Not sure quite what your point is jimf, was it made post a few Saturday night beers per chance?
Not at all.
These are aircraft that will operate under a specialist AOC that is supposed to recognise that they do not operate in a normal aviation environment where every aspect is within the grasp of an aviation regulator. To compensate for the lack of aviation regulation in the training of lifeboat crew, or the training of mountain rescue teams, or the shape of a mountain side, or the mast of a tall vessel, the regulator has developed a special approach. I believe that the regulator needs to be more assertive about how one achieves that compensation. 'Train hard fight easy' sums it up quite nicely. It is possiible that the regulator has underestimated the training load necessary with non-aviation organisations and locations.
Currently, the customer is involved in a small way in the process of arranging training with non-aviation situations. Even this small involvement sends the wrong message. The regulator needs to be there requiring the operator to do appropriate training and the customer shouldn't be a part of the routine.
At the same time, we have a substantial contract process that has been going on for some time and all principal documents were written as though the tasking organisation, the ARCC, does not exist. Although co-ordinating authorities were referred to in the documentation, one could easily get the impression that the police had nothing to do with this. In recent versions, the ARCC has come into the picture and gets one mention in the side-notes of the Specification of 19th September for instance.