3D - is the 'expert' you are referring to the MCA's self-employed aviation advisor? He may have once been in the RAF but he never did even vaguely modern SAR in UK. Just because he once worked in light blue does not make any of his advice our fault - if the MCA chose to listen to someone with no credibility or knowledge that is their problem. I believe he was made to look rather inadequate during the SARH process and certainly didn't have a clue about what the rear crew did or wanted.
I do know why Bristows lost the contract but Lost doesn't seem to - the reputation of BHL was created and kept up by its crews not its management.
The 139 might be an 'acceptable' SAR aircraft if properly equipped, I didn't say it was an ideal one - the concerns over the limited cabin space have been voiced by many, the full details of its shortcomings are only known by operators like yourself. Surely those who swapped companies like yourself voiced concerns over the choice of aircraft right at the beginning since it was so obviously unsuitable?
It may be that the choice of the 139 was the best of a bad bunch since no-one actually designs SAR-specific helicopters, they bodge SAR bits on to executive transport aircraft.
Spanish, that press release shows how far CHC and the MCA will spin the story to try and hide their incompetence - the MCAs rather pathetic stance not to apply contract penalties shows the weakness of this system. I do share your concerns about the Channel and the CHC operators like 3D must be very frustrated at what has gone on. It will be interesting to see what the longer term solution is to this problem since some of the 139 issues don't seem to a quick-fixable.