The Fixed Wing Search and Rescue Saga Continues....

[Just another canuck]

Oh, boo-hoo, I've hurt the military's feelings. It's okay for posters of this forum to slam the companies and pilots who have had accidents in civil aviation. But when the military is criticized, we're crossing the line. Can anyone say double standard?

I am entitled to an opinion... and that opinion is that Canada's SAR program would be better served by the private sector. And that the military should stick to their side of the fence in regards to operation of SAR aircraft. And I can honestly say that few, if any, of my colleagues would disagree with me. I guess we're all fools.

There is a reason X company asks for Y amount of hours and experience to fly Z aircraft. Not only is it unsafe to hire someone who does not meet these requirements, but in many cases insurance will dictate you can not. You are right about one thing... my knowledge of the military is limited. But what I do know is that they fly very little and IMO, it is impossible to stay proficient at this rate. Personally, I would feel better putting my faith in the private sector where the flight crew would likely have decades and 10's of thousands of hours of experience rather than the RCAF who struggle to stay current.

Perhaps a joint effort would be more practical, where the military assumes a role that does not include any of the flying. Use the aircraft and crews who operate in any said region. My issue is not with the military's ability to help save human life. My issue is with the lack of available aircraft and IMO, lack of experience in the cockpit.

You don't have to agree with me. I could care less. And if I had an accident tomorrow, it is highly unlikely that the military would find me before my company aircraft.

Flame away.

Cheers.

JAC

[Sidebar]

... my knowledge of the military is limited. But what I do know is that they fly very little and IMO, it is impossible to stay proficient at this rate.

Is military SAR crew proficiency a problem? Why is it a problem? How bad is the problem?

Can you provide any specific evidence that supports your assertion that military SAR proficiency has somehow decreased SAR effectiveness?

[Redneck_pilot86]

I have personally been involved in 5 searches for missing aircraft, and not once has the military SAR been on site before the aircraft was located. In each case, a local charter helicopter was the first on scene, sometimes with a medic on board, sometimes not. In at least one of these incidents the time delay that military SAR has would have lead to more fatalities. I'm all for privatizing SAR flying, especially in the north.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Finally a sensible post. It isn't the DND's job to save your ass.

Better clue in the RCAF - it looks like they missed your memo: "The Air Force shares responsibility for search and rescue in Canada by drawing support from the Canadian Coast Guard and from a vast network of civil and government organizations, volunteers and other agencies." See http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/page-eng.asp?id=17

Just because it is policy doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Nobody is saying you have to agree with anything: I'm simply pointing you to the factual inaccuracy in your previous post, where you said pretty plainly that "it isn't the DND's job to save your ass." Under the current arrangement, that is precisely the RCAF's responsibility.

[Rockie]

There is a reason X company asks for Y amount of hours and experience to fly Z aircraft. Not only is it unsafe to hire someone who does not meet these requirements, but in many cases insurance will dictate you can not. You are right about one thing... my knowledge of the military is limited. But what I do know is that they fly very little and IMO, it is impossible to stay proficient at this rate. Personally, I would feel better putting my faith in the private sector where the flight crew would likely have decades and 10's of thousands of hours of experience rather than the RCAF who struggle to stay current.

JAC

It's true that the military doesn't get the amount of flying time civilians get. But what they do get is training, training, training and more training. And when they're finished with that they train some more. That's how you get a guy who's been flying for five years and has relatively few hours compared to a civilian commanding a C-17 doing tactical airlift or leading 60 fighters in a mass attack.

Can anybody you know in civilian life say the same?

There is also a risk factor in executing some rescues that civilian operators simply cannot be counted on for a number of reasons.

The only problem with military SAR in Canada is lack of resources. Lack of competency is not a factor.

[shimmydampner]

That's how you get a guy who's been flying for five years and has relatively few hours compared to a civilian commanding a C-17 doing tactical airlift or leading 60 fighters in a mass attack.

Can anybody you know in civilian life say the same?

That's a bit misleading as it's more a matter of differences in necessity/supply and demand. When all your pilots only have 1500 hours, well... someone's gotta fly that C-17. The reality of civilian air operations are much different. There is a large supply of much higher time and experience to draw from, not to mention insurance companies and the paying public alike prefer high time doing the driving.

[ahramin]

Shimmy, military enlistment has nothing to do with the supply and demand of pilots. Militaries have selection processes that take little to no account of aviation experience. Because of this their pilots do not have the experience that their civilian counterparts in similar positions have and they make this up through education. Lots and lots of it.

On the civilian side you have supply and demand of experienced pilots but if the supply dried up you couldn't take 1700 hour pilots and put them in command of international transport aircraft just because that's what is available. Without massively changing the training program you'd get aircraft plugging into the ground all over the planet.

