TUPE just couldn’t be applied from military to civvy SAR, sorry but it just wouldn’t work, at the end of the day you sign up to serve and there is just no direct comparison in civvy street., as unpalatable for some that it was.
Going back to the question of TC longevity across both types, I have operated both. The cabin entry with a stretcher is much easier in a 189. I would suggest more injuries have occurred in a 92 in this particular evolution . It’s also much easier to load and unload a stretcher from a 189. If you think a stretcher in and out of the ramp on a 92 is optimal then, sorry you are wrong.
No one has mentioned the power limitations of the 92….I’m surprised, since TREV 15 was issued the power margins and associated drop down heights mean the 92 is limited when training much more so than the 189. Same engines smaller aircraft- better performance.
The 92 is more stable in the hills, it makes a better Wokka Wokka noise, and it can potentially carry more people. Kit layout is never a problem.
The 189 has better visibility for TC and pax (MR etc) it could have been better with TC input at the design stages in a few areas in my opinion. Kit stowage is a challenge but it works.
Both types have their merits but for winching the 189 is a better aircraft in my opinion.