Calli - I am well aware that the introduction of new aircraft will improve overall capability providing they are specified correctly. However, the S92 came without HF and has a sat tracker that is not compatible with the ARCCK system - I don't know why but a cycnic would say it is the continuing parochial attitude of the MCA to retain direct control of its assets and keep Kinloss out of the loop. I visited MRCC Falmouth in 2001 and the Oic was happy to point out where the military guys would sit when they were embedded in the organisation - they have always sought to have command and control over all SAR assets, hence the drive towards SARH.
We will have to wait and see how the 139 turns out.
I didn't say NVG was a black art but training up crews who have never used them will take a lot of hours which someone will have to pay for - this takes profit out of the contract which will need to be recovered from somewhere else.
I don't know where you were based but there is little underflying on training hours, despite some serviceability issues, so guys do seem to be getting most of their 4 hours a shift.
Northernstar - I do keep trying to reiterate that it is not the crews professionalism that is in doubt in any way shape or form, it is the reality of having a SAR service which needs to make a profit (why else are big businesses bidding for it). When the bottom line is the driving force, where is the incentive for management to make any concessions to improving standards, equipment or training? The only things that will force change after the contract is let will be legislation or, as in the sad case of Billy Deakin, an AAIB report. The military has proved itself wholly inept at contract writing and management in the past assuming that gentlemens agrrements still exist - they do right up to the point where the lawyers and accountants get involved. SARH needs to be as watertight as possible which is one reason I keep banging on about real capability as opposed to assumed or predicted.