Send'em - you are right, my info was based on a 60 second debrief from our crew who were still frustrated that the job took so long when it needn't have. Hence my figures were less than exact but you have to question the wisdom of sending guys down a ladder onto a lifeboat when a perfectly serviceable helicopter was waiting to lift them off. I gather the Master of the vessel compounded the problem by changing his mind about whether or not he was going to let his crew off at all.
JKnife - why should the MOD pay towards the civilian SAR contract? If in 2012 the whole SAR force becomes civilian then I can see the treasury moving cash from one pot to another.
You have answered my question regarding capability - you get what you pay for so unless the MCA pay more for the 2007 contract, they will get the same capability from CHC as they do from Bristows, just in a more swept-up aircraft. If the plan is for civilian SAR to move to NVG ops for overland work (which will need to happen if the 2012 civilianisation happens) then 1.5 hours per shift isn't going to be enough to keep all the skills up to a safe level.
Out of interest, how much night flying training do the CG crews do (obviously not NVG but decks, wets, sits etc)?
Wiretensioner - the SAR aircraft are not in Iraq or Bos but there are lots of 4 - 6 month heli-ops jobs that have to be filled and the SAR force is an easy target because we are otherwise no-deployable. One guy has just been given a 4 month det with 3 weeks notice causing all sorts of shift plot hassles as he was taken from an already strapped flight.
Cyclic - If I had known it was commercial in confidence I wouldn't have broadcast it - it was just a bit of crewroom gossip that probably shouldn't have been but live and learn.
The only reason this thread turned into a p8ssing contest is because many posters can't resist the urge to make personal insults when they disagree with someones opinion. Lots of name calling doesn't make for much of an intellectual debate.