UKC

Leonardo AW189

Bristow
G-MCGM - BHL. At Lee-on-Solent. Training callsign.
G-MCGN - BHL. Flew from Aberdeen to Lee on Friday, then to Yeovil on Monday. Trg c/s.
G-MCGO - BHL. Operational, 175/176 at Lee.
G-MCGP - BHL. Flew from Prestwick to Lee on Friday (had been 199/190). Trg c/s.
G-MCGR - BHL. Operational, 199/190 at Prestwick.
G-MCGS - BHL. Operational, 175/176 at Lee.
G-MCGT - BHL. Operational, 199/190 at Prestwick.

Leonardo
G-MCGU - Leonardo (AW). Flights around Yeovil. Less than 20 hours. 
G-MCGV - Leonardo. Flights around Yeovil. Less than 20 hours. 
G-MCGW - Leonardo. Newly on register this month. Not seen flying. Listed as 2018 build. 
G-MCGX - Leonardo. Newly on register this month. Not seen flying. Listed as 2018 build.

Leonardo AW139 (stand-ins)

G-CIJX - AW139, Operational, 163/164 at Lydd.
G-CIJW - AW139, Operational, 163/164 at Lydd.
G-CILN - AW139, Operational, 187/188 at St Athans.
G-CILP - AW139, Operational, 187/188 at St Athans. 

So Bristow have three AW189 not deployed and still no sign of the AW139s being replaced at St Athans or Lydd. 

Another two aircraft are complete and flying with Leonardo at Yeovil but Bristow Group have not budgeted the cash to buy them. A further two aircraft are in build awaiting completion and testing but again Bristow do not have the cash to buy them. All eleven AW189 SAR for this contract are now on the register.

This post

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/winter_climbing/sar_helicopter_service_contract_implementation_phase_part_2-631925?v=1#x8673701

explains more of Bristow's financial and contractual position in relation to these aircraft deployments.

Recently, two Leonardo AW189 SAR, G-MCGW and G-MCGX (the last two of the eleven required) appeared on the CAA register. No flying by these aircraft has been witnessed or has been declared in the register.

Also, a few days ago, two Leonardo AW189 SAR, G-MCGU and G-MCGV, that had previously been registered to Leonardo were transferred to Bristow Helicopters Ltd on the register. 

Lots of Leonardo AW189 SAR deployment activity this last week.

On Monday 12th, G-MCGP flew from Lee-on-Solent to Lydd and has been flying around the Lydd area during the week. 

G-MCGN flew from Lee to Yeovil (Leonardo) and the following day G-MCGM (the original Italian-made SAR aircraft) flew from Prestwick to Lee.

Just after 1400h this afternoon, G-MCGU arrived at Lydd after flying from Lee. 
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWaE0lJX4AMSpw9.jpg

At a guess, I'd say GP and GU are at Lydd for a six week work-up with a view to replacing the 139s by going operational from Lydd on 1st April. 

This is out of step with the plan that appeared in Bristow group's financials just a few weeks ago. I am not complaining. AW189 at St Athans in the summer might now be possible and even Inverness before the end of the year. Not going to hold my breath. It could change again next week.   

As ever, Jim, thanks for the updates. Our wee AW139's been doing sterling work down here, including the odd trip up to the big hills in north Wales, but it'll be nice to have the bigger 189 soon!

G-MCGV has also arrived at Lydd and GP has returned to Lee-on-Solent. 

So it's looking like Lydd is getting the two newly transferred aircraft GU & GV.

Hello,

I’m posting this from the Department for Transport, as there has been previous interest in our statistics on this forum.

The latest quarterly Search and Rescue Helicopter (SARH) statistics have been published yesterday: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/search-and-rescue-helicopter-statistics-october-to-december-2017

We wanted to make you aware that we are carrying out a user survey to assess how well the search and rescue helicopter statistics are meeting user needs, and whether further improvements could be made. Please could you fill in the user survey to help us improve the statistics, which should not take you longer than 5 minutes to complete: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/Search-and-rescue-helicopter-statistics/.

We don’t intend to post further, but if you have any views on the statistics, please get in touch with any thoughts or questions either through filling in the user survey or by email (Sarh.Stats@dft.gsi.gov.uk).

SARH statistics team

Department for Transport

Looks like Lydd is operational with AW189 aircraft G-MCGU and G-MCGV. One of them appears to have been out around Dover searching for the missing diver. No news of the diver unfortunately. AW139 G-CIJX has been withdrawn and moved to Norwich. G-CIJW: not known.

Corroboration welcome.

Still a 1.4m cabin height of course, like any normal helicopter. The British probably haven't had something the size of the AW139 doing SAR since the Whirlwind replaced the Bristol Sycamore. Across most of the world, the AW139 is a normal SAR helicopter. The British, Norwegians, Canadians and Portugese all use bigger aircraft like Sea King, S-92, or AW101 but these aircraft are the exception. 

From next year, a huge proportion of the UK high mountain SAR will be done by AW189 after the type is introduced at Inverness. This may be a major culture change and the anticipatory moaning is already in circulation.

I wonder if you could enlighten us with some of your experiences with the 139 and how the 189 will improve things. 

A new MCA Aviation quarterly report on the UK SAR Helicopter Service is available at the following address.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/search-and-rescue-helicopter-statistics

The Airbus H225 accident at Turoy in 2016 is of interest to many helicopter users. The final report from AIBN was released a few minutes ago and is available at the following address.

https://www.aibn.no/Aviation/Published-reports/2018-04

Leonardo AW189 SAR, G-MCGW  and G-MCGX, are now shown on the register as owned by Bristow. Certification, insurance and other transfer details appear to be ongoing and probably complete during August 2018. 

One possibility is that these two go to St Athans in the autumn (Lydd pattern!). The remaining aircraft then end up at Inverness next year. There is plenty of time to make sure they have all the upgrades.

Those of you who have used the UK SAR Helicopter Service, whether as a SAR stakeholder or as a rescued person, what would you like from the next contract?

(Asking for a friend. ;-)  )

We had one or two jobs early on in the contract where the crew were reluctant to do winches from locations that the RAF had done regularly, but that's well behind us and we've got a very good SOP for our key areas now, and seen the kind of gutsy flying generally associated with the yellow canaries. It's really nice having speedy helicopters that don't suffer the maintenance problems that the SeaKings did towards the end of the RAF days, and from the perspective of a 'footsoldier' in MR in south Wales, in general the Bristow contract has been a positive experience since it settled down.

As the team's training officer, I would like to see Bristow be as firm in providing all the practical training elements as they are in insisting that the online training's up to date, but on the other hand, we have had more training with Bristow than we ever had with the RAF, and a lot of that is down to that reliability issue.

1) From a parochial stand-point; Stretcher platform(s) that can accommodate a MacInnes (though might be difficult due to air frame constraints).

2) Mobile phone transponder on the airframe, potential direct verbal and data comm's (allowing SARLOC) to caz even when there is no mast coverage at ground level.   Its been talked about for years.................and its 'good to talk'. Lets push for it to happen in the first half off the 21st Century rather than the end!

3) Is the MCA really the best contract holder and dispatch 'co-ordinator'.........opens up pop-corn and waits for interdepartmental civil service rivalry to start.

4) Improved protocols after the caz had been extracted, for the decision should the chopper return for MRT troops.  After caz extraction and no significant risk to the team on the hill is present; what 'flight rules' apply?  There has been at least one occasion where following a major multi-team remote and 'big' cliff rescue, all three attending teams were left on the hill to walk out for several hours in the small hours, having already been tasked for nearly 12 hours.  With the result that MRT readiness covering a major geographic Scottish mountain area for the next day was effectively poor (fortunately no call-outs). At least one team could have been flown off, and in their beds at reasonable hour,  allowing improved readiness the next day.  Obviously have no problem with teams facing the long walk out if the chopper is being 'bounce' tasked to further incidents, or elevated risk flying conditions are present,  above discussion is for when there is no immediate new tasking for the asset and sensible flying 'minimums' can be maintained.

