro). Possibly (50/50) another sim [AW139] to absorb extraneous work from rotorsim in Milan who are fully booked and the only other 139 sim in western europe (I believe).
The 139 will replace the Griffin in SARTU in due course and prepare the ground for basic flying trng SAR, UK.
The 2 x RAF SAR-H crews and the 1 x RN SAR-H crew, will live alongside the rest of the civvy SAR-H crews for "x" period before jumping ship and becoming civvies on twice their salary, leaving the mil unable to support SAR-H front line. This will signal the end of mil involvement SAR Uk ops forever.

CHC will make millions during the 25yr contract and a consolidated industry will prevail offering multi agency co-operation on a scale previously unheard of.

I lied about the last sentence

TC - I think the last sentence should be

'MoD, having lost all interest in UK SAR, stops paying 70% of the bill leaving the treasury to use up all the profits Northern Rock will have made by then:) to fund the shortfall. Then in 20 years the NAO asks why we didn't just leave it military and buy some new aircraft instead. Meanwhile having got the £5Bn contract, First Reserve asset-strips CHC selling off the UKSAR as a going concern to a French utilities company who renegotiate the contract bumping up the cost to the taxpayer so they can give their directors and shareholders big dividends.'

Now your talking! Common Sense at last! i knew it would take a time but come on Crabb get with the programme! the only thing you missed was the ability to change service provider in case the charges were raised! Oh, and a well know supermarket to move in on the act after its 3 rd year.

Well thats SAR-H done! Shall we move on to FRES!

Shift Manning
 

Crab

You seem fixated on the idea that a huge number of engineers are required to sustain a SAR Shift. You assume that a smaller number of people will not produce a good result. The numbers employed by the RAF are just not sustainable. Lots of civvy organistions run aircraft very successfully with lots fewer engineers. It is an economic reality old boy.

Is it a crime to call in extra engineers from off shift to get the job done?

Visit a civvy SAR unit and you will see a clean, smart well looked after ac.

No - a large number of engineers are required to maintain a SAR shift when the aircraft has to be maintained iaw RAF procedures and flys twice the amount of a civilian SAR flt.

I don't know how often S61's have gearbox problems but we have had a spate of changes recently, all completed on the flight which wouldn't be possible with 2 engineers per shift.

It's not rocket science to determine that the less an aircraft flys, the less servicing it requires and therefore the fewer engineers are needed.

At the moment our servicing is a disaster area - the move to calendar servicing meant more servicing on the front line and DARA's failure to deliver has put huge delays into the system resulting in massive extensions on most of the fleet. There is a way to service SAR helicopters but it is not what we are doing at the moment.

AW and VT are taking over our servicing top to bottom and strangely they haven't said it can be done with 2 engineers per shift either.

Quote: AW and VT are taking over our servicing top to bottom and strangely they haven't said it can be done with 2 engineers per shift either.

Is that because they are also having to service/ maintain iaw RAF procedures?

Or, is the RAF stipulating how many engineers they must have to cover a shift?

Crab
We have carried out back to back MGB changes on the same aircraft in the past using the engineers on shift plus two off shift! They were worn out at the end of it but the jobs were done safely and reasonably quickly!
Thankfully, gearbox problems are not that common,(now that's done it!):) but when one is needing changing,or any other major component, then as I have said more than once, two of the off shift engineers come in on overtime to help the on shift engineers. That is how it works, like it or not, and quite frankly, I am getting a bit fed up with your assertion that we are doing anything underhand.
I can't quite get your thinking behind needing more engineers because you fly more hours!(The hours bit I do not dispute.) But, the checks need doing no matter what, 10 hours, 20 hours whatever. You can only get one set of hands on a Chip detector or grease gun.:confused: The checks just come up a bit more often! And you still haven't enlightened us to just how many support staff you have/had/will have on your unit!:rolleyes:
Why would Wastelands/VT want to put in less engineers than the RAF? More people means they can rip off HMG even more than they are already!!
As AH says, get yourself out of Chivenor and visit a civvy base before you throw any more stones.:)

Quote" As AH says, get yourself out of Chivenor and visit a civvy base before you throw any more stones"

Crab isn't throwing stones he getting desperate he's throwing bricks now :) he know's in 4 years time he might be one of those banging on someone's door asking if he can keep his job in Chivenor and the people he's been throwing those same stones/bricks at might have other more open minded pilots in mind for the job.:D

Yes doing a gearbox change on the SAR 61 DOES need more than two engineers, as does much of the works that require that aircraft to go offline. When that happens the standby aircraft is put online and engineers not on shift will come in on overtime to assist on those jobs, so it isn't just the two on shift engineers doing the job.

There are obviously two side to the "discussion" on Harmonisation, and both have their valid points. However, Crab you have either been misinformed as to how we "Civvies" do things, or you are purposefully baiting people. If you are unsure as to how things are done why not stop the arguiing and go visit Lee or Portland. If you don't want to do that then you are obviously baiting people, and others like me can simply discount your rants as nonsense.

For my part I am very much hoping to learn from the RAF/Navy, as well as civvy crews, when harmonisation comes round. I have learnt much from those who I have already flown with, and I hope I can bring something that will be of use to those I meet in the future, both civvy and Military.