[Closed] Flat out wrong search and rescue content

I heard this on the radio this morning and, whilst I admit it made me feel uneasy, I'm not really sure why.

What's wrong with it?

(please can we stick to the facts of the proposal, and stay away from 'Tories want to privatise everything, Dave won't be happy until the NHS is in private hands' ranting...)

Seems like they'll be more coverage and a quicker response time? I assume the people on the front line will be the same, just transfered?

[i]I assume the people on the front line will be the same, just transfered?

[/i]

I doubt that, I'm not sure you can TUPE someone out of the armed forces to a private provider

True, but you'll get guys moving for better pay?

I suspect this will end up with better response times and certainly better aircraft, our search and rescue fleet isn't the best.

The test of time will be the issue here. If the Government realise they can't put pressure on them when they start under performing, it's a ten year contract that will be tough to get out of.

The other option is that the actual crews will remain the same but the running of the system and and the aircraft will be what is privatized. That would probably be the best of both worlds.

I'm not sure you can TUPE someone out of the armed forces to a private provider

Yes you can.

You do wonder how much commitment the S&R people will have as private employees as opposed to Military personnel. You could also imagine the whole thing becoming a Health & Safety nightmare and refusing / not being allowed out when the conditions are anything other than perfect.

Does seem a bit daft as any logistic change they make, they could also make under the current ownership.

True, but you'll get guys moving for better pay?

I understand Wills is negotiating right now - after all with a baby on the way things are going to get a bit tight.

Larger coverage
Faster response times
More sophisticated equipment
Same cost to tax-payer
Fixed price contracting de-risking overspend
Reduced management overheads

aracer, that was my first thought too. New wife, first kid on the way. Not long since moved into a new gaff. This couldn't have happened at a worse time for him. Hopefully he will have a good family network to support him.

That was my thinking too, are civvies really going to be able/allowed to put the machinery into some of the "interesting" situations that the RN/RAF do?

Seems odd that Caerarvon will be a S&R base when RAF Valley is pretty close. Better location for Snowdonia though I guess.

Plus new equipment being built in UK, one bit of privitisation that actually looks good.

Probably cheaper pensions too...

[i]Yes you can. [/i]

Fair enough.

[i]are civvies really going to be able/allowed to put the machinery into some of the "interesting" situations that the RN/RAF do?[/i]

This is a valid point.

The other option is that the actual crews will remain the same but the running of the system and and the aircraft will be what is privatized. That would probably be the best of both worlds.

Isn't that what would happen anyway?

You do wonder how much commitment the S&R people will have as private employees as opposed to Military personnel

I think that's rather insulting to the Bristow employees. That's quite a grave insinuation there.

Stoner - I'm not sure it was meant as an insult, more as another way of putting

[i]are civvies really going to be able/allowed to put the machinery into some of the "interesting" situations that the RN/RAF do?[/i]

and

[i]You could also imagine the whole thing becoming a Health & Safety nightmare and refusing / not being allowed out when the conditions are anything other than perfect.[/i]

How many private companies purposefully put their employees in harm's way? And, especially, risk the lives of their employees to save the lives of others? It must be a bit of a contractual minefield.

Larger coverage
Faster response times
More sophisticated equipment
Same cost to tax-payer
Fixed price contracting de-risking overspend
Reduced management overheads

All that and they still expect to turn a healthy profit for the shareholders/owners/management bonuses. 🙄

I'm wondering if the raf/navy actually bid for the contract? With all their cuts coming in, chopper fleet up for renewal and the need to keep experienced pilots and crew in the UK, is it really in their best interests?

Its a good thing that all the advantages claimed for any service about to be privatised always materialise without a hitch. And that prospective bidders don't make unrealistic claims during the bidding process, that then fail to materialise, or cost considerably more than first suggested.

I'm sure I'm just being cynical, and worrying unnecessarily as the bidding process was so [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/19/helicopter-rescue-privatisation-gagging-order-row ]open and transparent[/url]

My knee jerk reaction was that it is wrong.

If it delivers what they're promising it should provide a better service with considerably better aircraft.

I'm struggling to work out which station will cover the patch that Boulmer previously covered.

It's a two-part sting. First the service is privatised, then the privatised SAR service will bill the rescued, or the insurance company of the rescued for the rescue...

[i]It's a two-part sting. First the service is privatised, then the privatised SAR service will bill the rescued, or the isurance company of the rescued for the rescue... [/i]

Actual fact, or conspiracy theory?

It will deliver shiny helecopters and lower cost.
As above though, will civilians and a profit-driven company allow the risks that the military currently accept and step up to the plate for, even when the costs can be massive?
http://heavywhalley.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/memories-of-ben-more-and-the-wessex-crash-on-1-feb-1987/

What do you think?

