RAF to Loose Air Sea Rescue

[Maximus]

I was sad to see (after 70 pluss years) all our AIR SEA RESCUE will now be run by a U.S Private company....Who won the Tendering Process...At a cost to the Tax payer of 1.6 Billion!!... Big Boots to Fill for SURE!

[lakelandterrier]

I always wondered why UK air sea rescue was so fragmented - why do the RAF run some operations, RN others and Coastguard some. Always seemed strange that responsibility for this did not sit with one Service.

I suppose the CG service will TUPE to the new provider.....not sure about RAF & RN...that would be an interesting consultation with exsiting T&Cs!

Could be worse - could have gone to UKBA who would rescue you, then search you for passport & then drop you back in if you couldn't prove identity!!

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by lakelandterrier

Could be worse - could have gone to UKBA who would rescue you, then search you for passport & then drop you back in if you couldn't prove identity!!

UKBA is being scrapped at last.

BBC News - UK Border Agency 'not good enough' and being scrapped

[spartacus]

Whole thing is a disgrace and false economy for UK taxpayers. Bristows will recruit ex-military who've we've already spent a small fortune training.

After you've given your position and confirmed your MMSI you'll be asked for your credit card number!

[Silverfox]

Originally Posted by Maximus

I was sad to see (after 70 pluss years) all our AIR SEA RESCUE will now be run by a U.S Private company....Who won the Tendering Process...At a cost to the Tax payer of 1.6 Billion per anum!!... Big Boots to Fill for SURE!

Better carry around a few dollars for the collection box then!

Also will they send a "frog man" down, followed by a cage, instead of a guy on a wire?

[mick]

Just typical of this country what a disgrace

[willk]

Originally Posted by Maximus

I was sad to see (after 70 pluss years) all our AIR SEA RESCUE will now be run by a U.S Private company....Who won the Tendering Process...At a cost to the Tax payer of 1.6 Billion per anum!!... Big Boots to Fill for SURE!

Nice sentiment, but no substance.

Read this: Linky

Bristow will run the operation along similar grounds to CHC, a Canadian company who run your SAR operations for you in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Actually, they run our SAR operations in Northern Ireland for YOU, but that's another story.

My personal experience is that these companies will employ local talent, typically ex RAF in your case and their local bases support the UK economy. The crews are very well managed and train relentlessly. In the case of CHC, they have provided heroic SAR cover here for years - conducting missions far out over the Atlantic and on high ground in all sorts of conditions. The only thing that it will cost the UK taxpayers is the little bit of profit that gets repatriated to the US, if any. The RAF could never hope to provide the same or better service for the same money.

I note that Bristow have proposed building the aircraft required in Yeovil, providing huge employment close to you Maximus, I hope they fit the hatches doors properly...

[Poly]

Originally Posted by spartacus

Whole thing is a disgrace and false economy for UK taxpayers. Bristows will recruit ex-military who've we've already spent a small fortune training.

After you've given your position and confirmed your MMSI you'll be asked for your credit card number!

You do realise the the Coastguard Helicopter rescue service has been outsourced for many years (originally to Bristows I believe). No suggestion that quality suffers; presumably having gone through the tender process at least 3 times now those responsible actually believe it is good value for money; and I've heard nothing that implies there is any intent to charge.

Still we could stick with an ageing fleet of aircraft; which I am sure would be just the choice you would want if you were in distress and waiting for the slower SeaKing, or our of range and had to wait for the Sea King to refuel, or cut its search short because it doesn't have the same endurance.

[lakelandterrier]

I haven't got a problem with SAR being operaed by a private company provided the service is professional and guaranteed.....we are all happy for sea-borne SAR being run by non-tax payer funded orgnaisations, and not expewct the Royal Navy or Caostguard to provide a lifeboar service.

There must have been huge inefficiencies in 3 different services - and their individual admin support providing air-borne SAR (although for RN/RAF there must have been training benefit) but I've never seen the point of CG air-sea rescue as a separate entity.

What is important that round the clock cover is provided with optimum equipment and highly competent operators. With no disrepect to HM forces (with whom I used to serve) they do not have a monoploy of professionalism.

Who's going to tell HRH Prince William he's being TUPEd to the private sector????

[Dhf]

Originally Posted by lakelandterrier

Who's going to tell HRH Prince William he's being TUPEd to the private sector????

