I see that "angelonawire" has decided to raise his head above the parapets again and continues with his extraordinary style of being rude to people. While the point is made, it could have been done in a more polite fashion.
However, back to the point. Rumour has it that the concept of using a smaller helicopter was based on the "fact" that the average number of persons rescued per SAR callout was two, therefore a bigger helicopter was not needed. A strange basis to work on when you have one of the busiest shipping areas in the world. There have been numerous cases of large ships in trouble in the Channel over the years. While there may not be the need to rescue large numbers every callout, surely, for this area, a suitably sized helicopter such as the S-92 should be in place to cover for this eventuality? After all, it is not exactly a rare occurrence.
I understand that MCA Helicopters have a task to move fire crews and equipment to vessels on fire in the Channel. Was this considered by the Government team that looked in to the new SAR contracts? It seems a strange choice of aircraft if that task is to be continued. However, more flying hours for the crews I suppose, one flight out to take the team and then the next to bring out their equipment!
I would really like to understand why the team thought the AB139 was a suitable choice for the South Coast.