NPAS is a good idea.
[Intentionally blank]
Needed to leave a bit of space after typing that.
It certainly makes sense to have a national air service as there are undoubtedly economies of scale to be had, however...
Why did they not first consider having borderless tasking to assess what spare capacity there is within the existing fleet? For example, each region uses one air to ground channel for all forces within that region to request assistance from air support. All units monitor the channel both in the air and on the ground, and make an assessment as to who is best placed to deal, based on current location, commitment and availability. Any unit based near to the border with a neighbouring region also monitors the air to ground channel for that region. Compare deployments over a six month or so trial period, with the same six months of 'in area' deployment for the preceeding year. There are of course a number of practicalities to overcome, not least of which is access to CAD information, mapping etc, but I have no doubt that all ASUs have worked out of county before without access to detailed mapping and incident information.
After that trial bring together a team from finance/HR/policing/aviation (preferably with aviation experience extending beyond flying off to a holiday destination
) to have a look at the implications of a national service. Starting with the legislative/operational reality of running a small airline over and above single aircraft operations, and then looking into all the other considerations, e.g. funding, HR, bases etc. After the initial study, come up with a plan for submission to the community for comment/consultation. Make a few changes based on practitioners experience and local knowledge and then come up with a final plan and implement it.
All a bit too late for that, after all we're a long way downstream with NPAS, but I don't personally think that the waterfall is just round the next bend, especially now that OD is at the helm.
Should I add again to that? This can work, but probably only because those in the community will make it work, because they want to or have to.
Many comments have been made, both in general conversation and on this forum, about not having intelligence insulted by being told that this will be better. We all feel much like that. The government/public services have years of experience in telling us that less is more and that there are huge efficiency savings to be made, with a myriad of statistics to 'prove' it. I think hardly anyone, either practitioners or general public alike, believes the rhetoric; they just get on with it and make it work, figuring there is little they can do. You may win the odd battle, but in the long run you are unlikely to win the war once the political will (and I don't necessarily mean from polititians) is there to make something happen.
Within NPAS, there will be areas that receive a better service and reduced response times, but there will also be losers, and taken in the round the reduction in fleet is going to have a more detrimental effect than positive. I doubt very much that there was 30% excess capacity.
It may even be that NPAS will save forces money, but here's a thought. The cost savings of NPAS are becoming secondary (if they were ever primary) to the aim of nationalising a traditionally force based asset. As in, "Hey everyone, look at what we've managed to do with Air Support. What say we now have a look at Roads Policing, Firearms, Dogs, Public Order or even TPT? Hang on a minute, we could even look at police forces as a whole."
Whether the above is true or not, the success of NPAS will be very much dependant on who you are and what measure you use to quantify success. If you define it as a better service to the nation as a whole then I think the answer is no, but then again I'm not a politician.
Mmmmmm, I feel much better for that!
