...using the off-shift engineers - thus eroding their 'down time' and rest periods quote "They were worn out at the end of it" and then probably had to come in on shift again. 3D - again you shoot yourself in the foot - your 2 engineers per shift aren't enough unless everything is going well.

Out of interest do your engineers work a 12 or 24 hour shift ?- we went to 12 hour shifts because of fatigue issues.

As I said earlier, one of the handicaps is that we have to engineer the aircraft to MoD standards which appear to be more restrictive in terms of the amount of servicing (and thus the amount of engineers) that we (and AW and VT) need.

AW and VT are free to put as many engineers on shift as they wish - all they have to provide is the aircraft at the agreed % of availability. They are civvies doing it their way, why should they be choosing to rip MoD off?

But since I'm not the one working for a company that got itself into finacial mire by bidding lowest on contracts and has had to be bought out by an asset stripping investment company - I'm probably more secure in my job than most:)

Crab, I'm certain you are aware that the people working on the SAR contracts for the Coastguard, are, in the main, former military pilots. Many of the engineering staff and winch ops are also former service personnel.

To question the competence of the engineers, their servicing procedures and standards, has raised the hackles of the pilots in their defence. You may well find in the not too distant future that the dividing line between the engine room and the bridge which pertains within many service units is, happily, non-existent, or minimal by comparison in civilian life. The quality, speed, and safety records of the men who service the aircraft in the Coastguard service, and on the North Sea is excellent.

Unless you have seen and experienced the dedication and skill of the civilian engineer then it's going to be difficult for you to understand that they do work long hours, and are used to it, as are the crews. However, they do so in complete safety. As licensed engineers they are able to carry out checks, servicing, repairs and replacements far quicker than any service crew I ever saw at work. It's almost impossible to negate a negative. The best thing you can do is accept the invitation to go to Portland or Lee and see what really happens.

Here's something to think about. Take a Seaking, tow it into your main shed and let the engineers have it for a complete strip down to frame and shell, engines and gearbox off, repainted ready for air testing. How long will that take your main servicing unit?

I may be out of touch on timings these days but a Super Puma or S61 would go into the Bristow heavy hangar for a total strip down to the rivets, then be back online, shiny new paint job and air tested in three weeks. Unbelievable, maybe, but it's true.

Meanwhile your Seaking has just become the Hangar organ donor. :)

Crab.
For once in my life I am lost for words, well almost! :mad:
You just do not want to see the obvious! With your attitude, you will be unemployable in the civvy world. No company would be able to keep their engineers away from you. Check Bootnecks post! As he says, most of the civvy SAR force are ex forces, me included and we have at least seen how they operate SAR. You have never been near an MCA unit so you really cannot compare!
BTW I do not work for a company in "financial mire," I work for Bristow!!:confused:

Bootneck beat me to it and probably said it better than I would.

Just to add:

A majority of civvi engineers are ex-service. The standards and integrity of both environments are high.

In civvi a/c engineering; you will not find as many engineers on a shift as you would in the Mob because it would financially cripple the maintenance organisation. We have as many on a shift as we think we need to make things work (from quite a few years experience). If extras are needed at times of crisis or major checks, manpower is brought in on overtime or sub-contractors are used. It's good business sense and it works....why pay for extra licenced engineers (which aren't cheap nowadays) on a daily basis, just in case they might be needed, for them to spend the majority of their time sat in the crewroom.

Oh, and by the way, civvi maintenance organisations are audited by the CAA and one of the criteria for holding a 145 approval is that the organisation has to show that it has sufficient manpower to support the maintenance of it's operation.....so there are no corners being cut.

I am under no circumstances saying that civvi engineers are better (as said, alot of us are ex-forces), we just work in a commercial environment and things are different.

As someone once said to me just before I left the Mob;

You were a civvi before you joined, you will soon be one again.....Get used to the idea, this was just a phase you were going through!

Actually - I don't think at any point I have questioned the professionalism or capability of the engineers - I know how hard they work and how the multi skilling and self supervision reduces manpower. You chaps are far too quick to take offence. One of the engineers left Chiv to work at Lee a few years ago and I know him to be a top lad - he said it was definitely different, not better or worse, just different.