5) Protocols for when a chopper will/will not be dispatched to remote location body recovery.

6) and finally how much tea and cake can an  air-crew 'blag' at Glenmore lodge in the afternoon .........and not exceed the safe maximum lift-off weight........ 

Overall my sources tell me the 'life and limb' 'can-do' flying ethos is there...it's the stuff round the edges, and the new technology that could be brought into the game, that needs working on.  With regard to potential 'well the sea kings would have got that winch/landing done' , as a climber if I end up with bodily reconfiguration, should the pilot decide its a no go, I'd rather that than an aluminium sardine can full of tomato source on my behalf.

Anyone on here whom was doing back-of cab work in Afghanistan? ......are there lessons in-flight trauma management that could be applied and need to be included into future tender requirements?

I would say this is pretty much covered by 'Managed Transition' and other transfers of personnel. Fleet Air Arm SAR and SAR Force aircrew were doing tours elsewhere.

=======================

Conversation between 2 rear-crew while watching TV in a certain SAR Force crew room some years ago.

"When I'm here all I can think about is being out there on the ramp of a Chinook with a Gimpy."

..Yeah, but when you're out there on the ramp all you can think about is being back here doing SAR ...

"You're right."

Not to derail the thread, but what's a "gimpy"? For some reason I'm reluctant to google it...

https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/ch-46-600-22.jpg?quality=85&strip=info&w=600

Somehow, the implication that by extension there might also be very specific machine guns is oddly endearing 

AW189 and Super Puma probably better than S-92. This is never going to be perfect and bruised hips and battered shins will continue to be an occupational hazard for SAR Tech Crew. The initial design of S-92 would have been completely useless for SAR winching. What we see in service is an improved version with a big chunk added into the forward part of the airframe to allow a bigger door and more room around it.

Good idea but ElectroMagnetic Interference is a huge problem on modern aircraft with multiple emitting systems and inadequate antennae physics. On top of that there are the Mobile Network Operators and Ofcom to placate. The sooner we start screaming for it, the sooner it'll happen though.

There are also devices for mobile phone detection from the air. I haven't heard much about this recently though. 

Do NOT start me! SAR aviation is an unwanted homeless orphan of government service residing with the MCA which itself is another unwanted homeless orphan of government service having been bounced around from Admiralty to BoT, DTI, DETR, and now DfT. 

This is SAR flight but it is the Captain's responsibility to be able to justify any departure from normal flying rules. I suspect this is one of those situations when only the flight crew on the day have all the necessary information to make a safe decision about the available resources. Yes, been on my own in Knoydart and had a yellow thing fly over me carrying just a body. Fortunately, not wet or dark and we all met up and somebody sent a boat for us. Another time our guys had a S-61N carry 23 MR plus a body off the hill in bad conditions. So it can go either way. 

A while ago somebody was getting uppity about recovery of dead bodies and there were email exchanges and meetings about it. However, this occurred because somebody had not bothered to read the contract tech spec. It is important that we acknowledge that this is not life-saving flight and the Captain will decide based on benefits and risks.

While we have all seen reason to suspect cake and biscuits have been a threat to aircraft lift capacity and endurance, I expect the weight of the paperwork may dominate. ;-)

There are lots of jobs the Sea Kings would have done if they hadn't been sitting in the hangar broken AGAIN. The jobs would have had to be below 3200 feet though (HOGE). 

Mobile phone transponders; We still fortunately have in the UK excellent R&D in electronics, communications & physics , a strong(ish) aeronautical  industry, a world class defence industry, and umpteen highly capable compute programmers/software engineers............yes there will be technical challenges, but  these can be overcome. 

The UK GOV needs to instigate it, and then don't let crappy bureaucracy and legislation stifle it. But if no one presses it won't happen..........

Once implemented not only will it save lives, but lots of money, and the IP (if patented) will be a world wide revenue generator.

These devices exists and are in use by military and law enforcement agencies in various nations apparently including the UK.  You can get good money that they are in use by intelligence types as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker

The problem is you need backhaul from the chopper to the outside world so the Caz phone can communicate with its home network who will allow it to 'roam' onto the chopper's 'cell site' - that's if it's allowed to roam.

2018 Q2 statistics for the UK SAR Helicopter Service. New format.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/search-and-rescue-helicopter-statistics-april-to-june-2018

SAR crew musical chairs in full swing as the final chapters of AW189 deployment are almost upon us. 

G-MCGW and G-MCGX are now both at St Athans. The usual pattern would be that full changeover would be around the end of the month but one AW139 seems to have left already which might indicate an earlier change.

The Inverness changeover in summer next year may seem a long way off but crew need to be shuttled around the country months before that to start building up their AW189 experience.

The AW189 was going operational at Saints yesterday, so sounds like that's happened as planned if one of the 139s has already left.

"ST ATHAN’S HM Coastguard search and rescue (SAR) helicopter base has rung the changes with the arrival of two brand-new Leonardo AW189 helicopters, which flew into service for the first time yesterday."

http://hmcoastguard.blogspot.com/2018/09/next-generation-uksar-aircraft-fly-into.html

Also on MCA's Twitter and Facebook.

I suspect this caught the usual suspects by surprise as well otherwise they'd have been all over it with social media and news releases yesterday. Possibly driven by operational factors.

Here you go Scraggy:

Rotorhub, Oct/Nov 2018:

"An innovative method for locating survivors is the Artemis cellular geolocation system developed by UK-based Smith Myers Communications. The solution acts as a mobile phone tower using an autotriangulation algorithm. It can switch between 3G and 4G networks, and if the missing person’s mobile device is switched on, it can make calls, send text messages and receive location information, even commanding the phone to turn itself into a beacon. The mission operator can then input the location as a waypoint towards which pilots can fly, or it can be used to direct an external camera. The Royal Norwegian Air Force’s AW101s, currently in the process of delivery, are the first helicopters in their class with such a system."

http://bristowgroup.com/uk-sar/uk-sar-careers/

"We are in the early stages of recruiting paramedics on an ab initio SAR Paramedic winch crew course starting in the second half 2019. Further information to follow – please revisit for further information about these exciting opportunities from January 2019 onwards."

http://prod-app-01.bristowgroup.com/_assets/filer/2018/09/17/sar_technical_crew_training_pamphlet_web.pdf

This will be good news for many young fit people with an interest in medicine and in aviation. At the same time, we need to think about what it means in the bigger picture of the skill pool for helicopter SAR in the UK. What this may mean is that there was a reason that under the previous regime, Sergeants, Flight Sergeants and Master Aircrew on PA Scales (Professional Aviator pay scales) were paid between £44867 and £62717 per annum.

I wrote about this on the previous thread as early as August 2014.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/winter_climbing/sar_helicopter_service_contract_implementation_phase-558507?v=1#x7851812
A few months later, upon meeting the then UK SAR Director (Bristow) for the first time at an engagement event, I shocked her by asking her if she thought she was paying her rear crew enough.

At that time, rear crew salaries were expected to be low £40k range and pilots twice that. GAP SAR and previous contracts involved a far smaller number of rear crew flying for operators on less demanding contracts during a period of less demanding immigration rules. Back in 2014 one might have imagined the supply of experienced rear crew might start to dry up around the time of the next contract. Since then, the air ambulance fleets in the UK have expanded and increased their capability, we've decided to leave the EU, and the MoD is offering stupid money for suitably qualified aircrew to return for MPA service. 

I continue to believe that making SAR Technical Crew a licensed aviation trade is the way to secure rear crew skill levels for the future. That is not a path without its difficulties. Money is not really one of the significant difficulties since if you pay each of 100 highly-skilled and licensed aviation professionals £10k to £20k more per annum then it costs only £1.5M per year when the fixed cost for ten years is £1.6bn for a contract they expected to pay £2bn to £3.1bn for. 

Thank you all for still paying attention to this subject. Nearly seven years since ScraggyGoat started the first SAR helicopter thread there have been a total of well over 80000 views across the three threads.

