Discussions related to privatization of SAR

[dimsum]

OTTAWA — The Liberal government is asking if the military should continue to be involved in search-and-rescue missions, or whether private companies and other alternatives should be relied on to save Canadians in distress instead.

The idea has been raised as part of the government’s defence review, and is sure to stoke strong reactions both inside the military and across the country. The previous Conservative government aired a similar proposal five years ago, before letting it quietly die.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said last week that everything was on the table as he launched consultations with the public, parliamentarians and defence experts on how the military should be structured for the future. Consultations will continue until the end of July, with a new defence policy to be released in early 2017.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-considering-privatizing-search-and-rescue-operations-as-part-of-canadian-forces-review

 

[ModlrMike]

There's nothing that could go wrong with that option.  :

 

[PuckChaser]

If we kept the hercs, the PYs, and the O&M funding, no reason why we shouldn't give SAR to another agency or privatize.

My fear is that this will be used to cut the CAF because they won't have the funding to let us reroll the everything under the SAR umbrella.

 

[George Wallace]

If we kept the hercs, the PYs, and the O&M funding, no reason why we shouldn't give SAR to another agency or privatize.

My fear is that this will be used to cut the CAF because they won't have the funding to let us reroll the everything under the SAR umbrella.

I could see the possibility of having the Coast Guard take on part of the responsibilities, with trained SAR Techs as the US Coast Guard has done, but not take over the Whole responsibility.  The CAF covers not only all our SAR off the three coasts, but all the SAR across the country; well outside the coverage of the Coast Guard.  Our current SAR command centers need not be duplicated to create a duplication of effort, but remain the central control for any and all Agencies that provide SAR.

I can not see any logic in PRIVATIZATION of SAR.  Who would seriously run a SAR organization and actually staff it with competent SAR Techs with no income or profit to maintain a functional and efficient SAR capability?  Privatization of SAR is sheer madness in my mind.  This is a NATIONAL requirement, not some ski slope with volunteer Ski Patrols.

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

I agree! The number 1 reason of any private companies is to make financial profit, not spend money on training requirement to keep competent crews at the level of our current SAR crews.

 

[Hungover_cat]

I think the cost alone of paying for private SAR services will be enough to deter the government from going that route. At least, I hope!

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Actually, the only SAR the CF does by statute involves aircraft accidents and incidents and some marine SAR. We were given those roles after WW2 because we had the spare capacity and the technology involved in aviation was much more rudimentary, so it made sense for the military to do it.

Anything on land (lost hiker, etc) is handled by provinces and municipalities. Military aircraft can be requested and can be allocated to those searches, just like military aircraft can do medevacs, on occasion.

The fact is, the vast majority of SAR calls today are done with civilian aircraft on contract already- Canada is just too big (and the CF too small) for a yellow helicopter or airplane to be everywhere.

If I was in charge, I don't know that I would contract out SAR, exactly. I would look seriously at moving all federally mandated SAR to the Coast Guard however. The fact of the matter is that the sole reason that the CF exists (ultimately) is to put iron on a target. SAR, as feel good as it is, does not contribute to that. This is not to call into question the professionalism of SAR crews and Sqns- the whole SAR question just sucks the life and much of the staff attention away from other things like warfighting. I should know- I have served as an Operations Officer of an MH Sqn and the world stops when the Cormorants go unserviceable and we have to backfill their role with a Sea King and crew. Which causes an (unhealthy in my view) over focus in my community of training too much for a role that is (at best) only a small part of our possible mission set, again, at the expense of thinking about and preparing for war.

At the end of the day, any part of the CF can and will be called upon to help out in SAR situations as a secondary role. My question is: how much of our limited time, energy and budget should go towards preparing for that one role?

 

[The Bread Guy]

While it's been done in the U.K., I can't see any company being able to make any money given the distances involved here in Canada - unless the service standards drop BIG time.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I tend to agree with SKT here.

And BTW, many here who come from the air side of the house see SAR as a CF thing. In fact, the Coast Guard already is responsible for the maritime side of things, with the Air Force providing the air assets for it and the Navy merely providing coordination facilities and secondary assets if, by sheer coincidence, we happen to be in the area. The SAR centres in Halifax and Victoria are jointly manned with the Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force for that very purpose.

I suggest, however, that we have to look at SAR through an historical perspective: The maritime side evolved out of the old lifeboat services. These were very localized volunteer organizations: people from fishing villages located near dangerous maritime transit points would keep and man a boat to save souls at sea if ship floundered on the local danger. Anything on the high seas was, and still is to a large extent, was an "all-hands" matter for any other ship in the area.

Air SAR evolved during WWII, where the explosion in the number of aircrafts, their relative unreliability and the need to save as many trained crew as possible led to each air field having an organization to search for and retrieve airmen whose plane didn't make it. After the war, this led to the Air Force being given responsibility for SAR of downed aircrafts in Canada as a whole.

