Crab Quote:-
"How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability"

Don't go there Crab:=
You go on about people telling porkies when bidding for contracts well thats what your doing.
Even I can remember Black Monday when there was only one Seaking seviceable in the whole of the Military SAR fleet , Now I know thats not "ALL" but it's bloody close.
U/S SAR Seakings are a weekly occurrence at most RAF bases sometimes both are U/S

Also I would like to know why the S92 in Sumburgh would need extra tanks fitted don't they have oil rigs north ,south, east and west to refuel on or am I missing something.

Justin

Lost at Sea,

As I have already said, there is a lot of supposition about the advice given to the MCA. Unless they were obliged to take the advice then the MCA is still ultimately responsible. Has the MCA pointed the finger at the MoD/RAF/IPT? If they have grounds for complaint it seems strange that, given the press are criticising them over the introduction of these aircraft, they haven't sought to make public how they were duped.

HAL

Old LAE - if quality experience is only available from ex-mil sources, what will happen when there is no more ex-mil. As it is the bidders recognise that without a significant number of mil crews defecting come 2012 and beyond they won't be able to crew the aircraft with the right calibre of pilot/winchman.

Whilst an ex mil pilot may bring many skills to the party, the civilian co-pilot spends his life in the LHS, does a captain's course and then magically becomes an experienced SAR Captain who has probably never done a job form RHS.

Mil Co's get stacks of RHS training, SAREXs and supervised jobs in the RHS before an Op Captaincy check.

I know that the bidders for SARH have included training plans for the future, (many modelled on what the RAF does) that explains why the bids are so expensive and why civSAR is not cheaper than mil when the playing field is level.

It all comes down to training - SAR involves a lot of skillsets which erode without constant practice - the Mil do many more times the amount of training and checks than civ do - you work out which is best.

You can provide SAR on a shoestring but it isn't likely to be very good - unfortunately it is only the difficult jobs where this will show - we train for the worst case so we are not caught out.

Justin - I'm not saying we don't have serviceability problems but Lostatsea's claim that civSAR constantly covers for our unserviceabilities is plainly untrue.
It is Stornoway that needs the long range where there are no rigs.

Lost - Bristows ran a SAR service for 20 years and told the MCA what they wanted to hear. The MCA were unable to get unbiased aviation information from industry (surprise surprise) when the contract was due for renewal which is why the military were involved.
PS you don't have arguments, you have comments on other peoples arguments - not the same thing

The military did not get involved in the MCA Interim contract because industry would not provide unbiased aviation information. As already stated, the MCA retains the services of an unbiased aviation consultant (who was also involved in the acceptance of the Interim contract by the MCA). This company openly advertises that they advise the MCA on SAR helicopters, on their website Consultavia - Aviation advice and consultancy services for helicopter users and operators

The joint MCA/MOD IPT was to have been formed solely for the SARH Contract. When MOD programme delays slipped the project to the right then the resources of the joint MCA/MOD IPT were assigned to the writing and evaluation of the MCA Interim contract. Acceptance and oversight of the MCA Interim contract was, and is, an MCA matter.

In addition to late delivery of the aircrfat, Sirkorsky have had 'certification' issues with the long range tanks in the S92. Any contractual implications in this delay in achieving full operating capability is again, a matter for the MCA, CHC and Sikorsky.

without wishing to stir any hornets nests again, why hasn't the 139 started ops at Lee yet? or has it now? I heard that crews were being trained on it but it seems to have taken a long time and the Portland 139 has been operating for some time now.

Spanish waltzer Quote:
"why hasn't the 139 started ops at Lee yet? or has it now? I heard that crews were being trained on it but it seems to have taken a long time and the Portland 139 has been operating for some time now"

They went live 30th of last month :ok:.

Crab quote:
"I'm not saying we don't have serviceability problems but Lostatsea's claim that civSAR constantly covers for our unserviceabilities is plainly untrue".