Rather than losing interest, the rate of viewing in the middle period of the contract is now not much less than during the controversial period of the bid process and subsequent preparation phase.

We are now at the stage where MCA Aviation are making preparations for the second generation contract. New staff have been engaged who will look at that future contract. Qinetiq are engaged to assess the implementation of the current contract. The AW189 deployment is still months away from completion even though we are only five years from the original Lot 2 transition-out date. So still plenty going on and people being saved from distress, pain and death every day across the UK and it's waters.

Note that there are plenty of details of SAR helicopter activities to be found on the Twitter and Facebook pages written by the organisations involved, aircrew, SAR partners, and unofficial fan pages.

Cairngorm, Glencoe, Tayside and Lochaber MRT have issued a press release about helicopter support. It appears on the websites of the Cairngorm and Lochaber teams and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, it is not very complementary.

If they had dated it then there might have at least been some small part of it I agreed with.

Here is the text...

Today we have felt it is necessary for us to go public with concerns we have been raising for several years with agencies about the level of support we currently receive from a publicly funded SARH contract. There seems to be a complete disconnect of understanding between what a volunteer mountain rescue team does and the implications of not providing an appropriate level of support means from agencies such as the MCA. We would like to stress that the following is in no way criticism of the crews of the helicopters but of the agencies which deploy them. We wrote to Police Scotland, who have responsibility for safety on land in Scotland, who depend of volunteer mountain rescue teams to deliver their responsibilities in respect of MR on the 12th July this year. To date we have not even received an acknowledgment, never mind a response.

Joint press release 
Glencoe, Tayside, Lochaber and Cairngorm Mountain Rescue Teams

This weekend gone we saw the first real snows of winter hit Scotland’s hills. Heralding the start of the busiest season for the independent Scottish Mountain Rescue Teams of Cairngorm, Lochaber, Glencoe and Tayside.
As the teams prepare to undertake difficult and potentially dangerous rescues in such winter conditions the teams have decided that they can no longer accept an apparent casual disregard for the safety of the volunteers shown by the Agencies coordinating Search and Rescue helicopter operations.
As the recent weeks have shown, the undertaking of rescues in the mountains requires a close working relationship between highly skilled helicopter crews and the equally highly skilled volunteer rescuers operating on the ground. The teams have excellent longstanding relationships with the crews of the helicopters and any criticism following is aimed purely at the coordination of the service – which they suspect the crews often find as frustrating as do the teams.
The teams have made repeated representations to the Agencies regarding their concerns since the inception of this latest contract. Unfortunately, the response has been a rebuff such as in the form of the attached letter from the DfT, or in some occasions no response at all.
Understanding the respective roles of the various Agencies that coordinate Search and Rescue helicopter operations is complex. With the MCA, the ARCC, the DfT and Police Scotland all having roles within this. Anyone of these can have an input to the decision to deploy (or not) any aircraft to assist our teams. For ease of reference we have simply grouped these organisations together under the description ‘Agencies.’
These Agencies also all had a role in the creation of the original contract for SAR Helicopter provision.
The problem is essentially encapsulated in the failure of this (not so) new contract. With the creation of this contract MR was promised that the service delivered would be ‘the same or better.’ It simply isn’t.
The team’s concerns can be further detailed in two main areas:
The first issue in an emotionally sensitive one, but, in the view of the teams, the position of the Agencies is wholly unacceptable.
The Agencies have repeatedly refused to assist teams with the recovery of bodies of people killed in the mountains. The view of the Agencies concerned has apparently been that the deceased are not ‘persons in distress’ and therefore assistance with recovery is not offered.
The result of this has included examples such as – one incident where volunteer teams had to undertake an incredibly dangerous lower of the stretcher and team managing the body down a narrow gully, dodging rockfall whilst the aircraft was instructed to standby. The helicopter was only to react in the event one of the rescuers was injured. In another incident, and on the hottest day of the year, one team had to carry all of the required equipment to access and then recover a body many thousands of feet up a mountain, surrounded by the constant risk of rockfall. Even though assistance was requested it was again instructed not to assist, not even to carry the equipment. Ironically, while the recovery was ongoing another incident occurred within a few hundred metres and when the helicopter responded to this incident, the crew were surprised that they had not even been informed of the teams request for assistance
In these, and other examples, the teams have often been left to undertake long, technical and difficult recoveries off the mountains unassisted.
In any of these incidents the priority should surely be to minimise the distress and suffering for the families and give the maximum respect for the deceased.
The teams feel that the understanding shown by the Agencies as to exactly all that is entailed in the above examples is severely lacking.
The reality repeatedly is that the Agencies take the decision that the aircraft should not be used at all to assist the volunteer teams even though it can often markedly reduce the risk to those volunteer teams.
To understand the second concern it helps to understand the anatomy of any rescue involving volunteer teams and the helicopter. It falls into roughly three parts:
1. The deployment part: this is where the teams are often lifted onto the mountain by the helicopter. Lifted as close as possible to the rescue or search area. This part may also see the helicopter searching as well.
2. The rescue part: this is where the casualty has been found or moved to a spot where the helicopter can access. The casualty will then be transported to whatever further treatment is needed.
3. The evacuation part: known to teams as “clearing the hill”
The teams in iSMR have seen an increasing unwillingness to deploy the aircraft to assist in this final phase of a rescue throughout the term of the contract. Often because the Agencies see that the ‘person in distress’ has been already uplifted.
The problem is, however, that the volunteer rescuers are still on the hill. They may be many miles, thousands of feet of ascent / descent or both from their vehicles or access to a road. This is also often compounded by darkness and/or the weather.
To give an impression of what this can mean – a volunteer can end up undertaking a difficult and dangerous thousand-foot cliff rescue in a remote location, over many hours, requiring large amounts of heavy technical gear, only to find that, once the casualty is on board, air support is withdrawn. This leaves the heavily laden team to return over the mountainous terrain for many hours. As with all rescue resources this also means that during this time the team is not available for any other incidents.
It is clear that our concerns cannot be resolved by asking the pilots and crews to fly beyond their ‘endurance’ criteria. We also realise that a significant consideration here is that helicopter crews must be given the opportunity to rest after flying intense technical missions in the mountains. However, experience shows that the Agencies are often then unwilling to allocate another aircraft to finish the job. 
The inescapable conclusion to this is that either the aircraft and crews are too thinly spread to cover requirements or that the Agencies do not view the welfare of the volunteer teams in the same way as they appreciate that of the pilots and crew. 
It is felt that the Agencies have been clear here as to their opinions. They clearly do not view the welfare of the volunteer teams as of significant enough importance as to warrant the continued air support to clear the hill. They have also been cheeky enough to say that the teams ‘should’ be able to make their own way off the hill. See attached letter from the DfT for detail. Perhaps implying that the teams are lazy?
The reality is that the teams very often do have to make their own way off the hill. As the teams have the capabilities to operate in conditions way outside the capabilities of any helicopter. Be that cloud, blizzards and storm force winds, for example.
The team’s volunteers are well trained, well equipped, very capable and robust but they are not invincible.
The issue overall is felt to revolve around the terms of the contract. The views of bodies that are clearly poorly advised as to the actual conditions and requirements of mountain-based Search and Rescue. The contract simply does not make sufficient provision for the support of volunteer rescue teams working on these mountain rescues. If this is the case, then it is changes to this contract that will ensure there is no comprise when it comes to the safety of volunteer mountain rescue teams.
The teams in iSMR have decided to go public on this matter as they have been left with no alternative given the unwillingness of the Agencies to address all of the above despite numerous requests over the past few years. The teams also want to assure everyone that regardless of their concerns they will continue to search for, rescue and recover your loved ones, despite the apparent lack of support from certain Agencies. 
The teams in iSMR simply object to being apparently seen as expendable by the Agencies.

Al Gilmour
Cairngorm Mountain Rescue Team
Spokesperson for iSMR

With what aspects of the statement do you take issue?