[Double Wasp]

Wow

All I can say is wow.

There is so much wrong here it is frightening.

The military is the right service to get the job done, just give them the tools and get the politics out of the way.

Change can be frightening, but it does not mean it is wrong. The problem is that you will never be able to get the politics out of the way. There is nothing wrong with the military carrying out SAR. What I have a problem with is the fact that they are hobbled by their polical masters and used as chips in political games.

The beauty of a civilian contract is that while the contractor is still auditable the government is held a lot more accountable. They can not change the parameters of a civilian contract at will, for example remove aircraft, reduce flying hours etc. If there is a reduction below contracted levels the provider will sue the govenment for losses. While in the military there simply is no recourse. A contracted civilian SAR provider would not only provide additional resources and flexibilty to a very essential service, but it could also be done with less expense and be more effective.

Cheers
DW

[Beefitarian]

Let's see. The military does SAR as a necessity, at cost. They use older equipment that they share with transport squadrons.

Much actual searching is carried out by volunteers in privately owned and maintained planes they provide for an hourly rate during a search or training, that means people who do not get paid in planes the military did not need to buy or pay to keep in flying condition. Thus reducing the cost further to below actual cost.

In a private venture you have investors that need a return or they will not invest in it. Yet people somehow think.

it could also be done with less expense

So, buying a new fleet of aircraft, then staffing it with paid experts, to do something for a higher cost, plus a shareholder profit, while continuing to operate the current planes for transporting things will magically be less expensive.

How?

[Shiny Side Up]

While in the military there simply is no recourse.

Sure there is. Why else do you think we elect these guys every four years or so. If they do something to the military we don't like, make sure they know about it. The problem with a contractor is that they are no longer directly responsible to the people, but to the terms of their contract. If we are unhappy with their service, we're still stuck riding out the terms of their contract, often at taxpayer expense. For a lot of things privatization just doesn't work, or at least isn't in the interests of the taxpayer. If someone tells you otherwise they're trying to sell you the service.

[shimmydampner]

Shimmy, military enlistment has nothing to do with the supply and demand of pilots. Militaries have selection processes that take little to no account of aviation experience. Because of this their pilots do not have the experience that their civilian counterparts in similar positions have and they make this up through education. Lots and lots of it.

On the civilian side you have supply and demand of experienced pilots but if the supply dried up you couldn't take 1700 hour pilots and put them in command of international transport aircraft just because that's what is available.

That was kinda my point.

[Beefitarian]

If we are unhappy with their service, we're still stuck riding out the terms of their contract, often at taxpayer expense.

No problem. Just switch to one of the other affordable private SAR providers operating in Canada.

[Sidebar]

I have personally been involved in 5 searches for missing aircraft, and not once has the military SAR been on site before the aircraft was located. In each case, a local charter helicopter was the first on scene, sometimes with a medic on board, sometimes not.

Chances are the local charter helicopter was chartered by RCC.

While we're at it here folks, let's not forget that every pilot needs to take some reponsibility for their own survival and rescue. Things like filing a flight plan, and then flying the plan make it easier to be found when you do go down. Know how to use your ELT. Carry a sat phone. Use SPOT or SkyTrac for flight following. If you're on a flight itinerary, does your "responsible person" really know what they're responsible for? Are you familiar with your survival gear? Do you have the right gear to survive for a day or two in the cold?

Increase your chances of survival, and make it easy for SAR to find you.

[Beefitarian]

Well said sidebar.

You might have the best metal detector ever but if the needle is in a completely different part of the haystack from where you start looking...

[1000 HP]

I just renewed my SPOT subcription. Where I am, I'll likely be paying for rescue so I paid the extra $13 for the $100,000 SAR coverage. I hope they search for me with a C172 and not a Herc in that case

(Of course with SPOT, it is not a search but rather an "extraction")

[Double Wasp]

Beef,

It has been done cheaper by private companies elsewhere in the world while providing a better more reliable service. If it were cheaper for the Dutch government to continue using P3's in the Netherland antilles they would not have switched to PAL's Dash 8's. Same for Iceland, Australia, the UK and others.

If a private company can not meet reliability standards they get penalized, if the government can not meet reliability standards, they delay / cancel the flight.

Canada already has a private company who has some expertise conducting SAR, Provincial Aerospace, they work to a very high standard. You don't win multi million dollar government contracts both domestically and internationally by not providing a great reliable product.

Cheers
DW

[Beefitarian]

I think searching for a missing airplane might be slightly different in the UK and Netherlands from here. Stars would have taken over allready if that was a comparable situation.