The main thrust of this and many other SAR threads is that civvy SAR is cheaper and therefore better - my main contention with this assertion is that a comparison cannot be made because the playing field is not level - especially when it comes to engineering practices.

Yes your engineering effort is driven by finances, ours is driven by perceived best engineering practice - yours is audited by the CAA and is completely legal and above board, ours is mandated by MoD and probably includes a deal of overservicing. They are different - you think ours is too much and I think yours is barely enough, it has to be in a business run for profit. Is there an ideal middle ground? Probably and maybe AW will work towards it once all the political intervention stops. As I said, our depth maintainance is in bits thanks to the decision to use DARA instead of keeping St Mawgan open. You guys don't have to put up with !!!!! like that.

However, some of you seem happy to denigrate AW's operation without knowing anything about it - glass houses etc.....

Many have thrown stones at the perceived excesses of military manpower on SAR conveniently forgetting that we have to work the way of the rest of MoD.

I touted for an invite to Lee or Portland last year and was deafened by the silence 'not my position to make that offer' or 'ask the MCA to invite you'.

3D - aren't you transferring to First Reserve (sorry CHC) then? Didn't make the grade for the 139 course?;)

PS no-one answered the question about 12/24 hr shifts.

We have to move on
 

Crab,

Like many on this forum I have been the recipient of mil servicing and unlike yourself civvy servicing. If I had a pound for the number of times I could not fly in the mil due to unserviceability I would be a rich man.

I cannot remember flying in a clean mil machine ever.

Seeing it from both sides unlike yourself I can definately say that mil servicing is NOT better than civvy.

Just accept CRAB that many of those commenting on this thread have been on the other side and can therefore comment productively. You can only do it from one side.

Oh and just one other point. I have seen and worked with many ex mil pilots new to civvy procedures. If they continue with the mil attitude like yourself in civvy street they do not get on. After trying a number of jobs they eventually leave the industry to become a financial adviser. Those however that are willing to adopt the other side get on just fine.

Maybe some day we will fly together but change your attitude otherwise the EX MIL crew with probably more experience than you will put you right.

Dont get me wrong. I loved my mil days. The best times of my life. But things move on and so did I. You will have to some day. When will we see you comment here from a civvy point of view?

Crab.
I don't recall anyone saying civsar was better than mil! I do recall someone in light blue saying the opposite however!!(If I implied that then I apologise here and now!) Cheaper yes, better, that is in the eyes of the auditor.
And what do you think civvy engineers do then, just fill the a/c with fuel and hope for the best?
You might get an answer on shifts when you care to enlighten us on your support manning levels.:)
I do have experience of AW,( just plain old wastelands then) plenty of time sat on my a*/e waiting for bits that never seem to appear. I hope for your sake things have moved on otherwise you will be still in the same boat, only AW will be paying penalties to the MOD. I know where my money lies!
Invite to Portland/Lee? Surely a man in your position can arrange something without waiting??:) As I have said before, nobody has the authority to issue invites without the say so of the MCA. They are our lords and masters?:rolleyes: Transfer to Second Substitute?? That is the million dollar question!!:hmm::hmm: 139 course, I speako no italiano, except pizza. Quite good on yank though yawl, S92??

Crab:

Why is it that there is always a small minority of military officers who think that the civvy world is full of amatuers who, purely down to not having "served", are incapable of maintaining aircraft or running a professional aviation company. I completely agree with 3D and others that the ex-mil pilots and engineers who have gone through the culture change and adapted to the civvy world have gained, and passed on, experiences that have enhanced the organisation that pays their wages. Believe it or not Crab the military is not the be all and end all in aviation and there is a world out there. If you are due to come out soon I hope the superior attitude is left in or your civvy career will be short lived. Us draft dodgers are highly professional engineers and pilots and an easy going bunch up to the point somone comes along and tells us otherwise.

If I may lighten the tone somewhat, a few happy memories of civvy engineers, the vast majority of whom were from the services.

