Privatisation of search and rescue

FlyTVR

FlyTVR

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,234
Edit My Images
No
I didnt realise this was going to happen (until I watched Seaking on BBC 2 last night).

Is it good news or bad?

Dav.
 
The RNLI manage well enough without the dead hand of government pressing down on them (and AIUI will not take government money due to the strings attached to it).

So, I have no problem with SAR being run privately, given that there is almost 200 years of evidence that rescue at sea can be achieved by an organisation which is not part of the public sector.
 
My only concern is the funding model. The RNLI has evolved as a "much loved" charity.

What we have here is a system that has been funded (and many believe should still be Government funded) so how it will get on I don't know.
 
It's a tricky one. There's plenty of private models that have done well. Equally, there's lots of services that have been privatised and now find themselves in a terrible state.
 
It's not just the RNLI that this could effect...fire service too :(
 
Having done some reading about what's been proposed I'm revising my opinion to be against it. There's no place for profiteering in services that exist to protect/save lives.
 
You're a fair few years late!

SAR helicopters have been part privatised for years, if you didn't notice then it must be working without problems, no point in being worried about it.

A couple of points, the Military provide SAR, with the priority being for Military Aircrew, not the public. But the public get fished out of the drink/Off mountains or evacuated from remote areas to hospital, and that comes from the Defence budget, not from where it should DfT.

Full privitisation will just mean that the costs go where they should.
 
Bernie174 said:
You're a fair few years late!

SAR helicopters have been part privatised for years, if you didn't notice then it must be working without problems, no point in being worried about it.

A couple of points, the Military provide SAR, with the priority being for Military Aircrew, not the public. But the public get fished out of the drink/Off mountains or evacuated from remote areas to hospital, and that comes from the Defence budget, not from where it should DfT.

Full privitisation will just mean that the costs go where they should.
Click to expand...

I just wonder how the costs are assessed. It seems to me that when military search and rescue assests are not involved in actual SAR operations they are training for it on just about a daily basis. Frequent real life rescues must bring about a very high level of proficiency.
The sea kings have combat roles. Is that being made redundant?
If there are assets required for combat that can be utilised for other purposes during peacetime then that appears to be useful arrangement.

I guess I simply do not have confidence in any government to make sound decisions.
 
Nope, the SAR force has no combat role, and hasn't for years if ever in the UK.

True that a SAR Sea king crew can re role to Commando (if Navy) or Support Helicopter (if RAF), but the crews posted to the SAR Squadrons just do SAR for that posting.

As for training etc, the SAR service on the South Coast has been private for a long time, there have never been any issues with it. They manage to train, and be available and with far more modern and efficient aircraft. Are you assuming that Civil SAR is inferior? If so thats a massive insult to those Civil Crews. They train to much the same level as forces crews do. Of course if that wasn't the case, you'd know all about it, the Mail would be broadcasting that left right and centre.

The Sea Kings are knackered. They are due out of service, and in fact should have been by now. The Civil SAR units fly much more modern aircraft, and in the case of those in Scotland, and probably at other locations, bigger longer range aircraft.

The Defence budget wont stand replacement of the Sea King, and why should it? It isn't a military role, it should be under a civil authority, and paid for from that. Defence is for armed force, not picking up yacht drivers who confuse ambition with ability.

I have no confidence in HMG either, but private SAR is here, has been for a long time, and is working just fine.
 
Bernie174 said:
Nope, the SAR force has no combat role, and hasn't for years if ever in the UK.

True that a SAR Sea king crew can re role to Commando (if Navy) or Support Helicopter (if RAF), but the crews posted to the SAR Squadrons just do SAR for that posting.

As for training etc, the SAR service on the South Coast has been private for a long time, there have never been any issues with it. They manage to train, and be available and with far more modern and efficient aircraft. Are you assuming that Civil SAR is inferior? If so thats a massive insult to those Civil Crews. They train to much the same level as forces crews do. Of course if that wasn't the case, you'd know all about it, the Mail would be broadcasting that left right and centre.

