Crab - I'm not an aviator but, as I pointed out in my initial post, I do have a high regard for all SAR helicopter crews. For the record, my background is SAR coordination - a role which may not be as physically dangerous as your own but one that is equally interesting & challenging so let's not be patronising. Just ask any of your colleagues at the ARCC who have worked in both. I've coordinated incidents using RAF helicopters, MCA helicopters & civilian helicopters from a variety of sources in addition to fixed wing aircraft & stuff on the surface too many to mention &, just occasionally, all at the same time. If you think it's straightforward, you haven't studied the subject. Give it a try sometime
As regards a joined up UKSAR response, well frankly, I don't feel the need to apologise and I would humbly suggest that my contribution considerably outweighs your own.
Let me turn your argument around regarding saying go and saying no. There is as much chance of the ARCC saying no to a MCA request for helicopter assistance as there is the other way round. In many cases they are justified in doing so. That's life, it happens - we can differ & there is not a problem.
You choose not to discuss the previous scenarios possibly because they didn't fit in with your view of the world so let me take you through another one. Man overboard in the Bristol Channel. R169 (RAF SAR helicopter) is tasked following a request from the MRCC. After a period of time with nothing found, ARCC wish to stand down R169. MRCC disagree - they wish to contuinue the search. ARCC stand down R169 because they have OpCon. Their decision, their helicopter, they have OpCon & that is not a problem. MRCC have the responsibility to prosecute the search & will have to continue without the helicopter.
However, man overboard in the East Shetland basin 100 miles offshore. MRCC asks ARCC for helicopter which will be a no-brainer and inevitably R102 (Coastguard SAR helicopter) will be tasked - by MRCC Shetland. After a period of time with nothing found, MRCC will continue to search using R102 even if ARCC feel that there is no hope. ARCC will not tell the MRCC to stand down the helicopter because they do not have the power. It is Shetland's decision, their helicopter, they have OpCon. From your standpoint, ARCC would have the final say. Well actually, they don't. From 2012 they will, as far as I know, & that is fine by me.
Complicated - yes I agree but that's often how it is in SAR coordination. That is why the distinction needs to be made & it is important that everyone (ARCC & MRCC) knows how the system works. Your limited insight, and repeated misinformation on this particular issue, is unhelpful.
You can guess what you wish about my background but does being MCA or ex-MCA automatically make anyone the enemy. As regards my standpoint you have obviously misjudged it - your comments demonstrate preconception and bias.
Where exactly have I blamed the RAF ? I like the RAF. Along with others such as the RN, MCA, RNLI & mountain rescue teams etc they are the bedrock of UKSAR and everyone does a splendid job.
The Interim Contract is a bridge between the old & the new. Are you seriously asking that we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore what new technology might provide, with the chance to test it over a 5 year period? Are you saying we stick with the old and bold stuff and then be faced with addressing (possibly) bad decisions that we will then have to deal with over the next 25 to 30 years of SARH?
Regarding your final comment - having moved in these circles for quite a few years, I have never heard the view that the MCA wished to take over all airborne assets expressed by anyone other than those who wished to defend the status quo in the face of change. Ultimately, the Government of the day makes the decision & those of employed by them i.e. you & me Crab - we have to crack on with it or vote with our feet.
Safe flying