My S61 had a fault inbound to Unst. I entered the hangar, spotted a tall gangly form clinging to the gearbox of another S61 and enquired if the gangly form could help me. His response was a ring spanner flying past my head. :D:D:D We became the best of mates when I immediately burst out laughing. :)

Australia, our pumas needed cleaning, so everybody, pilots, engineers, office staff..........(yes....office staff, everybody. It's like that out there, or was) turned up, rigged down to shorts and boots then waded in to clean them thoroughly. During this process the greeny's radio was transmitting Aussie Rules, one of the bendy toys got seriously fed up after his request for peace was ignored, he put a fire axe through the radio. :D:D:D

China, during a Typhoon alert we parked up our two pumas and a super puma in the hangar, ripped the gear box and head off for exchange, then gave the blades a deep clean while they were on racks. The Chinese pilots were incredulous when I turned to in shorts and got on with it, they were deeply and I mean deeply shocked when I got their boss, an Admiral in the Chinese Navy, to get them involved working alongside their own engineers. Apparently in a classless society there are deeper divisions than in our class ridden society.

I hope the above may prove that there are no boundaries, only those we create and then perpetuate. The hardest wall to get over is the wall that the services create. Knock it down, work alongside and with the engineering staff and your flying days will be much happier.

There remains one further benefit of a close liaison with the engineers. They know well before the managing pilot when there's a tasty posting coming up. Their grapevine is light years ahead of the drivers. A quiet word in my shell likes got me two very nice detachments that the boss hadn't known about until I wandered in. :ok: Of course it may be that they just wanted rid of me but perish the thought, paranoid, Moi? :=

Just for you 3D - under the AW/VT contract the average engineering support (including SE. stackers et al) will be 31 per flight, that is 4 shifts of 5 engineers (including the shift boss) plus all the extras.

Until the MoD stops paying boarding school allowance or the civvy sector starts:) I will continue to serve my country thanks;)

Just out of interest Crab, and this is by no means a leading or antagonising question......

What shift pattern will 4 shifts work?
e.g 12 hrs, alternate earlies and lates

nodrama - each flight can choose but the standard is 3 days, 3 nights, 3 standby and 3 off. Chivenor have gone for 2,2,2,2 because it dovetails better with the existing shift pattern thus making the transition easier. Shift handover is 7 o'clock for Chiv.

Generous Manpower
 

Crab

You say that your engineering manpower is driven by the requirement to observe military engineering practices. Well is it time to examine those ideas and make a positive change rather than stick to something just because it has always been that way? You also say that the AW/VT ontract will be 31 people per unit. 4 shifts of 5 makes 20 plus 11 extras. A day shift and a night shift of 5 each plus a standby shift of another 5 every day. I am sure someone can be bothered to do the maths but this seems like very generous manpower to me.

Thanks Crab.

I tend to agree with AH that the manpower is generous, but hey, that's what the customer wants and I'm sure as you mentioned in an earlier post, once the politics is over and the dust has settled a little tweeking may happen.

1 less engineer on each shift (depending on AW/VT wages, of which I have no idea) could save around £150k a year for starters.

Just to throw something else in regarding engineering.

Once upon a time in the Middle East, a 212 would go in for a 100 hour service. The civilian company, (with initials similar to Wastelands now!), would take about a week for the job to be done.:bored:

On the North Sea a 212 would be taken in for the same routine and with 2 engineers would be back on the line the following morning! If it wasn't, the 'interview without coffee' was the next step. No aircraft to fly, no revenue, ergo no pay, a great incentive to work hard whilst on shift!!:D

So come on 3D what is your total number of support staff and what shifts do they work?

And, out of interest, what does one of your licensed engineers get paid? And how much leave do they get.

While we are on the subject, what leave entitlement do aircrew get in CivSAR and what sickness pay and benefits are there?

Yes 31 does seem generous but bear in mind the relatively low experience levels since many of the RAF engineers didn't transfer across and a lot who joined have little if any Sea King experience. The military manning levels were not that much higher and given that the Falklands had to be manned from that establishment as well as all the career training, courses, OOA detatchments and every other thing that the military requires, makes the figures more reasonable.

As for engineering practices - yes I think we could do without a whole raft of paperwork and crappy computer systems that make each engineering task take twice as long to complete as it should. But I don't have a problem with overservicing since I have to strap my a8se into the aircraft. One issue is that if the manufacturers say a MRGB is lifed for 3000 hours, the CAA agree but the military then reduce that TBO to 2500 (for example) and any exceedance of that 2500 has to be agreed using %age extensions - this increases the frequency of component changes and thus ramps up the engineering task, especially when more hours are flown annually on our aircraft. Why is this done? I think historically because military flying tends to be harder on the aircraft than civil so greater margins are allowed for fatigue.
Interestingly the first tyhing AW have done is to use the extensions on components to try and build some flex into the deep servicing problems.

