Hummingfrog, I think we have seen pilots of both sides lose it in busy situations. I agree absolutely that the military pilot brings many advantages to the civilian world, one of which has to be the positive experience gained from having pushed the envelope in order to get the job done. Basically we had been given the opportunity to frighten ourselves 'gasless' and got away with it, if lucky, something very few young civvy pilots have the chance to do. The knowledge gained from pushing the line allowed us to know when enough was enough; that enabled military pilots to stand up to managerial pressures when the weather was beyond reasonable levels.
My experience of pilots allowed a dispensation from the exam requirements for licensing was from an earlier era, both as a line pilot and a sim instructor. I still believe there should be a level playing field, it's fairer on those who don't have to do the exams. ;) It's great that the, military are now working within the procedural world, and have knowledge of all the nav-aids available, certainly not the case from the 70s and 80s. As I stated previously, it's necessary to have a thorough knowledge of all aspects of instrument flying especially if your work environment requires you to be IMC for most of the day or night, not just to escape from the umballah.

The timings from the service schedules are correct. It may appear unbelievable, but that's a perception problem on the military mind, not for those working in a civilian environment. I have nothing but praise for the licensed engineers, working shifts, in extreme conditions on and offshore, they work wonders. Nobody but an engineer is qualified to denigrate them.

It bears remembering that a civilian machine worth many millions of dollars is losing money for it's owner when sat in a shed being polished. If it's fixable then every effort is made to replace parts and get them strapped on, the machine tested and back on line. I know it's hard to get the head around, but it's life out of a green, blue, grey suit.
Example. China, Super Puma died late PM. We were on the phone (8 hours ahead of UK time) to the Aberdeen night shift in minutes, before daybreak the part was in the hands of the courier en-route to Amsterdam, then on to Hong Kong where my smiley face retrieved it, took it through customs and then to the machine. We were flying again within 36 hours. Money was one factor, but there was also an element of pride in getting our machine ready to go again. Then we got the REMF from Redhill on the phone complaining about us not following procedures............ F**k off sounds very similar in Cantonese. :)

nodrama

If a strip down to rivets is not a G check then it is very similar in jobscope!!

HF

record breaker
 

3 weeks must be a new record for for a total strip down of a 332L and flight tested.

I have seen a 332L come in for new paint and interior in 4 weeks but not paint stripped or inspection.

The bendy toys must have slowed down. ;)
It was a standard routine, amazing to watch and certainly a matter of pride that they achieved the dates. The heavy hangar doors opened, swallowed the machine, and they opened 3 weeks later to evict the butterfly. :D

70 s and 80s eh? Bootneck you do know it is 2008 don't you?:)

I think I heard the sound of a (boot)neck being wound back in;)



I do sometimes get the impression that, far from the utopian dream they imagined, many ex-military pilots find life in the 'real world' far less appealing than it seemed from the other side of the fence. Perhaps it is the loss of status and authority, maybe it is that you can no longer do the 'right thing', you can only do what is right for the balance sheet. Maybe it is because so much of commercial flying is glorified bus driving (I don't mean that the pilots are less capable, only that they don't get the challenges to exercise their expertise as often). Whilst the removal of the F**k-factor maybe the most significant difference between military and civilian life, do the other benefits outweigh the loss of the camaraderie and the Fun-factor that still (just about) exists in the military?

I am sure I will get flamed for this one but I am just making an observation on how some PPruners come across on various threads.

Crab

You are right in some ways I am a glorified bus/taxi driver (well paid though:ok:) and but my priorities while flying are only slightly different to what yours are. We both have to satisfy the client - in my case the oil company and in my RAF career it was either the Army or the survivor. The balance sheet has nothing to do with how I operate so I am not sure what you mean by doing the right thing?

The main difference is that to the oil company I am just another contractor who is expected to provide a service. While this may be fairly routine during normal days it does get very challenging when the weather is on the limits and the customer wants max payloads. That is when I earn my money. The camaraderie is still there amongst the pilot work force but the fun factor may not be the same. There again I am only expected to fly the helicopter while providing the best possible payloads to the customer, nothing else so my working day begins and ends around that. There are no secondary duties.

I think that the major challenge that ex-mil pilots have to face is the realisation that they are not in a position of influence when they join an offshore helicopter company. They are required to fly and that is it - management manages and pilots fly - once you realise that it is brilliant!!

I have the best of both worlds, however, as I also fly for the RAF in my spare time and get the "fun factor" by being upside down at 4000ft :E giving air experience to an ATC cadet.

HF

I do hope that SERCCO will not be providing paramedics for this venture, I used to work for them and barely escaped with my life.........