I did not say that and was well aware that maritime SAR has been private for a long time and doing a good job. I may be wrong here, but mountain rescues seem to be the province of the RAF and Navy helos. I don't see much of Civil SAR in that at present.

The Sea Kings are knackered. They are due out of service, and in fact should have been by now. The Civil SAR units fly much more modern aircraft, and in the case of those in Scotland, and probably at other locations, bigger longer range aircraft.

The Defence budget wont stand replacement of the Sea King, and why should it? It isn't a military role, it should be under a civil authority, and paid for from that. Defence is for armed force, not picking up yacht drivers who confuse ambition with ability.

I have no confidence in HMG either, but private SAR is here, has been for a long time, and is working just fine.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry about the above post. Got my comment mixed up in yours, Bernie.
 
Doesn't bode well if that Geordie's Overboard programme is anything to go by:)
 
Dougie

No problem.

Again, thats not correct, Civil SAR helicopters cover the exactly the same tasking as the Military ones do. Granted Lee on Solent doesn't get a huge number of Mountain Rescue calls, mainly because Hampshire and the Isle of Wright aren't exactly the Himalayas.

But if you look at the SAR service in Scotland, it's a different matter.
 
Although not yet privatised, there is no separation of roles up here either (N Wales) - both marine and mountain rescues are performed by the same helicopters & crews from the same RAF squadron (22 Sqn, RAF Valley - including Prince William).
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Dougie

No problem.

Again, thats not correct, Civil SAR helicopters cover the exactly the same tasking as the Military ones do. Granted Lee on Solent doesn't get a huge number of Mountain Rescue calls, mainly because Hampshire and the Isle of Wright aren't exactly the Himalayas.

But if you look at the SAR service in Scotland, it's a different matter.
Click to expand...

That's what I am looking at, Bernie. SAR, esp. mountain rescue is very frequently in the news here in Scotland and if you are someone who frequents the hills then RAF and Navy helos are a common sight.

I guess there are some things that I just feel comfortable with the military doing. (Could well be ex mil crew in Coastguard helos I suppose).
 
From what I understand, a large proportion of Civil SAR Crews are ex Mil. Of course one argument would be that if you replace the current system with a fully Civil one, then that source dries up.

Obviously thats countered by the Civil Helicopter Industry training themselves. If the current crews are mostly Ex Military, then it simply means them passing on their skills, in the same way as they do at the SAR OCU now.

As I said at the start, Civil run SAR is in place, and has been for many years. There have been no problems with it. They do the same work as the Military do now, albeit at a smaller number of bases.

They operate aircraft that are appropriate to the role, the Sea Kings are not always the best aircraft, and I understand there have been serviceability issues, so in reality the Civil side is as reliable, and in some cases more so.

The systems and SOP's are much the same whoever plucks you off a hillside or out of the drink, the training and experience levels are the same for both sides.

Ok, so why change it? Simple really, why should the defence budget, which is there for the purpose of defence, spend a huge amount of money every year doing something that is really a different departments problem, and at ZERO cost to that Department, ie the DfT. It shouldn't.
 
There certainly has been changes to what the Mil SAR assets are tasked to do. There primary purpose was to rescue aircrew from downed military aircraft. That does not happen all that often now and with the reduction in the size of the RAF will (or should) happen less.
In our overseas adventures it appears to be the US who bear the brunt of recovering downed allied airmen. Probably because they have the capability to project adequate force to make that possible in hostile situations.
Sure is a lot changing.
 
To be honest I can't recall any Military aircraft going down in the sea for the last 18 months. so yes, you're right. I suspect thats also why the Military SAR was withdrawn from the South Coast, there is almost nothing now in terms of Military Aviation from Culdrose & Yeovilton going east. Teeny Weeny Airways (AAC) don't play much over the sea, as it's difficult for their customers to dig holes in it. The RAF Support Helicopter force don't either.