There is obviously a dissimilarity in the aircraft (Sea King to S61) since we have all the complexities of the folding head system (which we don't need) and a full radar fit whereas the S61 has a simple MRH and a cloud and clonk radar (black box out, black box in) These 2 elements coupled with the outdated simplex Mk31 autopilot on the Mk 3 make up a lot of the engineering snags. Add in the fuel computers (hydromechanical on s61 I believe) and you have an aircraft that takes more engineering effort to keep serviceable.

Crab.
I haven't been deliberately evasive, just busy!
Total support staff, is, at the moment in a state of flux, what with the comings and goings of the transition. However, before all this kicked off, each 24hr base had seven engineers, six on varying shift patterns,2 per shift, depending on base, plus a Chief engineer on days. Also a labourer/handy man on days and a secretary for the Chief pilot.
The 12hr unit had/has 4 engineers, 2 per shift, working 12.5 hr. shifts on a basically 4on, 4off, two standby,4on, 6off pattern. Also a Chief engineer on days mon& thurs, shifts tues &wed, friday and weekend off. All this is to keep within the working time directive. Also a labourer on days and secretary for the Chief pilot. So, as many other posters have pointed out, you certainly have plenty of support staff.:)(Do you stiil have your WAAF to make the coffee?:E)
All these manpower levels are supposed to be increased by 2/3 at each base, thereby changing the shift patterns as well, after the transition team is split up but quite were these numbers are coming from is anyones guess. There is a dire shortage of engineers throughout the industry, due to lack of training, poor pay and conditions and lack of people leaving the forces. That, I'm afraid, is a fact and nobody in Civil Aviation would possibly argue otherwise!
None of the engineers were willing to divulge their salaries, and I can't blame them, would you publish your salary on a public forum? If you talk to one of your Wasteland engineers maybe he will enlighten you.
Leave and T&C's are also private but maybe someone will PM you???:rolleyes:
Special deals etc.etc.
Your maintenance procedures are differant, but a gearbox/engine/mrb still only needs changing once and no matter how many engineers you have, you are stiil limited to the amount of hands you can get on a component! Also too many cooks and all that?;)

A very generous interpretation of the 61 governing system! More like an anthropomorhic seat-throttle interface (aka P2.) Having said that, some clever and impressive features such as 3D-Cam's namesake, which are genuinely ingenious from an age of slide rules :ok:

212man.
Yes, a true marvel!! A 3D cam that is.:D
3D

3D - components only need changing once - if only it were so, we have one aircraft on it's 3rd time of engine removal due to a high speed shaft vibration and we are having increasing numbers of MRGBs that are not making their TBO - maybe that lack of engineers is affecting AW as well.

If the pay was better, I suspect there would be a good few more engineers leaving the forces, especially if there was financial assistance to gain their licences. The mid £20K mark that AW and VT aimed at for the contract didn't tempt as many out of light blue as they had hoped.

212man - what is this clever 3dcam in the 61 then? I flew the Nuri in Malaysia last year and apart from the fact that the co had to keep setting specific Nr for certain stages of flight, it seemd as though the system was a normal hydromechanical governor with static droop.

Engineers wages: It's no real secret if you know where to look.

Most MOD connected contracts offer in the mid-to-highish 20k. Most commercial helicopter operators (non-offshore) pay mid 30k. Offshore operators pay 40k+.

These are general estimates, before anyone jumps down my throat, depends on company and contracts they are supporting etc, etc..

Crab
Thats what you get with ageing aircraft.

Crab.
Engine out three times? This will be the last then, before you change the engine and HSS ? Does the Gnome still have the detuning weights on the support tube? That's not a clue, just a question because the CT58 doesn't.
The 3D Cam is the bit inside the FCU that basically controls everything the FCU does.(Other than the seat/speed select interface.) A piece of metal with various profiles and cambers machined onto it. If I had a piccie then I would post it. As 212man said previously, all done using a slide rule. No computers in those days. Engineers were real engineers then!:D
Now you have the facts about salaries as well. See why good old Wastelands failed to tempt many people? Doing things on the cheap, as usual!! But still ripping off the taxpayer!