Paramedic
 

The paramedics will be the civil aircrew already. They will be trained by the RAF at the SAR school of medicine when the school moves to RAF Valley by the modular route. Not by serco. Some of the guys form Bond have completed the course and CHC have started putting there men up for it. :)

Crab

Like most things in life, you only get out what you put in to it. If you come out of the military and expected to be treated as a God by the other pilots who have had to pay thousands of pounds to get their careers going, then you will not like the reception that you'll get. However, if you use your best CRM (crew co-operation) skills and get stuck in, then there isn't really any difference from the military when it comes to flying. I expect many of the HEMS, Police and SAR pilots love their work without all the extra nause that the military expects you to do. As Hummingfrog says, you come to do a job and that is to fly. Once your shift or flight is over, you go home again.

I left the military 11 years ago having served almost 18 years. I loved the flying but the other nause of station secondary duties and being duty officer became to make the life less enjoyable. Since leaving I will admit that I miss some of the camaraderie, but life is what you make it. I go to work to fly, and as a Captain I have as much responsibility for aircraft and crew as I did in the military. Now I have up to 19 pax on a leg to be responsible for as well. Some days the flying is mundane, others working like a one-armed paper-hangar. Same as the military.

As well as a more stable life-style, the pay is generally better (well on the North Sea or SAR anyway) and the opportunities are there should you wish to take a training or management route for your career. In my company we have training captains from both routes, civil and military.

In the end it all depends on your attitude to the job. Have a bad attitude about it and you wont get far. In my experience there are very FEW ex-military pilots who have regretted leaving the military, but they are all glad that they have had the opportunity to do SH, SAR, Jungly or whatever, as it has given them extra experience compared to those that have followed the civil route. Mind you, talk to some of the latter who have worked in Africa and they have some "interesting" stories to tell.

As with civil SAR, Crab, don't knock it until you have tried it! You may be pleasantly surprised :)

Or put another way

Now I know what working for a living really is!

Would I change a thing? Well yes of course, but that nice person in China keeps sending me emails with tablets that will make it grow!

jonnyloooove. Do you know something the SAR-H IPT dont? Like who won the competition already? Tell us go on! Tell Tell

Perhaps it is the loss of status and authority, maybe it is that you can no longer do the 'right thing', you can only do what is right for the balance sheet.

Crab, it may be 2008 but some things never change, the main one being the attitude of some, not all, just some RAF pilots.

Two examples.
One chief pilot, ex-crab told me I should show him more respect as he was a retired Sqn Ldr. Well stuff me sideways, if I'd known about his condition I'd have shown him a damn sight more of my backside. :E

The other guy was so anally retentive that, during our first flight together, he had worked out our fuel burn three times before we were 10 miles from Aberdeen. I asked to borrow his whizwheel and put in my door pocket, where it stayed for the rest of the trip. :E

In Bristows there were so many Sqn members from all three services it felt very much like a crewroom, the engineers were of the same blend. I repeat, your attitude may be tolerated, grudgingly, in your present environment. If you go into the real world and maintain it, then somebody is going to Rembrandt you. :cool:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...on_rolling.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...ns/nufsaid.gif

Bootneck - it rather sounds to me as though you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding the Light Blue, fancy those nasty ex RAF chaps doing something professional like working out fuel burn, tut tut. ;)

Never mind, you can take the man out of the marines but you can't take the marine out of the man - I'm sure resorting to physical violence goes down a treat in civvy st - excellent CRM:)

Shark!!!!!!! I've landed a shark.................

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/p010.jpg


Crab, nothing wrong with a blue suit. Don't like violence either, seen enough, as many of us have; but I do like a tad of common dog. ;)

Bootneck - not quite sure how you think I bit then - the use of smilies to indicate jocular banter was clearly not taught at Lympstone:)(look there's another one)

Girls (apols to Whirls, etc),

How about we get away from the jocular banter/fishing/mine's bigger than yours and discuss the topic? Harmonisation springs to mind :rolleyes:

Otherwise it will all end in tears, and they won't be mine :p

No! Not the Chinese burn in the playground. :eek:

Apologies for the departure from thread SP.

Harmonisation of resources can in turn be taken all the way down to harmonisation of the team, and Crab, judging by all his comments so far, isn't going to fit into the civilian mould. I'd rather upset him on here, than have him upset a dedicated team out there.

is this harmony
 

FROM HEBRIDESNEWS


Coastguard helicopter did not undertake rescue mission 14/3/08

The new Stornoway coastguard helicopter could not undertake a rescue mission on Wednesday because new fuel tanks have yet to be fitted.

Instead, a RAF Sea King crew from Lossiemouth flew the return emergency flight some 200 miles west off the Western Isles to airlift a seriously ill Russian fisherman to hospital in Stornoway.