There is a more detailed report of specific incidents were MR were not supported on Grough. Sounds a bit of a shit show from the management side rather than crew. Its such a shame that the MR teams aren't supported as much now when they are risking their lives voluntarily. Sure there are risks both sides, but at least the other side are paid, and probably reasonably well. I worried that this would be the case by contracting out such a valuable and important service. Hopefully some good will come out of this and the SAR Helicopter Service acknowledge these short comings and tweak their ways of working. Really interesting that one flight crew ignored instruction so that they could assista team - good on them

"In reply to Jim Fraser

Cairngorm, Glencoe, Tayside and Lochaber MRT have issued a press release about helicopter support. It appears on the websites of the Cairngorm and Lochaber teams and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, it is not very complementary.

If they had dated it then there might have at least been some small part of it I agreed with.

To JLS,

Jim Fraser is a Radio Comms officer with Kintail MRT, here is his "LinkedIn" page:-

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/engineerjimfraser

Kintail MRT did not sign the joint statement (only Cairngorm, Glencoe, Lochaber & Tayside), so obviously there is a split in the MRT teams as to how they feel about the level of "support" they receive from the SAR heli's.

2396 callouts from 35 statutory agencies of which 2110 resulted in a Mountain Rescue deployment
1722 persons assisted
Total volunteer hours: 97,208 (Operational hours, not including training or administration)
Rescuer hours utilised as follows:
Rescuing: 62,026 hrs
Civil Incidents: 15,236 hrs
Searching: 19,946 hrs
There were only 9 days in 2017 without a mountain rescue callout in England and Wales.

And no doubt someone will find Scotlands figures to .. but we can clearly see MRT  just sits about doing nothing!!! Well it did for 9 day last year 

Letter s to your MP please

whilst I don't want to detract from the seriousness of the MR / Helicopter service debate, I think we all need to take a second to enjoy some of the language used in the iSMR statement.

With their "thousands of feet of ascent" and their "thousand foot cliff" and their "dodging rockfall". All this in a country whose highest mountain is only 4 thousand feet, highest cliff is barely over a thousand feet and its a sea cliff and whose rockfall is "minor" in comparison to many mountain ranges. I just don't think that the language they have used has furthered their cause here. Not to say they don't have valid points, just don't cover the valid points in hyperbole. The language used is more reminiscent of the Matterhorn that the Cairngorms.

I've mixed feelings about this but having no real knowledge of the subject it's difficult know what to think. On the face of it, it seems like another case of, when volunteers step forward, the state steps back. While the hyperbole you speak of may to an extent be unwarranted, it's still a PITA to walk 6 miles over snowy mountain terrain carrying a load. Seems a shame our authorities don't seem inclined to lend a hand.

Maybe MRT has to rescue people off chossy rockfally slopes that are actively dangerous, rather than clean trade route climbs? Just a thought.

I think the PITA you refer to is just as reasonable, if not more so, a reason for there to be a bigger discussion with the correct authorities. For me the hyperbole tempted me to throw the baby out with the bath water when actually upon reflection i think there probably is room for discussion and a common plan to be formed with understanding on both sides.

Climbwhenready, I agree that that is most likely what is being referred to, of which there are plenty. As above I just found the over the top description distracting from the real issue. I don't think the iSMR requests need any dressing up in order to get on the discussion table. I think real world descriptions would speak for themselves.

To any of my thumb down voting community I hope I've not offended anyone. I am a huge supporter of MR and SAR people and firmly believe in their work and their opinions being taken seriously. I am only trying to make a point about the language used inside the argumentation of their case.

The incident you are referring to was the recovery of a body, somebody's next of kin, mid face off the Ben. It's a tough call do you wait until June or July to recover? Or try and take yourselves as close to the knife edge of risk, without making it a suicide mission. 

If you drop in from above etc.. then the ropes will dislodge rocks as you continue down. It's a fact on a massive face in anything other than perfect conditions. The same once you sledge the body down and out. If a helicopter can drop you close, then winch the body out once it's descended to a location where blade strike is minimal, then you've reduced man hours and risk for all concerned. 

There is also the risk if you deploy the whole team to recover a body, their response to the next job will be slower due to tiredness and kit turn around, plus team member are burning up valuable home or work time.

All whilst the helicopter sits there doing nothing. 

So have we have a cynical move hear, knowing that [ my view ] if a teem found the risk to high till summer that the bereaved  would pay for a recovery?

I'm  not  thinking  of MRTS being payed but more the G4S / Serco of the world, if so it would be thin end to a bad wedge

Setting aside the issue of readiness for the next operation, who benefits from the helicopter sitting idle? Is the helicopter operating company's contract fixed price, such that any flying time incurs costs that come straight out of the profit margin, or is flying time costs charged back to the government such that it would be in the company's interests to be flying, no matter how menial the task?

My loose impression is that there is a per-job incentive that encourages them to come out very willingly for straightforward jobs ("number of people rescued"?), but does not incentivise hanging around. It would seem like a badly thought-out contract if that was the case, and maybe there are other reasons, but you get that impression sometimes.

It would seem like a badly thought-out contract if that was the case,

goodness. Where have i heard that before? Its almost as though politicians are incapable of producing any other sort

Indeed (though I am somewhat just guessing here). Ultimately if the contract made it financially worthwhile to fly more hours for the sake of it [and that on its own would be a bad contract] then they would fly them. To be fair, any time you privatise something like this, and finances are the only real incentive, it must be a nightmare to balance the incentives correctly.

At the same time, whatever you might think about the complex situation surrounding the content of the press release and the past form of the people writing it, the scottish government's comment on the press release (in the grough article, I think) was breathtakingly undiplomatic.

Fortunately, as I understand it, there are other people in government who understand better the role and value of the volunteer teams.

It's more probable that the contract says they'll carry out all training and non emergency flying and the annual average number of callouts for £x. If the number of life saving rescues or costs exceeds their quota or budget then the government funds them the excess. 

Non emergency recovery of a mrt, bodies and equipment might not meet the life saving emergency criteria for extra funds and their contract is so tightly nailed down in terms of wording and financial flexibility the office bound penny pinchers won't justify these flights, which whilst not directly life saving at that point in time are really still part of the same callout as a whole. 

There was a time when office staff from control rooms and management would go out on the ground to gain some experience at the other end. As when a team member calls up from Scotland in winter and says the weather is wild at 3000ft, it's probably different to what somebody in Dorset thinks is a wild winter!

You begin to wonder if it is possible at all and why we continue to try.

I think all government contracts should end with the following catch-all form of words, "Just get the job done, don't take the piss."

"the scottish government's comment on the press release (in the grough article, I think) was breathtakingly undiplomatic"

The junior minister quoted by Grough is in the Westminster government, not the Holyrood one.

Please note that there are 78 volunteer mountain rescue teams in the United Kingdom and 4 are involved in this press release. 

Recently, Qinetiq were tasked with reviewing the implementation of the UK SAR Helicopter Service contract. Dozens of MRT across the UK have made submissions to their representative bodies who have then passed information to Qinetiq. This is the manner in which lessons learned are passed back to the DfT in preparation for the next contract that is already being worked on by some at the DfT and MCA Aviation. 

This was something I found needed clearing up. In the letter the criticism was leveled at police Scotland which are holyrood controlled so why is a westminster minister being asked for comment? All very well saying cuts are passed on but this doesn't actually absolve the Scottish government from poor decisions leading to further mismanagement of the Highland areas.

The Contract Notice for this contract that was published on 28th November 2011 stated: "Estimated value excluding VAT: Range between: 2,000,000,000 and 3,100,000,000 GBP"

The Award Notice published on 18th April 2013 (after announcement on 26th March) stated: "The winning bidder, Bristow Helicopter Services Limited will deliver a Lot 3 solution  ... Total final value of contract(s) Value: 1 600 497 465 GBP Excluding VAT"

It should be noted that the contract evolved during intervening 15 months and it is difficult to tell from the outside whether the requirements were any more or less onerous at contract award.

