So which ever way you cut it - there is no declared second standby aircraft and no second standby crew at MCA flights. I stated it as a fact and after lots of gnashing and wailing it has been agreed that it is in fact the case. It wasn't meant to bash the MCA crews - I know the customer won't pay for the fully fitted second aircraft and another crew. The second standby aircraft is povided by us (when serviceability permits) and the crews are always available (except in extremis). Add that capability to the pot and you find another reason why trying to compare costs of SAR operations is futile.
DtD why don't you include the whole govt in your ridiculous reasoning for military expense.
As an aside - read back through this thread and see who first starts quoting and criticising, thus changing the flavour of the thread completely with 'outraged responses'.
As SARREMF rightly spots, I am defending something of which I am proud to be a part of, in the face of an overwhelming momentum towards contractorisation fuelled by speculation and supposition that it will be cheaper and therefore better. I disagree and I am just trying to give a different perspective on what most seem to feel is a fait accomplis. If this means highlighting areas of different capability then that is what I will do, if it puts the odd nose out of joint - I don't care, if it is 'damaging military SAR' and I frankly can't see how, then so be it - many posters here should be rejoicing if that is the case since they are so anti-mil SAR.
Try and come up with some reasoned arguments rather than sniping or just pm me with your vitriol rather than wasting server space by quoting paragrapghs of my posts and then bitching at me.
Love and kisses to all