[Double Wasp]

I think searching for a missing airplane might be slightly different in the UK and Netherlands from here. Stars would have taken over allready if that was a comparable situation.

The reason why a private operator is not the primary provider for SAR is because they have not been given the opportunity.

You are right though they are different, inclement weather, mountains, raging seas, and Volcanoes, there is no comparison between Iceland and Canada, or the UK or anywhere else.

Let's see. The military does SAR as a necessity, at cost. They use older equipment that they share with transport squadrons.

Much actual searching is carried out by volunteers in privately owned and maintained planes they provide for an hourly rate during a search or training, that means people who do not get paid in planes the military did not need to buy or pay to keep in flying condition. Thus reducing the cost further to below actual cost.

In a private venture you have investors that need a return or they will not invest in it. Yet people somehow think.

it could also be done with less expense

So, buying a new fleet of aircraft, then staffing it with paid experts, to do something for a higher cost, plus a shareholder profit, while continuing to operate the current planes for transporting things will magically be less expensive.

How?

First no one is saying get rid of CASARA, why would this program have to go? The same department that pays for CASARA would be paying the private contractor.

Think about it Beef how could civilian planes be less expensive? I am sure a Twin Otter costs less than a C295, or a Dash 8 costs less than a Herc. The thing is it would not be done the same as the military, it would be different. Most likely a lot more smaller aircraft spead over a greater number of bases to ensure coverage and flexibilty. Where as the military consolodates resources in larger bases. Think of 10 bases spread accross the country vs 4. I would be willing to be that 10 civilian SAR bases could be operated cheaper than the military runs their 4. Not to mention a crew of 4 or 5 vs a crew of 10. Frankly the reason why the military is more expensive is because if they do not use their budget it will be cut. Where if the civilians come in under budget it is a profit.

Remember different can be good.

There are things that only the military can do: Anti Sub Warfare, disaster relief, sovereignty maintenance. These should be the focus of their priority and be able to be tasked as a backup to SAR.

I know I will not change your opinion, but that does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand.

Cheers
DW

[Beefitarian]

If there was a private SAR operation working in the area it might cost less to hire them. Of course I can see a Dash 8 costing less than a Herc.

Those C-130s will still be operating in their other roles. I don't understand how it will be less expensive to add planes.

My point about searching England, is there is no place there farther than a mile away from a person. If you land a plane off airport several people can probably look out of a building window and see it.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Interestingly, the Brits don't seem to have a problem with privatizing SAR. From today's Financial Times:

"US group to conduct UK search and rescue
By Rose Jacobs
The UK government is set to award Bristow, a publicly listed US company, the £3.1bn contract to run the country’s helicopter search and rescue services for up to 13 years. Bristow was the last bidder standing for one part of the contract and beat Scotland-based rival Bond Helicopter for the other half.

As part of the contract, it will replace the 40 Sea King helicopters used by military SAR pilots – the most famous of which is the Duke of Cambridge – with a mix of models made by US manufacturer Sikorsky and AgustaWestland, part of Finmeccanica, which plans to build the aircraft at its Yeovil facilities.

The privatisation of UK SAR services has been a long-running project, with an earlier part-privatisation cancelled two years ago amid allegations of misconduct in the bidding process.

Some MPs and unions have protested against the renewed push for privatisation in part because it involves closing two bases, reducing the number to 10. Other critics worry that by shifting SAR out of the hands of the military, the government will sap the RAF of training opportunities, or that profit margins will play a role in how search and rescue operations are conducted.

But helicopter operating companies and manufacturers see a big opportunity, as much for the chance to showcase their goods and services as for the sums involved."

[YYZSaabGuy]

Here's a recent update on pending changes to the federal government's military procurement process - http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ement.html.

With regard to FWSAR in particular, the updates notes that "It's believed the contract for that plane could now be let sometime this fall." Terrific: really nice to see a continued full-court press to get a tender out the door on a project which was launched in - unbelievably - 2002. That's right, folks: eleven years since the project was announced and still no tender. Two questions:

1. Any bets as to how long it'll take to get a tender issued, a contest run, bids assessed, a selection announced, contracts negotiated, and the aircraft actually built, delivered and put into service?
2. What are the odds that the winning design will be so customized, and the program so burdened by subsequent change orders, that the successful OEM will be unable to build it? (Refer the CH-148 Maritime Helicopter Project fiasco, summarized by now-former Minister of National Defence MacKay as the worst procurement effort in Canadian history)?

What’s the future for Canada’s military procurement? Conservatives scrapped the associate minister of defence post in Monday's shuffle
By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Jul 18, 2013 5:32 PM ET Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 5:20 PM ET

Two years after it first appointed a minister to solve the problem of an often-messy system of military procurement, the Conservative government blanked the post during the cabinet shuffle Monday, believing it's now close to a permanent solution to one of its most vexing problems.