So if your unserviceable and the civSAR is not covering you who is ? maybe it's the Sea Scouts:ugh:

Lee on Solent
 

The Lee on Solent crews went 'live' on the 139 on the 1st April. Because the Portland crews had to go to Italy for training it was quite wisely decided that the Lee crews should cover Portland whilst gaining experience on the aircraft, systems and procedures.

As of 30th June both Lee and Portland went 'live' with the 139.

Thanks for the update - great news that the 139 is now up & running properly. Hope it meets expectations & in time it proves itself to be the right choice.

Really? Would you like to expand on that or is this just another of your sweeping statements with supported with no evidence? Are you saying Bristows lied to the MCA?

So the only place the MCA can get unbaised information is from the military. Well, judging by your continual attacks on Civvies I hardly think that the military are in a position to offer unbaised information. Maybe this is why the SAR-H team hasn't appeared to consult with the Civy SAR crews on SAR-H and are basing the future of SAR on their own knowleague of old SAR technology currently used by the RAF rather than talking to the people who are operating the new technology? Or is it just the 'RAF know best' attitude?

No there're counter arguments which you choose to ignore because it doesn't suit your propaganda.

Max Con - the Consultavia company appears to be a one-man band who has no modern SAR experience - this is probably why the Military were asked.

Lost at Sea - I made the point that Bristows ran the SAR operation not the MCA, the MCA had operational control of the 4 flights. With no aviation expertise, the MCA would have little choice but to accept that whatever the contractors told them was the true state of affairs - you said they lied not me but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps.

The SAR H IPT is a mix of Mil, civ and MCA and therefore there is knowledge of CivSAR and direct consultation is very likely to have taken place.

You clearly don't understand the process since the (4 now 3) bidders are the ones to decide basing, aircraft types, training, manning etc, not the IPT. The consortia are made up from various companies, all of whom have a very clear working knowledge of modern SAR technology.

Interestingly, the RAF were not offered the chance to construct an all-mil bid by way of a comparison.

Now the bids have been submitted (several by each consortium to cover different options) the IPT uses all manner of subject matter experts to score the bids - the technical issues regarding aircraft capability have been assessed by current RAF SAR operators (mainly SAR Standards).

Once the scoring is completed then the winning bidder shoud emerge.

Is that clear and propaganda-free enough for you?

My argument is that UK SAR should stay military (or the 2/3 that it is at the moment) for all of the reasons I have detailed in many posts - what exactly is your argument (other than you just don't like my attitude)?

Oldlae,

SAR engineering is now done by AW/VT so, unless a cheaper contractor can be found, there are no engineering savinds to be made with full civilianisation of SAR.

Justintime80,

It was the MCA that claimed, in an official press release, that both the AW139 and S92 could fly further than the aircraft they replaced.

MaxCon, Thank you for that rarest of treats on this thread, an informed and unbiased post.

Still some Crab baiting going on because some people don't seem to like some of what he has been saying coming true. Having read Crab's posts, I cannot recall him directly criticising the actual civ crews with his target being the senior management. In the interests of balance he also has a regular pop at the MoD/IPT/RAF.

I can never understand UK civ SAR slagging off the military. It was, after all, the military that recruited, selected and trained the vast majority of those now in civvy street.

hal

Crab,

Nice to see you're coming back to a more reasoned argument. I was a bit concerned about you and was beginning to think you were about to become the RAF equivalent of a hysterical religious zealot with your mad claims about the whole aviation industry unable to offer unbiased information to the MCA. Perhaps you and your mate Hal could have started a your own cult where you sit in your broken down yellow sea kings with your backwards facing radar decrying the evil infidel (civy sar) and their march towards UK SAR domination. So welcome back to reality!

Now to the bit you hate – me showing the rest of the forum the inconsistencies and spin in your argument.



