Just going back a bit. I understood from an individual way above the pay grades of those of us on this forum, that Bristows were divested of the SAR contract as at the contract meeting only a single individual came smartly but casually dressed. CHC turned up with the 'suits' and promised the world. At which point the civil service individuals then turned around and said lets have a change for changes sake. Clearly they were bored again that year and without much to do.
An all S92 fleet rapidly changed into a S92 north and 139 south arrangement. I think it was commonly acknowledged that the 139 was a pilots dream and crewmans and by default role disaster waiting to happen. When an Agusta TP turns to you and says over a drink 'its not the aircraft for you' - you know something is up.
I suggest that a very real and insidious problem we face and continue to face is the quality or lack there of of civil servant within the MCA. They are to a very worryingly large extent the very worst the civil service has to offer and without denegrating the efforts of those at the coal face or the minority of good, job not career orientated servants and managers we are now seeing the result of those efforts.
We do a lot of infighting here - well, perhaps more than neccessary, sadly a poor quality of civil servant who we should expect far better of and in the case of CHC an unsound management leave us with a very tarnished reputation. If that is allowed to continue then whether you are civil or military we will end up with nothing at all. If the amount of effort that goes in here name calling went into more constructive effort to make a better working environment for ourselves then we would all, military and civl end up providing a far better service in our vocation of service to others when they need our help.
I would propose a most vociferous voicing of concerns at the highest level, alternatively and sadly perhaps, a root and branch clearance of those civl servants within the MCA who have not and continue not to ably demonstrate an ability to perform their jobs effectively and for the benefit of the role. Or perhaps both. Their reaction to the current problem is to penalise CHC, very clever, another way of saying lets rob ourselves of ourselves.
I would suggest on my blackest days, naming and shaming those individuals responsible for this 'non event' as one of them said to me the other week; and I mean literally naming, civil servant Joe Plumber who decided with his vast experience that the pitch angle in hover on the 139 wouldn't be a problem when getting casualties in the cabin, especially when TP 'X' from Agusta was saying years ago, - 'it will be awkward getting a litter in the cabin in the hover' - Italian accent to suit!
If I was the head of the civil service I would be ashamed of the many responsible to me letting down the few so ably trying to do their best. As it is I fear that before too long we will see the loss of further SAR crew fixed or rotary, military or civil resultant from systemic and personnel failings of the civil service and management failings we see today.
As an aside, might we remember fixed wing CG pilots James Beagley and Sophie Hastings, both killed in the Coventry mid air collision in August. We haven't forgotten them, nor will we.