The SAR force have never been involved in playing games recovering shot down aircrew, there's a flight of RAF Regiment on 28 (Merlin) Squadron, E Flight, who apparently have that task, but have never used it.

I'd guess that will go to the Chinook Force as the Merlins as going to the Commando Helicopter Force to replace their Sea Kings.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
To be honest I can't recall any Military aircraft going down in the sea for the last 18 months. so yes, you're right. I suspect thats also why the Military SAR was withdrawn from the South Coast, there is almost nothing now in terms of Military Aviation from Culdrose & Yeovilton going east. Teeny Weeny Airways (AAC) don't play much over the sea, as it's difficult for their customers to dig holes in it. The RAF Support Helicopter force don't either.
Click to expand...

July 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-18720128

February 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12426100

January 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12301802
 
This kind of thing happens all the time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-21610289
If the service is privatised then these idiots who walk up Snowdon in stupid clothing should get billed for their rescue. In France any skier has to take out insurance to cover the cost of their rescue. I've been saying for years we should do the same to deter the loonies in T-shirts and shorts who go walking up the mountains, fortunately we haven't lost a helicopter on SAR duties yet (That I can recall - I may be wrong)

Alan
 
Alanem said:
If the service is privatised then these idiots who walk up Snowdon in stupid clothing should get billed for their rescue.
Click to expand...


I've believed this for a long time, when you see the state of some of the folk rescued on Scottish hills e.g. jeans and trainers they should be made to pay the cost of rescue.
 
Where's the need to separate civil and military purposes? Is the military still for the defence and protection of the British people, or has it been transformed now to be just for the purpose of overseas aggression?

And since when were people, who are stupid enough to walk up a mountain in flip-flops and a T-shirt, simultaneously smart enough to take out insurance? Err.. hello??? There's no defence against idiocy. People who are below average intelligence make up almost 50% of the population. But they're still part of our society, pay their taxes, and help local economies by holidaying in the hills.
 
The military side of SAR was established for the rescue of downed pilots. I don't recall it happening but if a military aircraft went in whilst the helicopter was rescuing a yachtie or walker then they would be left so that the helicopter could carry out its' primary role. French people know that if they have to be rescued off an Alp they will get the bill. Only need to do it a few times before even the thickest people get the message.

Alan
 
It only needs to happen a few times to who? Stupid people don't learn from other stupid peoples' mistakes. If they did, there'd be no need for SAR by now.
 
Alanem said:
This kind of thing happens all the time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-21610289
If the service is privatised then these idiots who walk up Snowdon in stupid clothing should get billed for their rescue. In France any skier has to take out insurance to cover the cost of their rescue. I've been saying for years we should do the same to deter the loonies in T-shirts and shorts who go walking up the mountains, fortunately we haven't lost a helicopter on SAR duties yet (That I can recall - I may be wrong)

Alan
Click to expand...

RAF SAR Wessex crashed on Ben More during a rescue in 1987. Police Sgt (MR Team Leader) was killed.
The bother with the "let's make the loonies pay" gambit is just where do you draw the line with that principle.
People who cross a road without looking - that seems like lunacy.
People who drive carelessly - damned stupid thing to do.
How about the DIY brigade. According to RoSPA over 600 of these end up in hospital every day ! Got to be a lot of candidates among that lot for a stupid and irresponsible tag.
The list of all the potententially stupid things people do is infinite.
Once you start down the road of singling out one group who must pay for being stupid then the eventual outcome is that everyone will belong to one or more categories deemed by others to be stupid. (Except for me - I am perfect)
 
Last edited:
Not singling anyone out - but in France if you get airlifted off the mountain you get the bill. Which is why they all have insurance, why should the state, ie taxpayers pick up the bill - it's not cheap to provide SAR helicopter cover. You mention careless drivers, well the NHS does claim against the insurance of drivers at fault for the costs of care of casualties so why not extend the same principle to SAR?

