Calli - the RCS displays the availability of all SAR assets to the ARCCK and helps them decide who to send on a job. Therefore whatever RoA is declared by the operator should be accurate. I know that the MCA flt don't have access to it so your local MRCC must be responsible for it.
For many months the S 92 RoA has been toted at 205 nm although today Stornoway are toting 250 and Sumburg 205 - which is the correct figure or is one just a typo. You could always post the max fuel, fuel burn and Vmax figures and I could work it out myself
You are the only one who has contested the 205 nm RoA, do you know somethingthe others don't?
Budget - as much as you might want to blame the RAF for your woes you can't do it. The MCA and CHC are responsible for the level of service provision and the choice of aircraft not us. It may be the 139 was the best of a bad bunch available but it doesn't seem well suited to the job. Would you want to do a long range sea job in an aircraft (S92) that has no run-dry capability or ELS system on the MRGB?
So according to bondu, CHC are the new bad boys in SAR, not being entirely truthful about the WTD - could this be due to worries over profit perhaps? More crews = less profit, so reduce availibility to keep the costs down - is this really the way forward for the whole of UK SAR?