If one is to look for "savings" in transferring SAR to  civilian organization (and I am not dealing here with the quality of the civilian techs vs military ones), we have to keep in mind two things: (1) the fact that the military is already connected into the whole SAR C2 of all departments relevant to the task will be very expansive to reproduce [and, no, I would not let the civilian agency use what we already have, on the naval side at least, these centres are located in restricted access secure headquarters and I would not let anybody in without control over them]; (2) on the air side, the logic behind the development of SAR continue to exist as the responsibility of all commanders - thus, the Air Force would still need to continue to maintain a SAR organization for its own needs, which cannot be delegated to outside agencies [which is why, for instance, even though maritime SAR is a Coast Guard responsibility, Comox maintains its own crash boat for its own planes needs in case of an accident over water].

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The RCAF no longer has crash boats, OGBD.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The crashboats were transferred over to the newly formed CCG in 62/64, Kit's base in Vancouver was lock, stock and barrel from the either the RCAF or Marine Services including personal were given to Transport Canada. Before that Transport Canada, Department of Marine ran 2 lifeboats at Bamfield and Tofino from my reading.
As i recall there was a private helicopter based in Prince Rupert for a bit to be used as a SAR/medivac helicopter. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The RCAF no longer has crash boats, OGBD.

My bad!




But they should  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

The fact is, the vast majority of SAR calls today are done with civilian aircraft on contract already- Canada is just too big (and the CF too small) for a yellow helicopter or airplane to be everywhere.

For those exact points, I don't think it would be economically feasible for a 'Private Contractor" to fulfill the role.

If I was in charge, I don't know that I would contract out SAR, exactly. I would look seriously at moving all federally mandated SAR to the Coast Guard however. The fact of the matter is that the sole reason that the CF exists (ultimately) is to put iron on a target. SAR, as feel good as it is, does not contribute to that. This is not to call into question the professionalism of SAR crews and Sqns- the whole SAR question just sucks the life and much of the staff attention away from other things like warfighting. I should know- I have served as an Operations Officer of an MH Sqn and the world stops when the Cormorants go unserviceable and we have to backfill their role with a Sea King and crew. Which causes an (unhealthy in my view) over focus in my community of training too much for a role that is (at best) only a small part of our possible mission set, again, at the expense of thinking about and preparing for war.

The USAF has specialists to fill the CSAR role in combat situations.  Although our SAR Techs are not expected to do so, most are Remusters from Cbt Arms units, so that possibility could exist in the CAF.

 

[mariomike]

While it's been done in the U.K., I can't see any company being able to make any money given the distances involved here in Canada - unless the service standards drop BIG time.

Interesting story about that,

Privatisation of UK's search-and-rescue helicopters raises safety and job fears
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/31/search-rescue-helicopters-privatisation-fears
"Many military jobs will be affected."

 

[SeaKingTacco]

For those exact points, I don't think it would be economically feasible for a 'Private Contractor" to fulfill the role.


The USAF has specialists to fill the CSAR role in combat situations.  Although our SAR Techs are not expected to do so, most are Remusters from Cbt Arms units, so that possibility could exist in the CAF.

If we were to go down the CSAR route, you would find a massive resource bill that would eat the entire CF. it is a huge undertaking, only done by the very largest of Air Forces.

 

[sandyson]

Will the trend to privatization continue until only the combat arms are military?  Hospitals are civilian. Much of housing, maintenance and logistics is. Intelligence is probably 90% when the source input is considered.  Personnel management is certainly a civilian trade.  Why do we still have recruiting offices for paper pushing? The air forces employ civilian agencies to train pilots and design training using civilian 'enemy'. Most if not all gaming and simulation is civilian. The navy is going to have a new civilian operated 'oiler' as its basis of support. Regular soldiers are very very expensive.  They have priced themselves out of the market.  I'm not surprised at the idea of removing search and rescue (SAR) from military tasks.  If there is a potential savings in dollars it will be done regardless of costs.  e.g. unification. DND is going to cost less 'come hell or high water' because it has a tiny political base and is losing that.  A civilian SAR is to be expected.
However: as civilians take over more and more of 'warfare support', do they not now lose the qualification of 'collateral damage'?  War would now mean the whole nation not the military on the playing field and the rest in the stands applauding.  There are implications to this privatization trend.

 

[George Wallace]

Food for thought:

DND/CAF is the largest government Department.  As it is continually being used as the largest source for cost savings by cutting or cutting back on programs, procurement's, and other costs; it should be realized that the smaller you make that Department, the fewer cost saving cuts you will be able to find in the future.

>

 

[ModlrMike]

Yes, you can only prune a tree so much before all you're left with is a stick.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes, you can only prune a tree so much before all you're left with is a stick.

But then you can use said stick to beat the animal to death it was tethered to.      :deadhorse:

 

[George Wallace]

But then you can use said stick to beat the animal to death it was tethered to.      :deadhorse:

But only once.

[