Alan
 
Alanem said:
why should the state, ie taxpayers pick up the bill
Click to expand...

Well, which is it? State or taxpayers?

And if tax payers pay tax to the state for SAR (which they do), why shouldn't the state pay for SAR? Tax is, after all, a form of insurance. You pay tax, you receive services.

Or I could get behind your logic, if I can have a tax discount for not climbing hills or getting swept out to sea. If you can guarantee that I will get that tax reduction, I'll support your way of thinking.

Oh, and since I don't go anywhere except at weekends, I'll take a 5/7 reduction in the contributions I make to pay for traffic cops. I don't need them, after all. And I'll take another cut for street lighting, since I don't go out at night and therefore don't need it.

While we're at it, I'll take a tax cut from emergency service funding since I don't ride a motorbike, and those things do cost the NHS a lot. Come to think of it, in the last 10 years I haven't actually needed any surgery at all. That's a whole lot of NHS I don't personally need. Get it off my tax bill.

I mean.. why should I pay for all these things I don't use?

And since I don't NEED the armed services to fight other peoples' fights in foreign countries, you can zero my tax bill on that score too. My monthly pay packet's beginning to look a lot healthier, all of a sudden, less all that wasted tax being sucked out of it. I think I'll spend the extra on skiing holidays in France. I can afford the insurance, now, too.

You know, some ways of thinking just don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
 
The State has no money, only what it takes from taxpayers.


The rest of your arguments have been settled in court by CND activists who tried to hold back a portion of their taxes as they disagreed with nuclear weapons. They lost.

Tax is not insurance. You have to have insurance to drive a car, so why not make it compulsory for skiers, mountaineers and sailors to have insurance too? A lot of sailors probably do - I don't know as I'm not a sailor.

When I was knocked off my motorcycle a few years back the hospital contacted me for details of the other driver as they were going to claim the cost of my care from his insurance, do you think they shouldn't have done that ?

Alan
 
Alanem said:
The State has no money, only what it takes from taxpayers.
Click to expand...
And the taxpayers have no money after the state has taken theirs. Why do we pay tax?

Alanem said:
The rest of your arguments have been settled in court by CND activists who tried to hold back a portion of their taxes as they disagreed with nuclear weapons. They lost.
Click to expand...
So in other words, you can't guarantee that I'll get my money back for services not rendered. Then in that case, I can't get behind your logic. At least I offered.

Alanem said:
Tax is not insurance. You have to have insurance to drive a car, so why not make it compulsory for skiers, mountaineers and sailors to have insurance too? A lot of sailors probably do - I don't know as I'm not a sailor.
Click to expand...
Tax is insurance. National Insurance is also tax, and also insurance. Insurance policies are additional insurance. Tax is a distributed means of paying for services among everyone in our society as needed, so that individuals are not burdened individually with the cost of provision. That's what insurance is.

Alanem said:
When I was knocked off my motorcycle a few years back the hospital contacted me for details of the other driver as they were going to claim the cost of my care from his insurance, do you think they shouldn't have done that ?
Click to expand...
The question is, if the driver had not been insured, or they couldn't find him, would you have been required to pay the hospital bill instead?
 
SimonH said:
So in other words, you can't guarantee that I'll get my money back for services not rendered. Then in that case, I can't get behind your logic. At least I offered.

I never offered any guarantees - that was your argument not mine. You cannot pick and choose what your taxes will and won't pay for - that's been established in law.

Tax is insurance. National Insurance is also tax, and also insurance. Insurance policies are additional insurance. Tax is a distributed means of paying for services among everyone in our society as needed, so that individuals are not burdened individually with the cost of provision. That's what insurance is.

People who climb mountains should insure themselves against the cost of recovery IMO - just like car drivers have to, the system works in other countries.

The question is, if the driver had not been insured, or they couldn't find him, would you have been required to pay the hospital bill instead?