So what does the SARH future hold for the engineering side then? If there is a dearth of licensed engineers, where will CHC/Bristow/whoever get their engineers from? None of the guys on the AW/VT contract are licensed and if the 6 RAF and 1 RN (Culdrose is very unlikely to lose its SAR) that is another 42 engineers plus eng managers to find from nowhere. Let the poaching begin:)

This is another financial burden that is borne by the military - training engineers - and one which will have to be factored in to make SARH sustainable in the future.

Interestingly, on the employment of ex-mil front, most of the people I know who have left recently have stepped straight into training jobs because of the quality of their CVs and their professional capabilities - how come these posts can't be filled from the civilian sector?

Crab, I thought I had a picture but can't find one. Visualise a coke can that you stepped on and only partialy crushed - that's what a 3-D cam looks like, only it's designed like that. Another way to think of it is if you have seen the 3-D computer drawn fuel scheduling/mapping graphs that a car ECU uses, then carve one from a cylinder of metal.

Having said all that - the 212 looks like the latest in FADEC control when viewed side by side!

.....and poaching it will be! It's a sellers market.

Crab

Quote:- "Interestingly, on the employment of ex-mil front, most of the people I know who have left recently have stepped straight into training jobs because of the quality of their CVs and their professional capabilities"


Safe to say this won't be happening to you Crab;)

Crab

Some of your thoughts are well meaning and valid, others verging on humourous, but always let down by your overall attitude. A shame.

A word of advise

Until you have taken and passed your CIVILIAN exams you are NOT QUALIFIED to even fly rubber dog!!!! out of Hong Kong:}

Doorstopper - just to put you back in your box, I have held an ATPL(H) since 1991 - is that good enough for you?

Rescue 1 - I dunno, just how many A2 QHI/IRE SAR boys with recent training officer experience on front-line SAR squadrons do you have working for you:)

Crabb

Haha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Its taken you over 3 years but you got there! Someone final did the not qualified to fly rubber dog doo doo etc! You have been baiting them for so long and then you go for the big reveal! Ha! They put em up and you knock em down!

Anyway, your wrong!

Not about that but about engineers. Some of us are already looking at how you train the next generation - and have been looking at this for some time. So, yep poaching for some areas, but everyone recognises the shortage and what needs to be done. Now some of us are actually out there trying to solve it and are not relying on the military.

And not every contract pays the same. If you get time to plan you can reflect market forces in your bids for SAR-H. Then cut back latter when they havent got the money!

SARREMF signing off from Poland. Damn! Dont tell him your name Pike!

I have to ask Crab, did you get your ATPL via the CAA dispensation for the QHIs and 38 group or did you actually sweat? :cool:

The reason I ask. I was working out of Sumburgh, bumbling along in a 61 with a former service colleague who was a QHI, hadn't sat the exams as he was given the dipensation, and was then the training Capt for the operation. He asked, "How does an ILS work?" I told him I was busy and this wasn't a check ride. He looked sheepish and told me it was the only safe environment he could ask the question as he had never had to study for the exams.

Bootneck,

You took the words out of my mouth.

Bootneck - Lights, law and loading were the exams I took and frankly when I see some of the irrelevant !!!!!e that some have to learn for their ATPL I am very glad I benefitted from the 18 GP maritime (yes I was a SAR boy then as well) dispensations. Are there some green-eyed monsters out there?

And yes, I do know how an ILS works.....it's pixies isn't it?

SARREMF - yes I love it when a plan comes together!! It is the short term shortage of engineers that needs addressing, fairly urgently by the sound of it so good luck. Poland eh......try nicking the carp out of their lakes and see how they like it:)

Lights, law and loading were the exams I took and frankly when I see some of the irrelevant !!!!!e that some have to learn for their ATPL


I suppose it's too easy using this internettyweb device to be supercilious, so I won't. However, please do continue using the yellow aeroplanes, as your preferred option. Serious IFR work requires knowledge. (Before you ask, yes I can use a hook.) :cool:

Crab, start digging a deep sangar. Innnnnnkkkuuummmmmin! ;)

.......you didnt need to be a QHI or in 38 gp in the early 90's!!...