I think conspiracy theory, I was giving you the chance to admit it 🙂

That's quite a grave insinuation there.

No, it's a genuine question.

Working for Queen and country is very different to having your shifts messed about and working short staffed so you can boost profits to make this quarters targets and get your CEO his performance related bonus.

You can take a highly dedicated professional employee and completely demotivate them with the right (or wrong) management style. Up to now S&R works for the good of the country, however from now on it's sole purpose is to make a decent return for the investors (no different to Tesco, Amazon etc).

Don't be suprised if it happens.

I heard that they will have performance goals, like traffic wardens, and have to rescue at least 5 people a day...

See what's happening with the New Improved police helicopter service and worry

I wonder what it it's latinized name will be?

Salvata, anyone?

IIRC the Coastguard SAR helicopters are already outsourced.

Double post

I heard that they will have performance goals, like traffic wardens, and have to rescue at least 5 people a day...

If it's a fixed price contract then the motivation will be to minimise call outs to maximise profitability, so you can see more arguing between the services as to who should attend, eg S&R insisting the Police turn up and verify the call out before they wind up a chopper.

Its a good thing that all the advantages claimed for any service about to be privatised always materialise without a hitch. And that prospective bidders don't make unrealistic claims during the bidding process, that then fail to materialise, or cost considerably more than first suggested.

^^^^these were pretty much my thoughts on hearing about this along with....

'Tories want to privatise everything, Dave won't be happy until the NHS is in private hands

Bristow already provide SandR services in a number of countries, including Holland and Australia so I wonder how they've performed there?

Correct - SAR in various areas has already been outsourced, CHC took over a contract that Bristows had run successfully in 2007 for four sites. As companies they also run SAR in other countries as well.

You do wonder how much commitment the S&R people will have as private employees as opposed to Military personnel. You could also imagine the whole thing becoming a Health & Safety nightmare and refusing / not being allowed out when the conditions are anything other than perfect.

Nobody questions the commitment of Mountain Rescue which is staffed by volunteers.

Secondly, I would imagine that the operation will largely be staffed by ex-forces sar, so would expect a similar degree of commitment.

Nobody questions the commitment of Mountain Rescue which is staffed by volunteers.

Because they do it for a sense of duty.

Very different to doing it to make your CEO rich.

Motivation is as much to do with the reason for doing the job as it is about the job itself. Being a volunteer / soldier is very different to being a private employee whose sole purpose if to make a return for shareholders.

Nobody questions the commitment of Mountain Rescue which is staffed by volunteers.

err, because they do it for free to save people rather than as employees of a company do it for profit.

I have been picked from the water by both civilian and Military Helicopters on exercises. I got a chance to meet the crews after the exercises on both occasions. Both crews were enthusiastic and committed to what they did, so I would not worry on this front.

I do think however that the civilian operators would commit to less training and also limit the weather conditions which were trained in.

FWIW the civilian helicopter was almost new and the military one was approx 30 years old.

Just because a private company has won the contract doesn't mean that they will make up their own SLA's. I bet they will be subject to the same conditions and commitment the military were kept to when they were operating the service.

You would be surprised just what conditions they currently operate in out on the north sea oil platforms. (I might have family who fly for Bristows so I may be a little biased 🙂 )

The AgustaWestland AW189 which will be the helo for most of the stations round the country is quick, well kitted out and clever bit of tech. Sadly there is sod all space in them to carry casualties. For our area (Purbeck/Dorset) we loose our local station (Portland) and instead have Solent's helo. Not a great deal of difference in response times to here but that's if they are not already on a tasking. Numerous times that both the Portland and Solent helo's have both been on taskings, not just in the busier summer months either. Can only see it will cause problems in our patch but perhaps other areas will benefit from this shake up of the operating bases

err, because they do it for free to save people rather than as employees of a company do it for profit.

A bit disingenuous- why wouldn't they have the same buyin as volunteers?

A bit disingenuous- why wouldn't they have the same buyin as volunteers?

Because doing something good because you want to is different to doing something good because someone orders you too and tells you you'll be fired if you don't.

One of the key foundations for motivation is autonomy, volunteers have that; employees don't necessarily.

Based on a recent BBC tweet the crews from the RAF and RN will be able to apply for a job with the new private company.

I really think you are projecting terrible pre-conceptions on those that work in commericlal SAR footflaps.

Why do you presume that there are "orders" and "reluctance" and the implied profiteering from inaction? Do you not think that there will be pilot-led decision making or very well defined rules of operation, conditions of service, delegated decisions etc.

