Crab,
Nice to see you're coming back to a more reasoned argument. I was a bit concerned about you and was beginning to think you were about to become the RAF equivalent of a hysterical religious zealot with your mad claims about the whole aviation industry unable to offer unbiased information to the MCA. Perhaps you and your mate Hal could have started a your own cult where you sit in your broken down yellow sea kings with your backwards facing radar decrying the evil infidel (civy sar) and their march towards UK SAR domination. So welcome back to reality!
Now to the bit you hate – me showing the rest of the forum the inconsistencies and spin in your argument.
you said they lied not me
Here we go again... nice spin but not true. I asked you the question "Are you saying Bristows lied to the MCA?" That's a question not a statement. The clue was the question mark at the end.
but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps
Well, if they didn't surely the RAF technical advice on offer would have spotted it?????
The SAR H IPT is a mix of Mil, civ and MCA and therefore there is knowledge of CivSAR and direct consultation is very likely to have taken place.
Really...... perhaps you don't know as much as you claim.
Interestingly, the RAF were not offered the chance to construct an all-mil bid by way of a comparison.
Yes well after wasting £3 billion on Nimrods and Chinooks they're hardly to be trusted with taxpayers money.
My argument is that UK SAR should stay military
A fine argument... I mean if it goes Civy and you stay with the RAF you might have to move house and fly somewhere else!!!
And now to your 'mini me' HAL.
I can never understand UK civ SAR slagging off the military.
Your a bit mixed up old fellow... that'll be your hero Crab slagging off the Civy's but a nice attempt at spin but your not quite up to Crab's standards!
Still some Crab baiting going on because some people don't seem to like some of what he has been saying coming true.
I suggest you reread this thread I have already proven that Crab's argument has changed from heralding the new provider of Civy SAR (thanks to MOD involvement) to slagging it off (now things aren't going well) .... and the RAF only walked past the MCA HQ that afternoon 3 years they never offered any technical advice at all... its all the evil Civy's fault.. and so on.
It was, after all, the military that recruited, selected and trained the vast majority of those now in civvy street.
Yes it was. Which is exactly why Civy SAR is as professional and dedicated as it is. Something you and Crab should remember.
And finally.....
Crab, your right... I don't like your attitude. I think it stinks. For years you have attempted to damage me and my former colleagues in Civy SAR through half truths, outright lies and snide unpleasant remarks. You seem to relish any opportunity to knock them and take an unpleasant delight when things go wrong whilst blatantly ignoring the problems and expense of your own service.
The only reason I post on this site is because I hate to see your biased propaganda going unanswered. I want to show the forum how you twist information by quoting your arguments and showing the inconsistencies in them. Personally I don't care about whether SAR-H happens or not but I will continue to take you to task on everything you say. We live in a democracy (thanks to the military) and listening to one extreme opinion is unhealthy so I am providing an opposite opinion so hopefully we will cancel each other out and a more sane and level headed debate will carry on in the middle. Oh and feel free to call me 'mental' again I really don't mind!