So about £1.6bn and it has been put to me that this is represents an estimated 85% of the total costs that are the fixed costs. The remainder, a large part of which is expected to be aviation fuel and subject to significant market variations, are the variable costs that associated with variations in the intensity of operation. This has been organised so that there is no financial incentive to restrict service. 

The Coastguard, and now MCA Aviation, have had SAR helicopter contracts since 1971 and continuously since 1983. There are a lot of learning points across those decades and those have found their way into this contract. That process continues and MCA Aviation meet with stakeholders from across the SAR community every few months. The implementation review by Qinetiq is an additional effort to pull out problems and get them sorted. 

 > Please note that there are 78 volunteer mountain rescue teams in the United Kingdom and 4 are involved in this press release. 

'Even if you are a minority of one, the Truth is the Truth.'

Mahatma Gandhi

The dead body issue has been bouncing around for ages. At one time some (!) appeared to be saying that they weren't contracted to carry dead bodies whereas this is not the case at all.

The contract technical spec makes it clear that the aircraft should be capable of carrying up to four dead bodies and deal with the contamination matters that arise from that activity. However, that is not the same thing as the decision making process about deploying a valuable national asset intended for the saving of lives to recover persons who are known to be already dead. The risk profile and the legal position are very different from life saving flight. 

There is no national air undertaker service and there never has been.

There never has been and there is never going to be. 

You possibly don’t want the crews using up their duty hours on menial tasks. If a less menial job came along it would look pretty silly if they couldn’t accept it because they’d been flying all day/ week on less worthy tasks. 

Then there’s more maintenance, scheduled checks and not to mention the direct operating costs involved. 

Ah sorry, my mistake. And more believable from 300 miles south of the border!

& three of the teams (Lochaber, Glencoe, Cairngorm) in the press release cover the highest mountains in the UK, which are the most dangerous & are heavily used in winter due to the well known ice climbing etc...let alone the masses of people who want to tick then off in summer.

Those three teams call out numbers are very high....much higher than three "smaller teams" in "quieter" areas...say for example the team you are a member of.."Kintail MRT".

Three of the most heavily used MRT in UK, which cover the worst winter landscapes/mountains in UK, ..I think I'd pay attention to what they say...& not just dismiss it "out of hand".

Some of this has been going on since mid-2016 and some is a re-hash of the sort of moaning we were seeing back in 2013 before these aircraft were even built.

It must be so exciting for aircrew and controllers to get a job in one of those team areas and know that no matter how well they perform, it will lead to the debrief from hell and phone calls from the MCA press and communications team. 

The aircrew don't have the problem with MRT...in fact they help the MRT by disobeying the ARCC as stated in the article...

ARCC are the idiots.....& put the aircrews in a difficult situation.....

Lots of things are stated. For instance, "concerns since the inception of this latest contract". Utter rubbish. Every team in NW Scotland has been dealing with SAR aircraft contracted to the Coastguard since 1988. All those contracts up until this one were very basic compared to this one. This one has inherited the specs from the aborted SARH25 contract process that were produced by a team of some of the most experience SAR flyers and rescuers available. It is the best in the world.

So then it changes. It can't be the contract because now it's not about the contractor's aircraft and aircrew, it's about the police and MCA and ARCC. 

No, wait, it's about the contract again is it? "Promise that the service delivered would be same or better". Well others are getting a better service. 

It must be mentally shattering to be heavily invested in the "people are going to die" mania for at least the last five years and then have to deal with the contract actually working.

In reply to Snowdave:

I think you should go away and check your facts Snowdave, before you dig yourself in any deeper. Try the casbag e magazine, for example.

You may have noticed that the Leicester helicopter crash involved a Leonardo AW169 which is an aircraft closely related to its big brother the AW189. 

EASA has issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, AD 2018-0241-E, which requires one-time inspection of the tail rotor servo-actuator on both types in order to ensure correct assembly. In the case of the AW189, this involves following the manufacturer's Alert Service Bulletin, ASB 189-213. The EAD is on the EASA website. The ASB is normally only notified to operators. 

This is routine stuff prompted by the observation of lack of yaw control prior to the crash. It is the day-by-day implementation of documents like these that keep us safe in the air. In a SAR environment with low hours and a backup aircraft on-site, one would normally expect these requirements to have no impact on service.

Which facts??..all I have quoted is what the four MRT teams have stated in their letters etc which are on the other well respected website etc...

As far As "Jim Fraser" he is a Radio Comms officer at MRT Kintail ..& it states as such on his linkdin page...

So I have "checked my facts"....

As far as "Casbag" that's the MRT/SAR magazine & there are multiple issues..so which one & what article are you inferring I look at to "correct my facts".....

Jim you are entitled to voice your opinion in anyway you see fit.Can I ask a favour though and ask you to refrain from posting personal attacks and derogatory statements about our teammate on our Facebook pages please.

No need to reply, just thought we would ask

Also as one Mrt to another with more in common than you seem to think can I wish you and your team a safe winter

Why does the first statement not surprise me?......

Unfortunately one persons actions doesn't do others in the MRT "team" any favours either as it reflects badly & down grades the "teams" actual & perceived "professionalism"...

Thank you Snowdave. That perfectly sums up the point of the FB post referred to.

I just spotted an ADS-B track for one of the SAR 189s showing 181 knots across the ground. Flying in front of the prevailing wind but not even going to a job. 

So that's 335 km/h or 208 mph. Probably far from a record for a 189 is a Scottish wind but a demonstration of how far we've come in relation to aircraft that only just kept up with motorway traffic in a headwind.

Across the last couple of weeks, as more information has become available about the Leicester 169 accident, EASA have issued a further three Emergency Airworthiness Directives concerning AW169 and AW189. These AD, at least one of which is already superseded, refine and extend the inspection previously required by AD 2018-0241-E last month. 

These requirements focus on a similar mechanism to that which caused the S-92 West Franklin incident. This means that both types on the UK SAR contract are now exposed to tail rotor control shaft bearing issues. Fortunately, AD and ASB action is easier to undertake on a low hours SAR operation with duplicated aircraft than on an oil & gas CAT operation where they're sweating the asset. (MCA Aviation folks may still be sleeping soundly knowing that in mid-2012 they asked for two aircraft per base.)

It appears that a new system is in place. If a crew cannot consume sufficient cake at one sitting then they notify the next shift at handover, who subsequently pop in and finish the job. Allegedly.

Transition crews are starting to appear at Inverness as the preparation for next year's AW189 deployment begins. As this plan develops, northern MRT will try to get ahead of the game by collaborating with the contractor to get the relevant training as soon as it is available. 

'It appears that a new system is in place. If a crew cannot consume sufficient cake at one sitting then they notify the next shift at handover, who subsequently pop in and finish the job. Allegedly.'

If that fails surely the next step is; to 'surge' multiple aircraft to the incident. 

A situation we can assume the Dalcross crews will do their level best to avoid................

Amongst our neighbours, Sea King fleets continue to be replaced. The Belgians are having a farewell formation flight around northern Belgium this month to mark the impending end of service of their Sea Kings which are being replaced by NH90.

In Norway, the AW101 ground accident with 0268 has caused some delays in the programme which is replacing their Sea Kings with 16 AW101 Merlins across six bases on mainland Norway (2 per base plus spare and training aircraft). 2 rescuees from 210nm, 20 rescuees from 53nm. Awesome technical spec!

Quarterly statistics are out for July to September!

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/search-and-rescue-helicopter-statistics

More Inverness crews going through the AW189 training cycle and arrangements coming together for training MRT. AW189 online training facilities available from yesterday and MRT members are already ticking those boxes. Several MRT training exercises have been arranged for the weeks before R151's commencement of service. 

As I have stated before on these threads, if S-92 is Helibus then AW189 is heli-sports-estate. But nothing is straightforward with helicopters. No matter how experienced on other types and newly-enthused the crews are, there will be a short-term droop in aspects of service provision as their understanding of what they can achieve with this new toy develops. That will occur at the same time as doubters will appear from all directions telling us it's not like the old days.