Here we go again... nice spin but not true. I asked you the question "Are you saying Bristows lied to the MCA?" That's a question not a statement. The clue was the question mark at the end.

Well, if they didn't surely the RAF technical advice on offer would have spotted it?????

Really...... perhaps you don't know as much as you claim.

Yes well after wasting £3 billion on Nimrods and Chinooks they're hardly to be trusted with taxpayers money.

A fine argument... I mean if it goes Civy and you stay with the RAF you might have to move house and fly somewhere else!!!

And now to your 'mini me' HAL.

Your a bit mixed up old fellow... that'll be your hero Crab slagging off the Civy's but a nice attempt at spin but your not quite up to Crab's standards! :ok:

I suggest you reread this thread I have already proven that Crab's argument has changed from heralding the new provider of Civy SAR (thanks to MOD involvement) to slagging it off (now things aren't going well) .... and the RAF only walked past the MCA HQ that afternoon 3 years they never offered any technical advice at all... its all the evil Civy's fault.. and so on.

Yes it was. Which is exactly why Civy SAR is as professional and dedicated as it is. Something you and Crab should remember.

And finally.....

Crab, your right... I don't like your attitude. I think it stinks. For years you have attempted to damage me and my former colleagues in Civy SAR through half truths, outright lies and snide unpleasant remarks. You seem to relish any opportunity to knock them and take an unpleasant delight when things go wrong whilst blatantly ignoring the problems and expense of your own service.

The only reason I post on this site is because I hate to see your biased propaganda going unanswered. I want to show the forum how you twist information by quoting your arguments and showing the inconsistencies in them. Personally I don't care about whether SAR-H happens or not but I will continue to take you to task on everything you say. We live in a democracy (thanks to the military) and listening to one extreme opinion is unhealthy so I am providing an opposite opinion so hopefully we will cancel each other out and a more sane and level headed debate will carry on in the middle. Oh and feel free to call me 'mental' again I really don't mind!

Frankly Lost - I think that anyone with more than one brain cell can see that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag - your constant cut, paste and fatuous comment technique is a masterclass in confused thinking and deformed logic.

For example, your conclusion that because the procurement system made errors with the Nimrod and Chinook 3 the RAF should therefore not be allowed to make a bid for SARH is childish logic to say the least.

Another example of your inability to see what is before you - your reply to my comments about the MCA not knowing about the difference in aircraft capability was to snipe at the RAF technical advice on offer - the period we are talking about is your last 20 glorious years of Bristow/MCA SAR where no RAF technical advice was sought or given. Another great expose argument debunked!

Most of the rest of your 'arguments' follow the same ridiculous pattern - the only one you got right was about Bristows lying - I was just having some fun with that one:)

The rest of your post is the same drivel - you really are delusional if you think that you have demonstrated inconsistencies and spin in my arguments by making ill thought out, uninformed and embarassingly wild accusations about topics you have little knowledge of.

BTW is there a new law that you can't live where you work?:ugh:

Crab,

I think you should just let Lost at Sea have the last word and move on. As you say, he has no argument but just continues to produce his tedious little analyses of posts.

The debate about the advice offered to SAR-H by the MoD/IPT/RAF was ended with Max Con's comments. The MCA is to blame for the mess it is in and nobody else. By the way, has the MCA settled the industrial action that has been rumbling on for ages. This has seen its most senior people having to man the ops desks/phones etc. Another good advert for giving the whole of UK SAR to a civvy organisation. Once privatised, this essential service can be held to ransom by the unions just like the fire 'service'.:ugh:

Bring it on!

HAL

Hal - concur:ok:

Crab and HAL,

Nice rants but again more spin and misleading drivel.:sad: Although I found both of them quite funny. The RAF have obviously started formation PPRUNE posting!

But you know what they say - if you can't win an argument ignore it!!!

Never mind, keep trying.:ok:

Unlike your informed, accurate and well constructed posts :yuk:

This is what you are doing you ignoramus:ugh:

"Three's in":cool:

Broken Sea King.
 