With tens of billions of dollars worth of military procurement projects either underway or being contemplated, CBC News has learned the government has now settled on two possible outcomes, but neither, at this point, apparently require the service of an associate minister of national defence.

Government sources have suggested there's not much that can be read into the elimination of the post, and the new defence minister indicated he's not too fussed about it. At his first public appearance in his new role Thursday, Rob Nicholson said reform to procurement was underway, but he admitted he knew little about it.

"There's a process in place, and we'll proceed on that basis," he said.

After winning his majority government in 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper brought back the associate minister post —which had existed in previous governments — appointing Julian Fantino to the job. Fantino was soon followed by Bernard Valcourt, and then in February by Kerry-Lynne Findlay, making three ministers in just two short years.

The post was positioned beneath then Defence Minister Peter MacKay but allegedly came with a direct line to the prime minister.

Alan Williams, the military's former associate deputy minister (material), responsible for procurement, says the portfolio was unnecessary. "I think they found out that the addition of a minister didn't really help the process and perhaps even harmed it," he said.

Williams said the addition of another minister in the procurement chain could only have burdened the system with bureaucracy.

There's another perspective on the associate minister's utility: that the office was only ever really a political buffer for an embattled Peter MacKay.

Before the 2011 general election, MacKay was regularly under fire over what was termed the "F-35 fiasco." Once Fantino was appointed associate defence minister, he took all questions on the file, leaving MacKay to sit silently in his place on the front bench in the House of Commons.

It's unclear how much heavy lifting the associate minister's small staff was able to accomplish, but insiders say the associate minister's role as an honest broker helped it mediate differences between the two key procurement ministers: defence and public works.

There has been an historic, and perhaps necessary, tension between those two departments. Defence's role in procurement is to set the requirement for what it needs. Public Works is responsible for buying an item that does that job. It's also responsible for ensuring procurement rules are followed, and that the procurements are run, as often as possible, as fair and open competitions.

In most cases, the system works well. But when the programs become large and complex, such as with new helicopters, fighter jets, search planes or ships, tensions can sometimes rise along with the price tag.

Tensions between the two departments escalated, for example, into a serious spat over the purchase of new fixed-wing search planes.

The Fixed-wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) program was launched in 2002, and funded to the tune of about $1.3 billion. The first of about 15 planes was to be delivered by 2006. But more than six years later, the government has been unable to even get a bid out to tender.

Last year, after a long delay, the program to buy new planes started moving again, under the strict control of a special secretariat inside the Department of Public Works. It's believed the contract for that plane could now be let sometime this fall.

The secretariat model, featuring interdepartmental teams of bureaucrats and independent third-party experts, was first used in the government's celebrated National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy to provide the coast guard and navy with tens of billions of dollars of new ships.

It's now also been applied to the government's search for a new fighter jet, following the controversy over the sole-source plan to buy the F-35.

CBC News has learned the government is now considering making the secretariat model permanent for all large purchases. This would effectively strip decision-making out of the hands of departmental bureaucrats and their ministers, and instead vest it in the hands of contracted third-party experts.

Ministers would still be responsible for the procurement, but outsiders would, in effect, decide which contract or purchase provided the best gear and at the best price.

It would aid in removing politics from procurement and insulate ministers from allegations of regional pork-barrelling.

The secretariat model is the favourite of senior staff inside the Public Works department, where it's viewed as being easy to achieve because it requires only incremental change and not massive restructuring. It could also be implemented without legislative change.

But that's not true for the other option on the table: creating a brand new procurement agency to manage all major purchases for the Defence department.

This last option is preferred by military officials, who believe it would give them the best chance to ensure all new military equipment is selected with their preferences in mind.

Officers' clubs in Ottawa are often filled with stories of good procurements going bad only after the bureaucrats at Public Works became involved, of political meddling that sometimes led to bad decision-making, and bad equipment built in a politically important region being foisted on soldiers.

Military types believe the best solution is to have an agency whose raison d'être is providing the defence equipment to the Defence department — not managing contracts.

It's this option that is closest to what Alan Williams prefers: a single point of accountability. "They still have to solve the problem, namely allowing the prime minister to point to one person and say, 'You are that person accountable for defence procurement,'" he said.

"Right now, the prime minister does not know who to blame or who to laud, with regard to defence procurement." Williams suggests that model also would eliminate the duplication of the same effort in two separate departments.

[ShayneThill]

Well said sidebar.

You might have the best metal detector ever but if the needle is in a completely different part of the haystack from where you start looking...

How to distinguish whether a metal detector the best metal detector or not?