Made my way through what was not a very professional looking or sounding presentation or Q and A.
My first question is why are the MCA not the experts in this field? They state that themselves!
Lots of buzzwords about innovation and specifying effect not solutions which is the same crap that happened last time - 'blue-sky thinking outside the box' - does anyone really think there will be an alternative to helicopters for rescuing people by 2024? They are frightened to commit to the realities of life in order to make themselves look progressive.
It seems pretty obvious that you need mostly smaller aircraft for bases since 87% of jobs are within 100nm of base and then perhaps 2 long range assets (both West facing, one North and one South) for long range stuff. You can supplement this with FW and UAVs as much as you like but you will still need to rescue people.
They wouldn't specify bases or equipment, why? If Bristow don't get the contract does that mean all their expensive infrastructure would have to be replaced elsewhere as part of the bill to the UK taxpayers? How is that value for money?
The stats on jobs show again what a land grab MCA made in the past, a full 50% of jobs are inland with the rest spread between maritime and coastal - how is that all MCA territory when the police have primacy inland?
There seems to be an acknowledgement that the present contract wasn't well thought out - the implication that stakeholder training is currently inadequate, no-one thought about carriage of rescue dogs and problems with increasing capability or adding new technology.
One issue the director acknowledged was cross-governmental department work is difficult due to contract issues and turf boundaries - something the military never had a problem with and one of the strengths it brings to the party.
Govt strategy should be to incorporate Air Ambulance, Police and inland SAR work into one outfit and leave the coastal and maritime stuff to MCA or just hand back UKSAR to the military so you can include all surveillance and intelligence gathering as well as retaining the best aircrew training playground available. The UK military is dropping below critical mass without a war to fight and having surplus manpower in flying jobs means less lag when you have to ramp up (inevitable at some time in the future). Now I know that will seem like pie in the sky but thinking outside the current 'get a new MCA contract sorted, like the current one but somehow better' box doesn't seem what the MCA want to do. Not innovative or forward thinking, just more of the same.
I have always questioned the fitness of MCA to manage aviation and that presentation hasn't changed my mind. The question about the CAA approving the use of UAVs wasn't answered and seemed to be 'well they will have to approve it'.