What? Again? Yes, human bloody dreadful nature dictates that we have to go through this pain every time progress is being attempted. The usual suspects are expected shortly. 

Well that didn't take long. Check out today's Dislikes on the recent posts.

In October, I posted about Bristow plans for recruiting Winchmen Paramedics during 2019. As expected, more detail is now available on the Bristow UK SAR website.

http://www.bristowgroup.com/uk-sar/uk-sar-careers/sar-winch-paramedic-cadetship-information/

If you know a paramedic who is looking for a new challenge, please send them that link.  

The accident report for the Luftforsvaret AW101 0268 ground accident at Sola in 2017 is published. It is in Norwegian with the summary section also provided in English. (This aircraft was the first delivery of Norway's new the search and rescue aircraft.)

https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/c527acf72d764354814a8e5cad3bf287/shf-rapport-2019_01-om-luftfartshendelse-med-aw101-24.11.2017.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ROzBnjkbWSYSU61Kyf4tl-cPiavcsWM1ILCY073LHXudAUZCZg7YLqXQ

The basics are that the aircraft turned over because of pilot error during ground running. However, the report makes clear the role that inadequacies in training and organisation led to that error.

Going deeper into the reasons, the report makes an analysis of the organisational problems occurring in NAWSARH and the surrounding relationships. Project delays led to greater pressures for success in parts of the organisation. Lines of communication were too long. There were personnel in key project positions who did not have helicopter experience. Staff in the Operational Testing and Evaluation unit had too broad a role involving the management as well as the operational delivery (including flying). It also notes that such OT&E units never carry experience on the next OT&E task but are formed anew for specific aircraft OT&E tasks.

There's a lot more in there and if your Norwegian is better than mine then let's hear from you. However, there are clearly many lessons there for governments and commercial flying organisations alike.

Arrangements for MRT training with the AW189 from Inverness before commencement of service continue to be fettled.

Some aircraft in the fleet are still off-base as part of the routine maintenance cycle. That is expected to be complete soon and just at the point where aircraft will be required for work-up at Inverness. 

UK SAR Leonardo AW189 fleet status

G-MCGM - BHL. Operational, 199/190 at Prestwick.
G-MCGN - BHL. At Lee-on-Solent. Training callsign.
G-MCGO - BHL. Maintenance, Dyce. Flying at end of last week. 
G-MCGP - BHL. Operational, 175/176 at Lee.
G-MCGR - BHL. Operational, 199/190 at Prestwick.
G-MCGS - BHL. Operational, 175/176 at Lee.
G-MCGT - BHL. Maintenance, Dyce. 
G-MCGU - BHL. Operational, 163/164 at Lydd.
G-MCGV - BHL. Operational, 163/164 at Lydd.
G-MCGW - BHL. Operational, 187/188 at St Athans.
G-MCGX - BHL. Operational, 187/188 at St Athans.

Nerdy snippet about how we're kept safe in the air.

"... part of the FIPS is the Super-Cooled Large Droplet marker (SLD). This system consists of a black/yellow/red colored sphere visually indicating whether the aircraft is flying in normal ice accretion conditions (black), or if they are becoming too harsh to continue (red), so that the crew understands when those conditions have to be abandoned and the craft moved towards a safer status. Actually, the only conditions suggesting no flying activities should be carried on for safety reasons are ice accretion on the red side of the SLD sphere and over 10,000 ft. "   aerodefensetech.com

The SLD sphere can be seen on the front starboard top corner of the outside of the cockpit on the AW189 SAR where it can be observed through the roof window. 

It's the round bobbly thing mounted just above the Captain's door in this Pinterest photo.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a4/a3/2c/a4a32cb9107702d05a6687db9a7fee2f.jpg

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2019-02-11/bristow-hints-bankruptcy-drops-columbia-deal

Everybody in that industry has been doing lots of money shuffling and creative accounting since 2014 because of the oil price and then the EC225 carry on. There has been reduced O&G revenue and a stack of aircraft in hangars just sitting waiting for the end of the lease.

CHC have already been through this pain in a major way in 2016/17 but it didn't affect SAR at CHC Ireland. We might expect a similar scenario with the difficulties of Bristow GROUP in Texas, while the REAL Bristow, BHL, on UK SAR, just gets on with the job. And it may not go as far as the CHC fiasco.

I never did see the point of the Columbia deal and there are others out there thinking the same. 

New Bristow Group CEO confirmed yesterday. 

http://ir.bristowgroup.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=91226&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2389653&fbclid=IwAR1zBFruJrNv5QhbkEHSoQj9CNZWvAWK4trukcHTZooUGZqhOiopQSZ_fgg

BRS share price still trashed. 

This seems to be mainly about Houston being too creative in hiding the problems of the last 4 years or so operating conditions. GOV.UK shows BHL as having a turnover of £356M and a 2018 gross loss of £2.9M, that being a significant improvement on recent years. 

Any finance gurus out there care to have a closer look at this?

A typical 6 week work-up will see the first new toy arrive at Inverness during the next week or two. 

More EASA AD action on AW169 and cousins tail rotors. By now, extra inspections and replacement of a range of tail rotor bearing will be complete on the AW189 fleet. 

G-MCGM arrived at the Inverness base around midday today. This is the original Italian-built example of the SAR variant that has been serving at Prestwick recently while Golf Tango was in maintenance. So no surprises there. 

We can expect it to be joined by probably Golf November (possibly GP if out of maintenance, or both) in the closing days of this month. 

In-area crew training will probably be quite intense over the next couple of weeks. Several training sessions are then scheduled for SAR partners of which the MRT ones are probably the most complex since their interaction with the aircraft is the most involved. 

Once the AW189 aircraft are in place and operational, Golf Foxtrot and Golf India are off to Sumburgh to replace the GAP SAR aircraft that have been fulfulling the CG/R900 role.  

We are now near the long-awaited end of the implementation of this contract just as preparations are building up for the next contract that starts to transition out from 2023, assuming the extension clause is not implemented.  

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/debt-ridden-helicopter-operator-bristow-warns-on-fut-457523/

Cezza

I expect it will be back to the good old days of BHL some time soon and Texan bullshit will no longer play a part in this.

Twenty people from SMR teams across the NW attended a good exercise with the AW189 at Inverness SAR Base last night. Two more exercises next week (already over-subscribed). One of the delightful observations was pilot enthusiasm for flying this aircraft. If the guy up front is happy, ... 
😎

Still on track for R/CG151 operational on the 1st May 2019.

Yes, our pilots at St A's are very enthusiastic about the 189 as well, though we've yet to play with it in person.

The UK SAR Helicopter Service contract is between the Department for Transport and Bristow Helicopters Limited of Dyce. In the present arrangements, BHL does not own aircraft. 

Bristow Aviation Holdings Limited is a British registered company that has tangible assets in the category of aircraft valued at £415 million at 31st March 2018. Its accounts list the nature of the ownership of the aircraft used to operate the UK SAR contract at that same date, some of which are owned and some of which are leased. Most of the S-92s are leased and most of the AW189s are owned. 

 Bristow Aviation Leasing Limited is a relatively new British registered company that has tangible assets in the category of aircraft valued at £70 million at 31st March 2018. That relates to a small number of aircraft and it is not known without requesting searches of the records of aircraft ownership whether any of those are used on the UK SAR contract. 

18 months ago some of the numbers were looking a bit wonky. 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/winter_climbing/sar_helicopter_service_contract_implementation_phase_part_2-631925?v=1#x8673701

One might speculate that there is a choice between something akin to a CHC event or somebody buys BHL. Your favourite in that second case might be Babcock. That would create an interesting monopoly situation in the UK industry. However, the fat boilermaker may no longer be fat.  Like Bristow Group, the American parent company Babcock and Wilcox is once again looking shaky. 