He be on job seekers allowance soon then, poor bugger with a growing family to feed, maybe his old man or Nan would sub him bob or two.

[Ribochet]

Originally Posted by willk

Nice sentiment, but no substance.
Read this: Linky
Bristow will run the operation along similar grounds to CHC, a Canadian company who run your SAR operations for you in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Actually, they run our SAR operations in Northern Ireland for YOU, but that's another story.

My personal experience is that these companies will employ local talent, typically ex RAF in your case and their local bases support the UK economy. The crews are very well managed and train relentlessly. In the case of CHC, they have provided heroic SAR cover here for years - conducting missions far out over the Atlantic and on high ground in all sorts of conditions.

Totally agree

My experience with CHC SAR has always been very positive and professional.

http://www.chcsar.com/

PS Couldn't access your link directly willk but then isn't the FT only for those with money anyway

[willk]

Originally Posted by Ribochet

PS Couldn't access your link directly willk but then isn't the FT only for those with money anyway

You know how it is Ribochet. You can have money, or you can have a boat. You have a LOT of boat/s!

I'll check the link - there's always another page on the Interweb to support an argument...

[Poly]

For those who were not able to work out how to sign up free at the FT to the article willk posted. [Hint it is the brown column on the right of the table].

I'm not quite sure that this is what the FT meant by please use our sharing tools - but one of the options was print (which means print to pdf!).

[willk]

I just cheated and changed the link to the one from the Beeb that Humber Paul posted earlier in his own thread about exactly the same thing. He was far too calm and collected and didn't post any inflammatory crowd pleasing rhetoric, so no-one read it...

[spartacus]

Originally Posted by Poly

You do realise the the Coastguard Helicopter rescue service has been outsourced for many years (originally to Bristows I believe). No suggestion that quality suffers; presumably having gone through the tender process at least 3 times now those responsible actually believe it is good value for money; and I've heard nothing that implies there is any intent to charge.

Still we could stick with an ageing fleet of aircraft; which I am sure would be just the choice you would want if you were in distress and waiting for the slower SeaKing, or our of range and had to wait for the Sea King to refuel, or cut its search short because it doesn't have the same endurance.

I agree our ageing fleet of Sea Kings are desperately required to be replaced, but there are already concerns over the new aircraft, one of which will carry fewer casualties. Apparently the geographic reach is extended and flying time reduced to reach casualties. All good, but does it have to be outsouced to private company? Why couldn't the RAF or Navy do the same thing?

That said the MoD has a shocking record on project management. We're shrinking our military resource, hence cancelling Nimrod at £4billion, building ill-fated aircraft carriers without aircraft at £6billion (not operational until 2020), and making military personnel redundant every year in order to reduce costs. Hardly a track record to inspire confidence.

On the other hand the DfT and its record on commercial tendering processes it's no different. It wasn't that long ago that the west coast train franchise ground to a halt with £40m to be repaid and compensation claims running to tens of millions of pounds.

I think at the end of the day - the general public have confidence in our search and rescue operations, yes it needs to change, adapt and be efficient, but does it have to be a private enterprise?

[Poly]

Originally Posted by spartacus

I agree our ageing fleet of Sea Kings are desperately required to be replaced, but there are already concerns over the new aircraft, one of which will carry fewer casualties.

how often are the seakings involved in rescues above the available capacity of the new aircraft? I suspect very rarely - and that the spec for the aircraft takes into account the expected range of incidents, I know its dangerous to assume that the civil servants might actually have applied any thought to the process but might there be a spec for the work based on past experience and contingency planning for the future?

Apparently the geographic reach is extended and flying time reduced to reach casualties. All good, but does it have to be outsouced to private company? Why couldn't the RAF or Navy do the same thing?

What makes you think the RAF and RN would be intrinsically better at it? Historically they provided the service as a side effect of needing to do the same for their own crew. Generally speaking miliary rescues are in defined locations close to operational facilities - speed and range is not the critical factor. The military world has also moved on; whilst there are still occassional downed planes - the main job these guys do is actually a civil role. If the army were putting out fires on a routine basis we would be questioning why we don't have a civilian agency to do it for us.