.............. 2000 mil hrs and "combat ready" (or SAR "C" cat) and a mil instrument rating did nicely!

(with Air Law, Lights, RT, class 1 med and a civvie LST for your licence issue.)

Mine hung on the wall of my office inside a glass fronted box annotated;

"In Case of Emergency; Break Glass"

In the end it came in quite handy.

Bootneck - maybe that's why we all have full procedural IR s in SAR then and why I get to be the Command IRE to examine and award IRs and IRE's.

Maybe such knowledge wasn't required when you were in but now the lads and lasses do a procedural course at DHFS as part of their Shawbury course.

Nice try at being supercilious but you just about managed petty:) The irrelevant !!!!e was some of the trans-atlantic planning I have seen people swot up on - things may have changed in the exams now, the CAA may have made them more relevant to helicopters but I doubt it.

Bertie - exactly the same reason I got mine in the first place - just in case.

I dont believe it!

What dispensations!

I did ALL 15 exams for the ATPL(A) then had to pay for the tech group for rotary and only sit the P of F exam! I loved calculating the mid sector weight of the fictional aircraft [Tristar] so you could work out some blah about blah! [B Cat Op Captain with lots of hours at the time!]

Did learn a lot about avionics I didn't know. Not sure how relevant it was though? Do I really need to know about the lobes? Knowlege of Loran and Decca was second to none - and removed from the aircraft - after studying.

Anyway, the slides rules for the civy side were so much cooler than the RAF ones! Not sure how they work mind, but wow impressive look!Thats a joke! I do know how it works! You twizzle the inner duffer thingy against the outer bezel and read the answer at the triangle! Simple really!


Crabb - Poland was just to put you off the sent! Greetings from the QHCI thread!

Crab, here's an example of why recruiting engineers for MOD SAR is a problem:

Senior Technician (Avionics)
United Kingdom, South West West Yorkshire
Salary: £24594 - £26694 per annum
Permanent opportunities in helicopter engineering and maintenance in search and rescue. We are recruiting forces or ex-forces personnel for vacancies in search and rescue (SAR) helicopter engineering and maintenance in the UK. We are looking for senior technicians with avionics experience at Boulmer (Tyneside), Leconfield (Hull), Chivenor (N Devon), Valley (N Wales) and Wattisham (Ipswich). Applicants will need to have reached Corporal/Leading Hand level or higher. Civilians with NVQ level 3 and apprenticeship with relevant experience will be considered. Candidates will need
Contract: Permanent
21/12/2007

I was earning that in the Mob back in 1999 as a S/NCO technician.

An avionics engineer nowadays wouldn't put their overalls on for that (it's a difficult enough task to get them to do so anyway:)).

Bootneck

Slight thread creep but your comment "Serious IFR work requires knowledge" did make me chuckle. Although I left the RAF some time ago, as an IRE, I think that the practical knowledge and skills of a military pilot far outways what a pure civilain pilot brings to the table.

That is not to say that a civilian trained pilot is not a perfectly capable and safe operator it is just not true what you implied in your post.

I have seen inexperienced civilian trained pilots get into a right old tizz when the RNAV fails or gives odd readings as they are so reliant on it and will believe the figures despite what you see out of the window. One example - RNAV wind at 90deg to windlanes - RNAV wind believed despite gentle hint that it was odd that forecast wind was 90deg out!! Also unfamiliarity with how to do a radio aids nav just using VOR/DME/NDB when RNAV packs up.

Your other comment :-

"I may be out of touch on timings these days but a Super Puma or S61 would go into the Bristow heavy hangar for a total strip down to the rivets, then be back online, shiny new paint job and air tested in three weeks. Unbelievable, maybe, but it's true. "

Is totally unbelievable- I have never seen a 61 or Puma come out of a G Check in 3 weeks - 6 weeks more likely although we are waiting for an a/c to come out of a G check that went in in July 07!!

Civilian and RAF/RN have both got enormous amounts of experience and operating methods to bring to the new SAR organisation but it will need skilled amalgamation to bring the best out of both systems.

HF

Bootneck never actually said it had gone in for a G check.....