Three combined training sessions for NW teams have taken place at Inverness with the AW189 G-MCGM and several other exercises have taken place with individual or combined teams across the Highlands in preparation for the commencement of service on 1st May. 

Lots of talk of long range, high speed and large power margin. The little one is turning out to be a big hitter. Easy and quick to get in and out of as well. As soon as we all stop obsessing about not being able to stand up in it, everything will be fine. 

As far as I can tell, G-MCGM remains a training aircraft and an entirely different pair of aircraft will deploy to Inverness soon. If I were Bristow, I would put the lowest hours newest aircraft at the most demanding base with the biggest hours demand. That might explain why GN is at St Athans and GW has flown to Dyce. A week from now we'll know the plan!

Golf November has flown from St Athans to Inverness, so both GM and GN are now at Inverness. GN has been flying around the local area today. GM, GN and GP were the unassigned aircraft but I was expecting newer aircraft with fewer hours to arrive at Inverness because of the workload there (lots of jobs but also many long jobs). 

GW and GP are at Dyce and we might expect GP out of there in the next couple of weeks. 

The original plan was for Inverness to have three aircraft with the third one being the spare or training aircraft (as is done with the three S-92A at Stornoway). 

Looking all set for R/CG151 commencement tomorrow.

Inverness SAR Base

Handover probably just happened on Day One. GI already in Sumburgh. GF will have just finished its last Inverness shift. 

GM and GN both out on the pan. (Peak callout time in about an hour!)

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/next-generation-search-and-rescue-aircraft-fly-into-service-in-inverness-177400/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-48122140

Rescue 151 was out in the Letterewe area of Ross-shire again today assisting rescue teams who were searching a large area for a hillwalker who has been missing since earlier in the week. 

Cold wintry conditions have returned to the Highlands and low cloud and snow have been features of this operation. Nice dense air for hovering in but not good for the missing person. Still missing. 

Rescue 151 has been out in the snow on mountain jobs and out in the Moray Firth doing wets so the final stage of implementation is successful. It might seem like our work here is nearly done. However, transition team crews are still in place and it may be a couple of months before steady state crewing is in place.

Oh, but wait a minute! 

Hold the presses!

Mid-week, troubled Bristow Group Inc, said to be heading toward bankruptcy or associated arrangements, announced that it had crossed a threshold of value that meant it was being de-listed from the New York Stock Exchange.  

It also emerged that on 3rd May Bristow Group Inc paid its senior management over 2 million USD in "retention payments". This included $945000 to new CEO, and former financial officer of this (clearly successful???) enterprise, Don Miller.   

Today, Bristow Group Inc voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. 

"This bankruptcy filing is limited in its scope and only includes six U.S. entities, including Bristow Group Inc., our parent company, and two Cayman Islands companies. The bankruptcy filing does not impact any of our other U.S. or non-U.S. companies."

So, as I posted previously, with respect to BHL's contract with the DfT for the UK SAR Helicopter Service, the CHC Ireland experience is about to be repeated. BHL, operating aircraft owned by British corporate entities on the contract, keeps cashing DfT cheques every month and service carries on as usual. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-48458444?fbclid=IwAR1zUTsvZBNCewi5bFozYhzBaqfrklFsuMtLna_Y5Lo10zv7kV1P2jk5CiQ

Good to see the awesome work of our colleagues in the air is being recognised.

Stats time!

Note that these now change from quarterly to bi-annually.

PDF Summary: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/search-and-rescue-helicopter-annual-statistics-year-ending-march-2019

Tables: 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/808150/sarh-year-ending-march-2019.zip

Interactive Map:
http://maps.dft.gov.uk/sarh-statistics/interactive-dashboard/

Points raised by posters on this thread are now part of a document being developed for the purpose of influencing the development of the next contract. 

ROTORHUB, Vol 13, No 3, Jun/Jul 2019.
Bristow puts faith in Chapter 11 restructure,
by Tim Martin.

"The Chapter 11 case covers six of Bristow’s legal entities in the US and two of its Cayman Islands subsidiaries. However, the company claims that outstanding legal matters should have ‘no impact at all’ on its UK operations, including a key SAR contract held with the government-ran Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). ‘The debtors have kept Bristow Aviation Holdings Limited and their other nondebtor UK affiliates, key customers like the MCA and regulators like the UK Civil Aviation Authority appropriately apprised of the debtors’ situation and the financial objectives of these Chapter 11 cases,’ Allman noted. Bristow currently operates from ten UK coastguard bases and is responsible for carrying out SAR-related activities across the region, having originally taken over the role from the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy in 2015 and 2016."

More tail rotor inspection actions required by EASA AD on AW189. Some along with AW169 and last Friday's for AW189 only. It's not all 189s, only specific serial numbers of components and lifting of aircraft. Some of Bristow's SAR aircraft may be affected and some won't be. There has been some musical chairs in the fleet during the last few days, most of which may have been related to this matter. It's about keeping us safe in the air. Not by any means the only aircraft to have the finer points of tail rotor design and assembly refined after entry to service: note the S-92 tail rotor events posted about above.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

"It might seem like our work here is nearly done"

Jim, could you tell me what part you play in this Service?  You seem to very knowlegeable on all things Civilian-SAR!

I am Communications Officer of Kintail MRT. I am one of the team's iSAR reps administering our helicopter training. I participate in the SMR aviation group and have sat on the ICAR Air Commission and represented my team or SMR at other SAR aviation events. I have organised several joint training exercises for NW Highland MRT at the Inverness SAR Base. 

Much of my efforts, on what are now three heavily populated threads here, have directed readers toward evidence in the form of reports, contracts and regulations. The other side of that effort is discouraging poorly informed comment.

My profile on another related site describes my role as rotorcraft ballast. 😎

​​

ah right, so fairly involved from an MRT perspective then. That post sounded like you were one of the SAR crew.

The jury is in.

The UK SAR-H Post-Implementation Review by Qinetiq is published on GOV.UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-uk-search-and-rescue-helicopter-service

Thanks, Jim, I'll have a read through that at some point.

Nothing too surprising came up in the review at least. 

Generally, the MCA can be quite pleased that there is more looking forward to potential improvements in this review than there is looking back at past problems.

A few thoughts.

BODIES
The dead body issue has possibly got too much traction. If one were sitting at an ARCC desk on a busy weekend afternoon watching a succession of aircraft across the country going out on life-saving jobs while your busiest callsign was in the middle of recovering a body out of a high corrie, 45 minutes from its clagged-in Base, with a potential aircraft change or decontamination ahead of it, then one's opinion might be different from that of some stakeholders. 

COMMON STANDARD OF SERVICE - IN PROGRESS
I am not entirely sure what this is about. Differences in LandSAR partner organisation across the UK may be something to do with it.

IMPROVED INTEGRATION, OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING - RESCUE PARTNERS
Gets my vote. In some quiet corners, some of this is happening already. It needs to be the new normal.

HLS
If the CAA, BHAB and SAR and HEMS providers could get together with the NHS and police and get a national strategy for landing sites then a lot of things would get a whole lot easier. We knew the helicopter was a major component of the future of life-saving transport when 705 Sqn FAA proved it to us on 31st January 1950, so what are we waiting for in 2019?

AIRCREW TRAINING AND AVAILABILITY
Yes. Arrangement that promote continuity of supply of suitably qualified SAR aircrew should be part of future contracts. The CAA may need to grow a pair and take a different tack on SAR Tech Crew.

AMBULANCE CO-ORDINATION
Ambulance control rooms and independent air ambulance operators operating in 'silos'. Who knew? Who didn't?! This has been on the table for many many years. I don't know who can fix it. There are individuals out there doing the job in this field who understand the problem and want to fix it but they seem to get swept aside by other forces.

SENSORS AND DATA MANAGEMENT
Another favourite subject!

SINGLE COMMERCIAL ENTITY
That has certainly had a mention here and on other related fora during the last seven years. The GAP contract was split between two providers and some, including me, originally expected a Bristow-Bond solution for this one. 

