As much as some would seem to want it, the RAF/MOD are not culpable or blameworthy in any way in this fiasco. Even if one RAF Officer said it was an accpetable SAR aircraft (which it would be if properly euipped) that doesn't remove the responsibility for AW to provide the kit as specified, CHC to accept the aircraft as fit for purpose (or reject it) or the MCA to ensure that what they were promised is what is delivered.
Fortunately the rot stopped with the CHC crews who did exactly the right thing - it's a shame none of them were asked about the aircraft and what they wanted from a SAR cab before the machine was ordered (or maybe they were and were ignored).
WE come back to my fundamental worry about the whole SARH concept - the integrity of the contractors (management) involved.
This episode highlights how badly this can go wrong when profit is the driving factor behind providing a service - when profit is threatened the service suffers if someone thinks they can get away with it without someone else noticing.
In many ways it is good that this has happened now because it can be rectified - if we were stuck into a 30 year contract covering all the SAR flights and this situation occurred the whole of UK SAR would be compromised.
I know the bidders aren't happy with the SARH contract terms - a lot of it to do with the profitability element - we come back to the fact that to replace everything that the military SAR machine does now (and that includes all the training system) costs a lot of money - those bidders have realised how much when they prepared their bids.
Lost - if Bristows (and I'm talking about the management not the crews) were so chuffing good, why did they lose the contract in the first place?
Put the blame for this cockup firmly where it belongs - CHC - they are the contractors and as such are responsible for the safe and effective provision of service.