Crab
I initially put pen to paper because you were asserting things that were incorrect. If the situation isn't complicated, why has it taken everyone, including some of your former senior colleagues, so long to understand it ? It's complicated because there are two main helicopter providers MOD (RAF & RN) and MCA. One military & one civilian. The civilian one is contractor provided. When coming up with some sort of standard working procedures you need to recognise the non-standard background.
I, personally speaking, am quite comfortable with RAF having the majority stake in UKSAR aviation.
I apologise if you think I was being snidey - I thought I was trying to answer your comments in a calm & reasoned manner. However, as peace appears to breaking out, can I very gently try to correct one or two issues in your last reply to me.
I did say that both roles were equally interesting & challenging. They are undoubtedly different. I didn't say that one or the other was superior.
I did make a claim about "joined up UKSAR response" i.e. not "UKSAR" and there lies the difference. While I admire your personal contribution to SAR aviation, your obvious pride in your own organisation has to be balanced against what occasionally appears to be a negative view of your partners in UKSAR. I've gone out of my to promote other authorities, including your own, even when in my humble opinion, they were behaving rather badly.
I've twice led posts stating my admiration for you chaps at the front end & although I would enjoy the opportunity of seeing your work at first hand on a dark & stormy night my age, increasing waistline and your own 2 Group (??) procedures would probably exclude me. I am, however, familiar with the concept of a dark & stormy night having bobbed around the seven seas on a variety of tubs in the past and, believe me, the waves look even bigger when you're down in among them.
As regards units being withdrawn from a search, I wasn't having a go at the ARCC who have a very difficult job to do and for whom I have the utmost respect. I also consider many of the staff there, past & present, as personal friends. They will be looking at all sorts of factors including crew fatigue, previous jobs, potential jobs, aircraft hours, serviceability - all areas you are familiar with. The MRCC will be looking at it from their perspective. Occasionally & it happens more frequently than you would assume, the ARCC & the MRCC may agree to differ. I did say that wasn't a problem. I was merely using the scenario to demonstrate who had OpCon.
I also didn't imply the comms problem was the fault of the ARCC. Clever Richard asked whether "prior to the intro of the S92, did the MCA tell the ARCC, the tasking authority, that they were not fitting HF ?" I replied "Yes. Some folks were not listening though". The relevant meeting took place in 2005. SARF were represented. I queried the decision because I felt that a combination of HF & Satcom gave a more flexible solution i.e. security of Satcom alongside the broadcast facility of HF. That was, and is, my personal view - looking at it from a SAR coordinators viewpoint. However, I am but a humble foot soldier, & Satcom it was. IPT decision, I believe. Slipping into rumour mode - there is an interesting story behind this & one you may not be entirely comfortable with. Back to reality - SARF later claimed that they were first made aware at the 2006 Conference which is incorrect but that particular myth has grown legs. In any case, both events preceded the introduction of the first S92 at Stornoway in 2007.
On the issue of equipment being brought into service without being fully tried & tested, well I can only point you in the same direction that other contributors to this forum have suggested in the past. Who is immune ? I understand that the MOD have some previous (and current) here.
Job done & hopefully slipping back into obscurity before I get into hot water ...........