See BBC online for the latest on Sea King reliability.

Totally 100% serviceability :D
Ya ok

see this video

BBC NEWS | UK | Chinook rescues helicopter


What do you say now Crab

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3...ercrash300.jpg


Not taking sides but sometimes things happen!

Important thing is not what crab says but that as far as I'm aware there were no injuries to the crew and the injured climber was airlifted to hospital by a second helo from valley.

According to the BBC website there was also an Irish Coastguard helo involved and a significant number of volunteer local mountain rescue guys & girls. A great example of inter agency, Mil & civvy co-operation.

Well done to all concerned including the chinook guys for recovering the aircraft safely. Professionalism shown by all. Can we now cut the childish willy waving?

Yep, s--t happens.
3D

Just a tad more willy waving if I may. :ok:

Crab, put down the bat and read your post #91 again please. I know you hate c&p but I'll save you chasing it down.

you said they lied not me but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps.

Please, where did you get that idea from. If you can tell me where and why a civilian operator would produce an aircraft for SARops without an AP I, along with many others would be curious to know. There's a Deferred Defects List available for each aircraft type. I don't have it for the 61 any more. However the preamble for the Tiger has the following line.
"The existence of these lists does not preclude the captain from accepting the aircraft under such circumstances."

You insult the ability and integrity of the civilian pilot world, especially those who haven't had the opportunity to work in the armed forces, at will. Most of us wore green ovies, they don't make you a better pilot, training and more training from knowledgeable instructors does. Your line about the amount of training and checks a Military SAR pilot does exposes your lack of knowledge, again. Do us all a favour and take a day off (as suggested by many contributors), go to Lee or Portland, ask them how many checks they do every year, before winch check rides. It used to be 13, but may well have increased, and that included a written paper.

Unfortunately this medium removes the intonation and inflection present in speech. That's a real shame as I'm sure most of us would enjoy discussing your points in a pub. I repeat that using any form of insult which lambastes a person's perceived mental state is unacceptable, and degrading.

Bootneck - I know that all the Bristows S61's did not have the same fit, such that whilst any of the normal 1st standby SAR aircraft were full autopilot, if that was u/s and a temporary replacement was used, it was likely to be a non-autopilot aircraft. Is anyone going to tell me that was never the case and such a S61 never held state at a civ SAR flight?

As for training and checks - we have discussed at length that the mil does considerably more training, you and others say that is what makes us more expensive - by your logic it also makes us better operators:)

Is there a team that visits each civSAR flt every 18 months to check the admin, engineering and the flying like SAR Standards does? That is in addition to an annual cat check, sim trg, IRT and periodic QHI and trg off checks. Exactly what checks do you have complete as a civSAR pilot? IRT and a base and line check?

The Valley aircraft had been hovertaxiing in cloud trying to reach the casualty but developed a utility hyd leak (no winching then) and shut down at a valley LS to investigate. On start-up they suffered a serious gearbox problem that required the aircraft to be airlifted by Chinook back to Valley. As 3D said - !!!!! happens but since there are reports of a S92 in OZ having a major gearbox problem it isn't confined to the poor old Sea King is it?

Let me help Crab out with his nomenclature!

The civilian SAR S61 had a 4 axis autopilot a la Seaking giving it a height profile for the let down and hold in the hover.

The replacement a/c often had only a 3 axis autopilot with no height profile for the let down and hold in the hover. It still had the same autopilot as an offshore machine.

332M

332 - yes and therefore not suitable for night or IMC over-water SARops ne c'est pas? By 3 axis autopilot you actually mean autostabilisation with a bar alt hold and a heading hold (and I believe no doppler hovermeter) - that is not actually an autopilot:)

This one is for Crab

http://www.pprune.org/forums/rotorhe...or-blades.html

I did not know Seakings can fly without blades :eek:

Is the new standard in the RAF :D

Ive heard of cost cutting but this seems to be a little extreme:=

Never mind Crab there is always Civie Street :D

Crab,
At the risk of identifying myself, I have personal knowledge of engineering audits being carried out every six months at Lee and Portland before I retired, all part of the BHL ISO 9001 Quality Manual.