That's not the question at all, according to your logic if the other driver is a tax payer then the NHS should just absorb the cost because he's already paid his bit. If you are a taxpayer why do you have to have insurance to drive a car then?

I don't think it onorus or unfair to instigate some kind of system like they do in France and to get back to the original topic - if SAR is privatised it may well happen. Anyway, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to change my mind so - I'm out

Alan
Click to expand...
 
Simon

While some of your arguments hold some water, not all do.
The state levies tax on it's population to finance the services needed.

OK, up to that point I guess we are all in agreement. But it's at that point we will split, as there are some, and I am one of them that say those services should be the essential ones, so Defence, Policing (without either of which the rest cannot happen), Health then short term welfare. Some infrastructure and then national policy matters (Embassy's abroad, and administration functions that sort of thing).

Other than that, why should I pay pay my hard earned to finance someone to be rescued because they can't be bothered to have the engine serviced in their boat? I don't expect the tax payer to fund my membership of Green Flag, so why the difference? I do expect my taxes to be spent on things that are necessary, not to help out idiots. I am not suggesting that everyone who gets into trouble at sea is an idiots, but too many are.

If you have enough money to buy a boat, then you should have insurance including rescue. We do it for cars, and no one bats an eyelid, so why not? Don't have insurance? Fine take Civil action and regain the costs that way.

Ok, that deals with a lot of the cost of SAR, and you're right you can't enforce insurance on people who go up Snowden in flip flops. Besides, it doesn't follow that they will always need rescuing anyway.

But again, why should someone who has made no effort to prepare, train or equip themselves for going up mountains expect a free rescue? So, in the same way as the NHS ask you for a contribution if you need a prescription, or are involved in a Road Accident (they don't charge the full price of treatment), you should expect to have to pay something towards any rescue.

If they do it in France (and I have no idea if thats true or not), then there's no reason why it can't be here. There's far too much of the over developed sense of entitlement in peoples minds these days.
 
Bernie, most of the points I was making are simply following Alan's logic to its conclusion. The problem with that mode of thinking is that it requires so many caveats, so many value judgements, that to present the concept in coarse hues is to completely disregard the complexities, rights and wrongs, personal perspectives and the variety of people that make up our society.

You ask:
why should I pay pay my hard earned to finance someone to be rescued because they can't be bothered to have the engine serviced in their boat
Click to expand...
The answer is because THEY (being wealthy yacht owners) contribute substantially towards YOUR NHS treatment if/when you need it (whether it's because you didn't have the brakes serviced on your car, or to care for your premature baby, or to cure your kidney stones), despite having their own health insurance policy with BUPA.

What we pay, and what we feel we should get for our money, is entirely subjective. It's a culturally tinted view of a culture of which we're all a part.

My argument isn't intended to convince anyone that I'm right, it's simply to show that their view is no more right than a view which is completely different. Life isn't simple, it's complicated, and when people try to simplify it all they're doing is misrepresenting it.
 
It's not so much the privatisation of SAR you need to worry about, its the mass closure of many MRCC's and local coastguard stations meaning loss of local knowledge :(
 
Last edited:
Simon
I see where you're coming from in making your points.
And while it's of course subjective as to what I think we should and shouldn't pay for, it's also obvious that at the end of the day someone has too.
I am not so naive as to assume there's no such thing as an incident where in all fairness, there is no fault. But all too often thats not the case. In the same way as your example on car brakes, I would rather not pay for the car owners treatment in those cases, in cases where there is crass stupidity, why should we the tax payer cough up for someone needing the SAR service?
Now we could go round in circles about this all year, and clearly it's not your intention. I accept there's an alternative view, just as hopefully you see there's one to yours.
Leaving that aside, whoever pays for it, who provides it? The original point in all this was somehow there will be an inferior service if it's fully priviatised. That may be the case, but there's no evidence to support that view, the service is around 25% private now, and no one noticed until it was pointed out by me. So the fact there's no lesser service than the past, is good evidence that there's nothing to fear here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top