KPI & MOE
Measures Of Effectiveness. Nobody has been doing this 'wrong'. The history of these services has brought us to where we are now and it is probably a really good time to be consider new measurements. This is one of the safest places in the world to live and as rescued persons or SAR partners we are safer on the wire here than anywhere in the world. That is a good outcome and now we need to become cleverer about how we maintain and improve that situation.

POLICING AND SECURITY TASKS
I am concerned about where this takes us. This seems to me to be principally a role for the RAF. It is the sort of thing that Flights of Puma 2 should be rotating-through while exercising with police, RAF Police, RAF Regt and SF.

Some of you 'SAR partners' out there have been disappointed with the amount and level of training you receive with the current contract and it is right that there are references to that in the Qinetiq report. Hopefully, that, and pressures from other directions, will ensure that the MCA realises that this matter really does involve them and they should plan the next contract in a way that provides for all the training demands for a wide range of SAR partners.

It is important to reflect on where this matter stands in comparison to previous providers. Now that we are measuring things in detail, suddenly we think that a huge problem has developed. There may indeed be a problem but many land SAR volunteers never saw a helicopter training session for years at a time under the military regime and few complained because there was no standard set and no measurement taken. 

=============================

Here is what I believe amounts to a good TARGET level of training for a mountain rescue team operating in wild 1000m+ terrain. Clearly, there will be different levels of training necessary for SAR partners in other roles such as lowland, coastal or caves.

iSAR Stage 1A CBT (for each locally-based aircraft type)  -  Every year.

iSAR Stage 1B Static Aircraft Brief  -  Every 3 years.

iSAR Stage 1C Live Practicals Tasks  -  Every 3 years.

Stage 1C Winching tasks done in an intense downwash bowl situation on rough terrain  -  Every 3 to 6 years.

Hill party deployment and re-deployment exercise  -  Every 3 years.

Team Leadership Group: up front on fly-around in core area to be briefed on capability and sensors  -  Once in career, minimum. Any opportunity.

Captaincy and C3 issues: while SAR Tech Crew conduct 1B Static Aircraft Brief, experienced team members already current on 1B should be briefed by pilots on ARCC role, CAP999, triggered lightning, aircraft performance, restrictions in training, communications, landing sites  -  Any opportunity.

=============================

There will be many sceptics but I am hopeful that what appears in the Qinetiq report nudges MCA Aviation in the direction of making this a reality for all who need it.

John Allen has been taking a pop at Police Scotland and the helicopter service in yesterday's P&J. 

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/1818098/cairngorm-john-highlights-problems-of-single-police-force-and-privatised-search-and-rescue/

Rescue 199 (Golf Romeo) trying hard and running out of options.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d5173ece5274a53fa7ee288/Agusta_Westland_AW189__G-MCGR_09-19.pdf

Scottish Mountain Rescue are sending a full delegation to the International Commission for Alpine Rescue (ICAR) at Zakopane in Poland in October. Importantly, for the subject discussed here, that includes the Air Commission. 

So what's all that about? Here are a few clues.
http://www.alpine-rescue.org/xCMS5/WebObjects/nexus5.woa/wa/icar?menuid=1076
http://www.alpine-rescue.org/ikar-cisa/documents/2019/ikar20190830007184.pdf

Greetings from Zakopane. 

Lots of good stuff going on here at the ICAR Air Commission. News about advances with winches that will come to fruition in the next few years. Getting the EASA view on one or two things. News from all corners of the globe. Free beer and sausage. 

About a month from now, round about election time, the new pattern of stats will be published on Coastie's bit of GOV.UK. These will show six months instead of three months, from April to September 2019. It's not clear yet whether they will bother with a 'year ending' set every 12 months or just do the six month period. 

Here is an article about NHV being investigated by the Dutch government for not fulfilling their SAR contract requirements.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/11/29/minister-start-onderzoek-naar-helikopters-kustwacht-a3982166
There have been a few upsets on the NHV operation of the contract including staff shortages, threats of industrial action and an accident in training. Many people in the UK helicopter industry will not find these developments in the Netherlands surprising.

What makes this relevant here is that, back in 2011/13, NHV were a bidder for the current UK SAR contract and currently there is a perception that NHV are targeting contracts in the UK. That means we could expect NHV to bid for the next UK SAR contract. 

Here are the first of the new six-monthly stats. 
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/search-and-rescue-helicopter-bi-annual-statistics-april-to-september-2019

Thanks for this, Jim. Interesting that some of our evacs from the BBNP appear to be being designated searches rather than transfer or rescue. Not that it bothers me! A good autumn down here with training, I think it helps that our helicopter base is within easy visiting distance too.

Distance and the total number of SAR volunteers in that Base's footprint. Some areas are toiling because of the number of mountain, cave, lowland and maritime volunteers concentrated in some regions with Bases some distance away. This is being worked on and continues to be discussed. 

We also need to ensure that solutions are fed into the process for the next contract. We don't want our successors going to identical meetings in 2029 and 2039. If one considers the Governments service-based approach to contracting and there being only the incumbent contractor at the table, this can lead to a systematic flaw being built in. 

It seems all is not well in Irish Aviation. Also, having worked with CHC, us all having witnessed the contract collapse in 2011, and now reading this, I am a bit concerned about who is out there to adequately compete with Bristow for UK SAR.

https://www.thejournal.ie/rescue-116-irish-coast-guard-4949932-Dec2019/

HM Govt continues to behave as though contracting SAR helicopters is just the same as doing it for rail franchises or the works canteen or building maintenance. The reality is that this marketplace is small and unique, even in the UK, and if it all goes wrong there is nobody round the corner to pick up the pieces.

The Rescue 116 report is now delayed pending a review prompted by stakeholder action in response to the draught report. 
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0109/1105424-r116-helicopter-crash/

It cannot be confirmed which stakeholder is involved. 

I've always been a self confessed lurker to these threads. But thought I would pen to paper as such to acknowledge all your updates Jim.

Any news on who the likely candidates for the next bid will be - Bristow seemed to have slowed on their recruitment recently - is that a sucession planning move?

Juan

These are the 'runners and riders' from 2011-13.

Bond Offshore Helicopters
Bristow Helicopters
CHC Scotia
Elbit Systems
Evergreen International Aviation
Eurocopter UK
Osprey Consortium (BIH)
FB Heliservices
NHV (Noordzee Helikopters Vlaanderen)
Lockheed Martin UK

and this is what they looked like

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/winter_climbing/helicopters_civilian_versus_mod-484374?v=1#x6828853

USUAL SUSPECTS
In some respects, nothing has changed. We know that the usual suspects, Babcock (Bond), Bristow and CHC, have the proven capability to conduct SAR and other emergency helicopter operations in and around the UK and manage an operation of this size and complexity.

BIG BRUISERS
Some of the previous bidders were probably there in the early stages as much for intelligence gathering as anything else and did not have a real ambition to operate that contract. That's not to say Elbit or LM wouldn't have been able to pull it off. They have deep pockets and good connections and would make it happen if they found themselves stumbling into it. 

AMBITION
NHV have shown persistent interest in the UK market. However, there are people out there who see NHV as the Dacia up against Mercedes and I am not convinced that they are wrong. 

British International Helicopters were in the game last time during the early stages as part of the Osprey consortium. Since then, they have established a proven ability to provide SAR at this level to the UK Government in the most extraordinary circumstances. This is shown by their part in the Falkland Islands contract with the Ministry of Defence. It only involves two aircraft at one base but the standard of planning and logistics to do this 7000 miles from home promotes them to the premier league. Originally, they were doing this as a sub-contractor to AAR but I understand that BIH have now taken over the contract. Another Osprey/AAR type of arrangement would definitely put them in the frame.

Babcock International who now own, and have rebranded, Bond Helicopters, are not really an aviation company. They do not, in their bones, see SAR and its core lifesaving role as the ultimate honourable endeavour and reputation enhancer for a helicopter operator. They are far happier building frigates.