Although the new Sikorsky S92 coastguard helicopter - based at Stornoway - was closer it does not have such a long range as the former Bristows aircraft used for coastguard operations.


Previous assurances that extra fuel tanks would be fitted into the new aircraft to allow it to fly on such a mission have not been enacted into reality. The fuel tanks are lying empty at the operator's base in Stornoway awaiting a decision whetever to install them or not.

On Wednesday night, the sick man suffering with chest pains was winched off the factory trawler Semyon Lapshenkov.

The MCA said the RAF Sea King was alerted to the mission as it had a longer range. :confused:

Surely not - the super-duper all singing and dancing SAR helicopter with less capability than the old one - so much for a seamless transition then:)

Extra Tanks?
 

What are these extra tanks, a modified set of externals or internally fitted ferry tanks? If they are internal doesn't that compromise the cabin?

Just wanted to drag this back to the top of the list in order to try and get a (sensible) response.

The tanks are inside the cabin, not ferry tanks as such as the are not an easy item to fit or remove. Don't qoute me on that as I was only listening to people discussing them before I left stornoway and I don't fly the 92.

Having just returned to the real world and catching up on the bickering on SAR.
3D Cam, are you telling me that Bristow engineers do extra duties for NO EXTRA PAY!!! This would have never happened in my time:=. Seriously, I have been reliably informed that you do in fact get extra pay for Fire Fighting duties as well as other duties on the base. My informant, well Bristow did have to tell CHC the Terms and Conditions for the TUPE handover.
H

So it will remain with a RoA of only 205nm then? Unless there is time to fit the extra tanks for a long ranger. Looks like the UK will be relying on the Sea King for a while longer. I seem to remember that the S 92 was supposed to bring much vaunted extra capability to UK SAR - another great headline with no factual substance then:)

Hiller.
I do beg your pardon, the Ginger beers do get paid extra for fire fighting duties! Not trying to hide anything, just forgetfullnes creeping up on me. :O
However, that is the only extra payment received, other than Ch.Eng pay. No stores pay, no fuel pay, no ground equipment pay, zilch! Yes indeed, times have changed!
Crab.
If you are impressed with the 92, just you wait till you see the figures for the 139!:E
3D

Before evebody jumps all over the S-92 about range, this occasionally used to happen when the dear old 61 was there (been there, done it), although I am not sure if the range differential was better or worse. I think now the issue has been brought into focus someone will pretty quickly come up with an appropriate approved procedure and the problem will go away.

Looking on the bright side, at least they have the capability to fit long range tanks, if we had had the spare payload it would have been a nice capability to have on the Sea King on several occasions I can think of.

Sorry, but something doesn't add up here? The S92 is a capable old bus and no way has an ROA of 205nms? Unless of course it was shortned by high winds etc, in which case the Sea King shouldn't have been able to get there either. Is this a send 3 and four pence we are going to a dance situation?

ooooo its really difficult to typ ewhen you have had tooo many to drinkQ! My head is going to hurt in the morning!

SRMF

SARREMF,

Definitely no 'send three and fourpence' going on. Sea King ROA approx 240nm, S-92 approx 205nm without aux tanks. Here is an extract from the MCA press release regarding intro of the S-92:

Richard Parkes, Director of Technical Services who represented the MCA at the signing ceremony today said

The MCA are delighted to be able to receive these new Sikorsky aircraft today as part of our strategy of utilising differing aircraft specifically for the varying coastline we enjoy in the United Kingdom. These new aircraft will be able to fly more quickly, and will be able to fly farther to people in distress at sea than those currently in use.

These new aircraft have been specifically kitted with various items of advanced technical equipment, including an on board automatic identification system (AIS), specifically designed for the challenges of search and rescue in the 21st Century. The S92s are in use on a variety of commercial duties around the world, proving their operational effectiveness and reliability, although this is a world first in being configured entirely for search and rescue.


We look forward to working with CHC who are fulfilling this key role and taking search and rescue work into a new era, and can bring their wealth of experience of search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway to the UK.


Notes to Editors

The aircraft are fitted with two internal auxiliary fuel tanks of 210 gallons each.

Fitted SAR options include:

- an improved AFCS with auto-hover capability,

- Forward looking infra red (FLIR)

- dual rescue hoist,

- full sliding-door

- bubble window,

- cargo hook,

- search-light

- loud hailer.

- The cabin can be arranged for installing triple medical litter kit, one or two aux fuel tanks, folding utility seats and ample storage. The designated operator console provides search data including FLIR and enhancing crew coordination on SAR missions.



As ever, the devil is in the detail. The S-92 can go further with aux tanks but this appears to be impractical at short notice ie, the sort of short notice that SAR helos are on. Due you think we will get a press release from the MCA that will clear up the confusion?