That said the MoD has a shocking record on project management. We're shrinking our military resource, hence cancelling Nimrod at £4billion, building ill-fated aircraft carriers without aircraft at £6billion (not operational until 2020), and making military personnel redundant every year in order to reduce costs. Hardly a track record to inspire confidence.

exactly the sort of reason why a private contractor was able to come in at half the maximum budget for the contract.

I think at the end of the day - the general public have confidence in our search and rescue operations, yes it needs to change, adapt and be efficient, but does it have to be a private enterprise?

OK imagine the following article had appeared:

Coastguard to take over helicopter rescue service on land
HM Coastguard will extend its existing helicopter rescue services to cover all inland and mountain rescue helicopter services. The new arrangements will see 20 new state-of-the art helicopters introduced through out the UK providing a 24/7 service with highly experienced crew being pulled in from both ex-military and civilian positions coupled with new aircraft that will be able to reach casualties 20% quicker and cover a wider area both on-land and at sea. Half of the new fleet will be built in the UK. MCGA spokesperson commented, "by working closely with our partners at Bristow we have managed to secure a deal which will secure cutting edge aircraft with a substantial saving on the original budget". Training for crews has already begun on the new aircraft, enabling the existing fleet of aircraft to be decommissioned as they are already beyond their intended service life. Two different aircraft are being used across the country to prevent technical problems with any one model from grounding the entire fleet.

would it have got a more positive response? everything in their is true (well true enough for a Journo!).

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by willk

Nice sentiment, but no substance.

Read this: Linky

Bristow will run the operation along similar grounds to CHC, a Canadian company who run your SAR operations for you in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Actually, they run our SAR operations in Northern Ireland for YOU, but that's another story.

My personal experience is that these companies will employ local talent, typically ex RAF in your case and their local bases support the UK economy. The crews are very well managed and train relentlessly. In the case of CHC, they have provided heroic SAR cover here for years - conducting missions far out over the Atlantic and on high ground in all sorts of conditions. The only thing that it will cost the UK taxpayers is the little bit of profit that gets repatriated to the US, if any. The RAF could never hope to provide the same or better service for the same money.

I note that Bristow have proposed building the aircraft required in Yeovil, providing huge employment close to you Maximus, I hope they fit the hatches doors properly...

Thankyou Wilk AND Poly.
That does make me feel a Bit Better!...It May not be another G.S.4 Olympiic Debacle after all then!....I may EVEN take a leaf from you Mod's and do a bit of Tinternet Brousing on Every subject first...If I had the time I probabley..Might
I am Pleased to Know that the Copters are comeing from Yeovil ,as you KNOW..an International Centre for Desingn and Production Excellence!
I realy Hope the Procurment works out...I also hope the RAF manage to sustain thier Full level of Training.
ONLY time will tell.

[kerny]

Originally Posted by Maximus

Thankyou Wilk AND Poly.
That does make me feel a Bit Better!...It May not be another G.S.4 Olympiic Debacle after all then!

or maybe it will. as an example G4S is basically a private run army the peace keeping guys with the army uniforms and blue helmets which is run by this private American corporation. There were allegations of child prostitution rings being run by eastern European Mafia gangs and some of these guys from GS4 right at the top being involved in it while serving on active duty in Bosnia. There was a film out recently called " The whistle blower" worth watching

My personal opinion is that company's like G4S are being used by our governments to eventually water down our government troops and be privatised by company's such as G4S. Is the take over of our coast guard the start ? New World Order or what is that another possible thread??? oops but maybe not its political so not allowed

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by kerny

or maybe it will ... G4S is basically a private run army ... allegations of child prostitution rings ... eastern European Mafia ... GS4 right at the top being involved ... New World Order or what ...

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by kerny

or maybe it will. as an example G4S is basically a private run army the peace keeping guys with the army uniforms and blue helmets which is run by this private American corporation. There were allegations of child prostitution rings being run by eastern European Mafia gangs and some of these guys from GS4 right at the top being involved in it while serving on active duty in Bosnia. There was a film out recently called " The whistle blower" worth watching

My personal opinion is that company's like G4S are being used by our governments to eventually water down our government troops and be privatised by company's such as G4S. Is the take over of our coast guard the start ? New World Order or what is that another possible thread??? oops but maybe not its political so not allowed

If you REALY want an Overview of what Private (U.S) Army's ACTULEY DO these Days mate...Check out 'BLACKWATER SECURITY'....
AND One of George W's Fav's!