Crab.
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?
We all know the answer to that! Complacency on the part of BHL management, and input/advice from "Military" advisor/s!
Strange that we are in this dire situation after all the advice from this "expert". The first time I believe the MCA have asked for advice because they always had their own, ex- RAF SAR Pilot, to give his opinion. Sadly he left/was pushed to be replaced by some one with minimal SAR experience and without the B$%%$"*s to stand up to the Military presence. Yes, advice is just that. To be listened to and acted on or ignored which ever case suits. But when you are totally out of your depth then you grasp at anything! Hence this mess we are now in!!
Any SAR pilot/crewman could have told the MOD/MCA that this equipment was unfit for purpose at the very beginning!
SARowl's quote, thank you.
Bristow built up , much to your dislike, a very good reputation in civ. SAR over a period of 25 years. It has taken CHC just over a year to set it back nearly as much! At least on the South coast! This is not blind loyalty to Bristow but basic facts.(We all, well some of us, put on new hats in April.)
What I said in my last post still holds good. If you don't ask, you don't get. You get what you pay for.!!
What on earth makes you think the 139 is an acceptable SAR aircraft for UK SAR, or even will be? As Send'em quite rightly points out, there is no space in the back to work, it hasn't got the legs, can't pick up multiple casualties, I mean there aren't many people transitting the Channel in Lee and Portlands patch's are there? Sinks up to its axles on soft ground in the summer, if you can call it that, so what winter will bring is anyones guess. The only advantage over anything else is the speed! Plus all the gizmos up front to stop the drivers falling asleep.
3D