HAL
Now that will be a novelty!:D Their press dept. only give out what they are told is good news!:ugh:
3D

So is this what we can expect from civsar post 2012? Lots of new-labour style spin with no substance? I believe the PM had no idea of what was going on with SARH until very recently - let's see what happens now:)

The commercial 92,s are operating under a gravity refuel only restriction at present post the last fuel tank rupture in the Norwegian sector. This limits the fuel capacity of both tanks. Are the SAR machines required to operate with this restriction?:rolleyes:

The commercial 92,s are operating under a gravity refuel only restriction at present post the last fuel tank rupture in the Norwegian sector. This limits the fuel capacity of both tanks. Are the SAR machines required to operate with this restriction

No

Aux tank installation is awaiting certification from EASA

The press release I posted earlier was dated 1st March 2007.

If the aux tanks have not been certified yet, does that mean that the MCA were telling fibs about the ability to fly further? At no point does the press release say that the new S-92 will be able to fly further pending certification of the aux tanks.

As the MCA has no real aviation expertise within the organisation this should all come as no surprise.

Crab, your last post was a bit cryptic, do elaborate old chap.

Crab.
Do you mean he now realises that a great proportion of the RAF is not doing its bit on the frontline?:D Look out, your movement orders are in the post! Next stop, Helmand SAR.:)
Seriously, do you really think Gordon gives a stuff about any of this? He is not the first PM to hear about SARH, trust me! Someone even higher had knowledge of it a long time ago.:E
HAL
The MCA lost any Aviation expertise with the departure of Geoff Roberts. His replacement, C T, now employed by CHC:hmm::hmm::hmm:, had next to no SAR experience,mil or civ, and that is beginning to show in the problems associated with introducing a new type to the MCA contract! Teething problems are not confined to one company. They come with the aircraft, as we all know.
3D

SARH is likely to become a little more political in the near future as some MPs are asking quite pertinent questions like 'Why were Portland and Lee given special protected status from the 'blue sky thinking'?" and "Why do we need to spend £3 -5Bn in the private sector on something the military already do 66% of within the current defence budget"

Gordon apparently wants to be briefed in full about the project and with the economy in tatters I would think he is likely to favour a cheap military solution (ie not £3-5Bn) rather than a private one.

3D the SARF is already providing people for OOA dets in sandy places so no change there.

As for the lack of aviation expertise in the MCA - they are going to call the shots on the 2012 contract which doesn't bode too well. The same lack of expertise is why they had to come to the military for advice for SARH.

£3-5Bn..
Is that not the cost over 25 years?

In which case your question is why should "Why do we need to spend £120-200mn pa in the private sector to get new aircraft to do something the military already do 66% of within the current defence budget with old aircraft"

cheap military solution


Would that be the latest oxymoron? (Yes I know there are three words, but humour me) ;)

Crab

Quote:- Gordon apparently wants to be briefed in full about the project and with the economy in tatters I would think he is likely to favour a cheap military solution (ie not £3-5Bn) rather than a private one.

Didn't know you had the ear of Brown Crab next you will be telling us u voted for him:ugh:

the other thing that springs to mind is that you keep banging on about the fact that the Seakings are in your words "Knackered" and I know that you have real problems keeping one serviceable never mind two :( his "Cheap Military Solution" might just be to let you carry on with the same Knackered machines for another 10 years.

Oh and can you confirm that on very long jobs you have to reduce the weight of Seaking to squeeze in the fuel

Something the S92 with the extra tanks fitted will never have to do.:)

The Carson mod and a 'mid-life' upgrade to the avionics would keep the Sea King going for many years with increased performance and range, there are S61s out there with 30,000 hours on and our cabs have less than 10,000. The cost would be significantly cheaper than the SARH project and retain the healthy military presence (and the UK homeland security element it provides) in UK SAR.

The role kit can be removed very quickly to get the weight down in order to get the full 6300 lbs in - certainly much quicker than fitting extra tanks to S92 which don't seem to have been certified yet and without reducing cabin space. Our normal zero fuel weight is around 15,700 which gives us 5,700 fuel to our max AUM without removing anything and this will still give us a RoA comfortably above the S92's paltry 205nm.

As for GB - I didn't vote for him but then nor did anyone else:)

BTW - it's 'knackered' not 'nackered' - is English not your first language?:)

Quote "BTW - it's 'knackered' not 'nackered' - is English not your first language?"

Your right J it was late and think it must have been the wine:)

To quote Rescue 1,

"Oh and can you confirm that on very long jobs you have to reduce the weight of Seaking to squeeze in the fuel

Something the S92 with the extra tanks fitted will never have to do.:)"

This smugness is rather baffling because, as has been shown, there are no extra tanks that can currently be fitted to CHC's S-92s.