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.
They do it already on the South coast!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
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...
You would be surprised just what conditions they currently operate in out on the north sea oil platforms.
You'd also be surprised how easy it is for weather to ground civilllian aircraft / pilots. Although hopefully the search and rescue choppers and crews will be a bit fancier than our offshore taxis.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/incredible-rescue-by-raf-25032013
Regardless of whoever ends up doing this sort of thing, I think we should just be grateful that somebody does it...
The SAR pilots could be recruited from the RAF but there are dozens of highly skilled rotorcraft pilots in the civvie world already, all the police chase helicopters are piolted by civvies for example as are air ambulances.
I dont see the fuss myself, take away the emotive issue and it makes perfect sense. I think people assume there will be a big cosy office somewhere and a man with a radio controlling who gets rescued and what the charge will be if it is deemed a just cause...
"Auntie Doris in flip flops on Snowdon in December?, right Dave, fire up the chopper and lets make some money, dont go too fast, its sunday, we can claim overtime...." or "some frenchman on a trawler with a cut on his head in an atlantic storm? not likely, its the semi final of the snooker in ten minutes......i mean, would love to go but the choppers in for a service"
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.
Really? Justification/evidence please? Oh sorry, forgot this is STW... It is both cost effective and provides real benefit - just because they are perfroming SAR duties in a largely civilian environment does not mean the skills learnt are not transferrable to combat operations. Anyhow, you seem to have missed the history bit - the SAR force was originally created to be exactly that, Search and Rescue, because a requirement was identified for a military capability to rescue downed aircrew. Albeit of military crews, the assistance to civilian emergencies came as a real-life training benefit.
The SAR force also provides a capability beyond SAR, without going in to too much detail, such as reinforcement to Police, particularly for short notice expedient, logistic support, eg. rapid deployment of Armed Response teams (eg. Derrick Bird in Cumbria), where the Force helis cannot meet the task.
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.
For the ground crew it makes not a jot of difference whether they are maintaining a SAR heli or a nice green one, although maintenance of the SAR fleet is largely contractorised now anyway... As for the pilots, having experience flying in both SAR helis, as a former MR team member, and in green ones on ops, as a Serviceman, I can say categorically that the skills the SAR pilots pick up transfer directly to the skills required for combat ops, especially the ability to fly low and fast in tight country, or Nap of the Earth as it's known.
Anyway, so far it's been interesting to note that Bristows have remained very tightlipped - there has been little, if any, comment on the award of the contract or, more importantly, any kind of campaign to assuage the the kinds of concerns being expressed here and elsewhere.
PS Not so sure TUPE applies to Service personnel...
Indeed and I've never heard any suggestion that their crew were any less committed, effective or able than their military colleagues - as a result.IIRC the Coastguard SAR helicopters are already outsourced.
the rail system is faster, more efficient and more reliable after privatisation.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Come and try the Norwich London line and see how that stacks up. Using rolling stock that GWR pensioned off, pantographs that can't maintain a connection in a bit of a blow or if it rains.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Trolling zoofighter. (With apologies to Glupton).
Just Googled the AW189 as well - looks like a slightly stretched Lynx/Wildcat, neither of which are renowned for heaps of cabin space (think of a space about 6 feet by 6 feet and filled with a door gunner and 8 fully kitted Infantrymen having to sit on their kit on the deck of the cabin - no room for seats or safety belts). So how you'd fit winch kit, winch operator, winchman, casualty on stretcher plus much else in one of those could be interesting...
I think the rail privatisation thing differs very much line-by-line.
The line I use almost exclusively is First Great Western from Paddington to Hobbit land, via the shires.
Over the last 10 years of weekly use I think Ive been delayed less than 1% of my journeys and only had a couple of cancellations to deal with. Single track stretches have been reinstated to pre-Beeching twin track and station platforms re-commissioned and refurbished.
Admittedly we're still bombing around on HST (125s) trains but they're comfortable and have a buffet car. And my return ticket works out at 22p per mile. I like my railway line.
Come and try the Norwich London line
No thanks, rather go to somewhere that's interesting!
Who goes to Norwich anyway? 😯 There's a reason all the crap that no one else got went to that line.
Dave - http://www.agustawestland.com/product/aw189 - 16 seater in standard configuration. I am sure in SAR mode they will fit everything in.
Nope, my post has been done to death. So edited out.