Pumaboy

A little childish your response to Crab. He has a belief and at least he sticks to it!

If you want to make silly posts then perhaps answer this question. Which SAR cab crashed after the pilot got disorientated at low level at night and who picked them up? To help it was about 1987/8 and featured on the documentary RESCUE.

332M

Pumaboy - if you are a Brit mil Puma driver you really can't throw stones given the recent history of that force.

We can take the flak from the Chinook guys and girls - they will all be claiming they were the ones to USL the Sea King home:)Thanks for the rapid response.

OldLAE - I didn't say engineering audits didn't take place - please read my post again in context

It was a MCA cab flown by an ex RAF pilot and I seem to recall that later in that series the Lossie cab rescued the crew of an RAF helicopter which had crashed in the mountains... people that throw stones.... :=

Crab, if you knew what you were talking about you'd know that the CAA, the operating company and the client all conduct operational and engineering audits on units but, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Keep on spinning!!!!!:)

Not in Civvie SAR! LoL Burnt those bridges i am afraid:p

Just for the record; was actually the Lossie cab that crashed and were rescued by the Leuchars crew.



Walter picking up Paul Berriff ('Rescue' Producer) and the captain of the Lossie cab:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i9...une07084-1.jpg

Crab,
I can only tell you what happened when I was active and BHL had the contract, the engineering audits were all that was required then as it covered the aircraft, hangar, workshops, paperwork and stores management, I may have forgotten some things after so long. Sometimes the audit coincided with the Ops audit but mostly it didn't.
I don't know what happens now, different company, different contract.

Is there a team that visits each civSAR flt every 18 months to check the admin, engineering and the flying like SAR Standards does? That is in addition to an annual cat check, sim trg, IRT and periodic QHI and trg off checks. Exactly what checks do you have complete as a civSAR pilot? IRT and a base and line check?




Crab as Oldlae (hello chap :)) above, times and routines may have changed. However.

IRT, usually included instrument base check
Day/Night VMC base check COT.
Day /night decks
Day/Night Line check or role check in the case of SAR
Winch check
Dinghy/escape drills
Plus of course medicals.

There are two missing, perhaps somebody can drag them from the shelf marked 'dust with care'.

The checks are all conducted by a training captain, the only difference between him and a service QHI is the appellation. When I worked with BHL the last two senior standards pilots, responsible for the whole system were a matelot and a crab. All their staff worked for BHL, however, and this point is often overlooked, they were testing on behalf of the CAA.

The training empire grew into a very efficient outfit, especially the one based in Aberdeen. It had to be efficient and thorough, there were in excess of 150 pilots to check and train. Add that requirement into the ongoing everyday flight ops which in the heyday were in excess of 70 flights by BHL alone per day, and you may understand why there had to be such good support and understanding between Operations staff, engineers and pilots. It wasn't always smooth, but it was always interesting. :ok:

Go on, get your shiny arse off to Lee and make some friends. :E

Mr Crab

If you have read the Defence Aviation Safety Centre Journal 2008 (2.8Mb) you will see that at least one civil SAR operator, Bristow who continue to operate SAR aircraft in Den Helder under contract to NOGEPA, was considered worth featuring on the subjects of safety management & safety leadership for the education and benefit of the UK military.

As the Director of the MOD Aviation Regulation & Safety Group put it in his foreword:

... [in this issue] DASC Journal concentrates on issues relevant to operations and areas that continue to present flight safety challenges: Human Errors/Factors, the worrying upward trend of military rotary wing acci dentsand risk management.
...the article by Richard Burman and Andy Evans of the Bristow Group, describes the direction the Group is taking towards their ultimate goal of a ‘Zero Accident Rate’ for the Company. This is a significant challenge for them as they operate some 400 rotary wing aircraft worldwide in some very demanding environments supporting oil and gas industries.