You either work in a very dysfunctional commercial environment or work in the public sector and dont know how most people go about their business.

Never mind folk stuck on hillsides, the reason these services exist is to rescue servicemen eg a downed RAF pilot. How will the private sector cope with the requirement to go out in almost any conditions to do that?

Bristow Helicopters will be creating around 350 new jobs to support the contract and there is a transition agreement with the MoD to ensure continuity of service and experience. The existing expertise and local SAR knowledge is immensely valuable and we are keen to ensure that this is not lost.

I imagine many of them will be encouraged to apply too for perfectly sensible operational reasons.

Never mind folk stuck on hillsides, the reason these services exist is to rescue servicemen eg a downed RAF pilot. How will the private sector cope with the requirement to go out in almost any conditions to do that?

That is normally dealt with separately from the services that are being privatized. You don't see many search and rescue helicopters buzzing overhead in Afghan.

Never mind folk stuck on hillsides, the reason these services exist is to rescue servicemen eg a downed RAF pilot. How will the private sector cope with the requirement to go out in almost any conditions to do that?

If search and rescue goes private, does this mean idiots in flip-flops being airlifted from Snowdonia in January will have to pay for their lift off the mountain?

You don't see many search and rescue helicopters buzzing overhead in Afghan.

My mate is in the RAF and flew Search and Rescue for a few years before going on to do active tours in Afghanistan.

Now new RAF pilots won't get that valuable experience.

That worries me somewhat.

20 years ago-

[b]Flat out wrong railway content[/b]

Pigface - Member

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

LHS - Member
Less delays
Cheaper tickets
More sophisticated equipment
Lower cost to tax-payer
Reduced management overheads

Lifer - Member
Plus new equipment being built in UK, one bit of privitisation that actually looks good.

And yet-

The railways now cost the government £3bn more in 2008 than they did in 1993 (in 2008 prices).

Network rail is 40% less efficient than BR in it's spending.

Fares are up by more than inflation.

And we still see these-

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

So, while I'd agree that the principle sounds lovely, the reality will probably end up losing lives and wasting money.

You either work in a very dysfunctional commercial environment or work in the public sector and dont know how most people go about their business.

No need to get personal just because you don't agree with me Stoner!

not intending to be personal, just that you seem to presume that those being paid by a corporation to fly SAR are automatically more mercenary and of lower moral standard than those paid by the government to do so. I think you do them a great injustice and havent thought through what you are saying.

It is a valid question to ask what affect a change in organisation structure, ownership and purpose will have on any individual, no matter how 'noble' they may appear to be. People are not immune to their environment and so changing the environment can affect their behaviour, consciously and unconsciously. If you don't think that is the case, then there is a whole field of social psychology which deals with the work place environment and how it affects motivation, which you might care to look out.

A good example of this affect would be to look at how Hospitals chasing foundation status prioritise minimising losses over patient care and the knock on affect on moral and behaviour of front line staff with regard to patient care. No doctor or nurse would willingly neglect patients, yet somehow that is just what happens when you create the right (or wrong) environment e.g. Stafford hospital.

Whats next? Police, Fire, Ambulance?

Easy tiger! They've got to get the NHS and the Education System sold off first. To be fair to them, they've made a start at getting the police pensions and work & conditions sorted out ready for them all signed over to G4S

Daft question, but how will a private SAR company make a profit?

If it is through insurance, is this a step to leading us down the American route, where personal insurance is mandatory?

What's the french system like? Private or state controlled?

Surely this is the thin end of the wedge towards charging people for being rescued, and de facto mandatory insurance for doing 'extreme' sports? Or have a I missed something?

Daft question, but how will a private SAR company make a profit?

Assuming it was a fixed price bid then they get paid a fixed fee to provide a certain SLA for a certain period. The cheaper they can do this, the more profit they make.

Surely this is the thin end of the wedge towards charging people for being rescued, and de facto mandatory insurance for doing 'extreme' sports? Or have a I missed something?

We are unusual in the UK in not having this. If you get hauled of a glacier in the Alpes, you will get billed for the service.

Assuming it was a fixed price bid then they get paid a fixed fee to provide a certain SLA for a certain period. The cheaper they can do this, the more profit they make.

There could also be a fee per call out, again the cheaper they can do the call out the more profit - but if they don't go out, no money.

We are unusual in the UK in not having this. If you get hauled of a glacier in the Alpes, you will get billed for the service.

I'm aware of that. Doesn't mean we have to be the same though. Seems to me to be exactly what the tory right have been after for years. How long before mountain rescue goes the same way?

The NHS is already privatised - don't kid yourself.

The Rail comparison is a joke, the rail system is faster, more efficient and more reliable after privatisation.

