FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1994
1994 - 1730.PDF
SEARCH AND RESCUE A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH The future of the Royal Air Force's search and rescue mission is in some doubt as the UK continues to look at ways of cutting defence costs. Douglas Barrie examines the argument for keeping it within the RAF. Royal Air Force search and rescue (SAR) crews on night missions have an endearing, and instructive, way of illustrating to passengers just how effective night-vision goggles are. They just ask the unsuspecting passenger to flip the goggles up. Being plunged into total darkness in a Westland Sea King hov ering at 10ft (3m) in a small clearing is, to say the least, uncomfortable. In the dark, however, is just where the RAF's SAR crews, appear to have been put, generating considerable high-level concern as to the exact political agenda for the future of this arm of the service. "Bananas", as the SAR Sea King HAR.3s are affectionately called, remain popular both within the RAF and in the public eye. As one officer says: "If all low-level flying was carried out with aircraft painted bright yellow, the public would never complain." The public seems perfectly happy to have its peace and quiet shattered by a large yellow helicopter, if it thinks it is for a good cause. This provides the RAF with a "feel-good" factor from a section of the air force. The RAF is loathe to see this reduced and is certainly against it being contracted out to the private sector. Being reduced is exactly what is hap pening to the RAF's SAR fleet, and it is con cerned that a "hidden agenda" may result in more than just a cut in numbers. "Contractorisation" (putting out to pri vate tender services previously met from within the armed forces) is now popular and there is concern within the RAF that SAR will eventually suffer this fate. Although the service's Sea King HAR.3s are ostensibly intended to provide SAR for downed military aircrew, over 80% of all call-outs are for civilian incidents. This, at least at face value, would appear to present a reasonable case for the "civil- ianisation" of SAR. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is paying to support what is for most of the time effectively an adjunct of the civil emergency services. The RAF makes a number of points in defence of retaining its SAR role. Not least is the public-relations value of being involved in highly visible rescue opera tions. There is also an economic argument: even if the RAF were to lose the bulk of SAR, it would still have to retain some capability, and it would therefore make sense to retain SAR services under one umbrella. Carrying out SAR operations also provides RAF helicopter crews with invalu able flying experience, often in the most demanding of conditions. Finally, some RAF SAR officials have questioned whether civil SAR operators would have the capaci ty to meet all the requirements now met by the RAF units. In 1992, the Government initiated a review of the SAR as part of the general drive to reduce the UK's armed forces in the light of the end of the Cold War. The Government's proposals, outlined in The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters paper pub lished in October 1992, continue to raise opposition, both within the RAF and at a political level. WESSEX WITHDRAWAL The RAF's SAR capability currently con sists of two squadrons, No 22 and No 202, deployed in several two-ship flights around the UK. The MoD proposals published in the paper include withdrawing all of the 14 Westland Wessex HAR.2s used in the SAR role, while placing an additional order for a further six Sea King HAR.3s. More con tentious was the proposed closure or with drawal of SAR flights from RAF Brawdy, Coltishall, Manston and Leuchars. 28
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