I know that DASC (now DARS) are working with operators like Bristow, the CAAs and manufacturers in the European Helicopter Safety Team to spread best practice in all aspects of helicopter safety as part of the overarching International Helicopter Safety Team in which CHC has been playing a part in North America.

332M

I was just throughing a little humour in to the light.

By the you are right about Crab but the only problem is he only see's things from one side and that is the Military side.

Both military sar and civil sar as had it's problem's but who hasn't?

No one is perfect and what about stopping this farse on who is better than the other at the end of the day we all doing the same job and we are supposed to help one another not back stab one another.

I thought the whole point of SAR was to help people in distress not picking fights on who is better than the other ( RAF, RN, CHC, Bristow)

At the end of the day who ever is running the UK SAR weather it be Mil or Civile Steet it is all down to politics and there is not a s..t anybody can do about it you can say your opinion but will it help?

Probably not .

At the end of the day we can look forward and help one another to make the service we provide a better one and safe one no matter who is running UK SAR

Sorry if I have upset any one but Im just being a little humourise and not being Childish.

Crab why not go and visit a Civie SAR base and speak to people who know about it you never know you might be supprised.

No hard feelings:ok:

Nobody has really posted a definite reply to the question of the S92's range.

Is it less than the Seaking which I know was better than the S61.

If it can't reach as far as the Seaking then somebody has made a big mistake - a newer replacement a/c should be able to give a better service than a 60s design.

The tit for tat between Mil and civil is a bit disappointing but SAR is a vital national resource and should be the best that we can afford.

The Seaking has had its' time now and are due for retirement - some must be nearly 40yrs old now - no wonder they are hard to keep serviceable.

The 92 is having problems as well - which may be usual for a new design as it beds in but at least one N Sea 92 was nearly lost due to a fault in the tail rotor assembly - fortunately they made it back to dry land.

So what is the truth - will the 92 ever be able to go as far as the Seaking without compromising cabin space?

2strops

puma-child

Go on.....before I bite....be honest...your posts are a wind up aren't they?

If not your spelling, grammar and appreciation of the English language are only surpassed by your complete lack of understanding of SAR and of the meaning of the word 'humour'.

Another one for the ignore list.

Ah - at least bootneck has actually answered the question regarding training checks rather than launching off down the complete sideline of engineering audits. Perhaps I shouldn't have included engineering in the inspection routine of the Sar Standards because they don't carry out an engineering audit or a QA and it has led some off in completely the wrong direction.

So Bootneck what I think you mean is:

A GH sortie, a day/night SAR role sortie and an IRT in terms of flying checks and all done, I would suspect, in one visit by the TRE.

Our annual Cat check (conducted by the Sqn Trg staff) is the same but the IRT is done seperately by the IREs. On top of that the SAR Standards visit every 18 months (used to be every year until recently) and conduct ground and air tests, usually another GH sortie and a SAR role sortie on each pilot. On top of that the Flt QHIs and rearcrew T cats are expected to fly with their pilots/radops/winchmen to conduct continuation training on a regular basis.
Aditionally, we are one of the few remaining areas in the RAF that have retained the CR, CR(A) and CR(S) operating categories so that crews have something to aspire to and incentive to improve knowledge and skills - I don't believe such a system exists in the civsar world (no doubt it costs too much:))

All this willy-waving is not to say we are better than you but to highlight what you will lose from UKSAR if and when the SARH contract is let in its present state. Not so many will transfer as is expected because seniority with the company will dictate posting locations so ex-mil will get the last choices and many of the experienced crews are caught in pension/ boarding school traps. Therefore, what do you think will happen to the quality, overall, of UK SAR?