I would have preferred the money to have been given/ringfenced to the RAF to purchase new helicopters improve service as a not for profit organisation.

[i](please can we stick to the facts of the proposal, and stay away from 'Tories want to privatise everything, Dave won't be happy until the NHS is in private hands' ranting...) [/i]

Whats next? Police, Fire, Ambulance?

Easy tiger! They've got to get the NHS and the Education System sold off first. To be fair to them, they've made a start at getting the police pensions and work & conditions sorted out ready for them all signed over to G4S

Seems to me to be exactly what the tory right have been after for years. How long before mountain rescue goes the same way?

Ah well, I suppose we made it to a page and a half 🙄

I would have preferred the money to have been given/ringfenced to the RAF to purchase new helicopters improve service as a not for profit organisation.

I think that was the main motivation, the Sea Kings are at end of life and buying a new fleet is very expensive, so by outsourcing the service they shift the CAPEX cost for new helicopter fleet to a third party rather than add it to our existing debt pile.....

I would have preferred the money to have been given/ringfenced to the RAF to purchase new helicopters improve service as a not for profit organisation.

Get with the programme. Nothing these days, even saving people's lives, can be done without someone making a profit at the end of it. Otherwise there's just no point is there?

AS this has already happened with Coastguard Helicoptors I would ask if that service is better or worse off. Certainly the aircraft are far far better and I've not read any horror stories about them refusing to fly in the rain!

Secondly, I would imagine that the operation will largely be staffed by ex-forces sar,

Only for a finate amount of time though, a privatised service can't keep recruiting from a service which is shut. From day one they will SAR staff from milatary, where do they recruit from in the future?

 

Fire service mutual

This pipeline includes projects that either meet, or are working towards, the Cabinet Office’s definition of a public service mutual – [b]an
organisation that has left the public sector which continues to provide public services (under contract) and in which employee control plays
a significant role in its operation[/b]

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61777/Pipeline-of-Public-Service-Mutuals.pdf ]Cleveland Fire Brigade
Will provide an emergency response service including a wide scope of prevention protection services, community service and community engagement
Fire and Rescue Authorities
North Eas[/url]

Some more comment
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/outdoors-news/search-and-rescue-choppers-privatised/10797.html

The argument for free provision of RAF search and rescue aircraft and crews has always been that mountain/sea/coastal rescue is real-life training for the crews' military purpose - rescuing downed pilots and other military personnel.

Should military aircraft and crew cease to provide civilian SAR, then they would be forced to log a similar number of hours in the air on simulated "training rescues" in order to maintain the performance of the crews.

By operating a civilian SAR service in parallel to the RAF, the cost to the tax-payer therefore doubles (more or less...).

Is this argument no longer considered valid?

Surely depends who recruits who? Maybe the SAR will recruit RAF pilots when they get too old to pass whatever physical tests the RAF has, or have families and no longer want to get shot at and would rather live in Wales than a war zone?

Or maybe the RAF will recruit ex SAR pilots and the RAF save money on training?

Its about time SAR was privatised. The cost of training military to be used as SAR is just not cost effective and provides no real benefit.

Military pilots, ground crew etc are trained for combat operations and then SAR. We want our pilots manning the military helicopters on exercises and operations. They recieve escape and evasion training, weapon training, military exrrcises to test tactics etc. All skills not actually required for SAR.

I think that was the main motivation, the Sea Kings are at end of life and buying a new fleet is very expensive, so by outsourcing the service they shift the CAPEX cost for new helicopter fleet to a third party rather than add it to our existing debt pile.....

I would imagine that connected to that would be the likelihood that a third party service provider would be able to buy 'off the shelf' hence the AW and sikorsky options presented, whereas keeping it in house would have turned into another MOD procurement project, undoubtedly tied to an existing high cost military platform like Merlin to allow crossover of crew, maintenance and spares but then involve it being refitted for SAR role specific technology and hardware to meet civilian airworthiness regulations, been delivered five years late and cost us an additional eighteen billion!

The Rail comparison is a joke, the rail system is faster, more efficient and more reliable after privatisation.

You are a troll and I claim my £5.

I would imagine that connected to that would be the likelihood that a third party service provider would be able to buy 'off the shelf' hence the AW and sikorsky options presented, whereas keeping it in house would have turned into another MOD procurement project, undoubtedly tied to an existing high cost military platform like Merlin to allow crossover of crew, maintenance and spares but then involve it being refitted for SAR role specific technology and hardware to meet civilian airworthiness regulations, been delivered five years late and cost us an additional eighteen billion!

At least we will have a spare aircraft carrier to fly them off...