It will work because it has to.
That pretty much sums up what I hear a number of people close to it saying. Possibly even more true with a Lot 3 solution. A Bristow aircraft gets tasked to do a job and if there's a problem then the fallback position is that a Bristow aircraft has to do the job.
I did wonder last night, as we were training in the top bowl at Snowdon in snow showers just below the cloud base, if the same level of 'train hard fight easy' will be allowed under the new contract or will less risk be accepted unless it is actually lifesaving.
This is the crux issue for a lot of MR guys. One of the drivers behind me getting so involved in this is the need to answer their questions about this issue. I have talked about this stuff with mil SAR pilots, civ SAR pilots, mil SAR management, CAA inspectors and SAR pilots from other european countries.
Conclusions?
- All human beings are different. Every pilot is different and every crew is different. Some are very experienced and some are not. Some are better at heaving decks and some are better at snow covered cliffs. 'Honi soit qui mal y pense'.
- There is a deep well of experience of flying Sea Kings in SAR that is at least 35 years deep while for S-92 it is a lot shallower.
- What makes the Sea King a decent mountain flying helicopter is the carbon-based life form in the right front seat.
- The S-92 may weigh the same as a bus but it has the power of a decent-sized harbour tug or a small oil tanker. It will get you out of there.
- The CAA consistently state that everything necessary to provide a life-saving service will be permitted.
- There will be restrictions in training, just as there are in the military. They will not be exactly the same restrictions.
- Coire Uaine is long way from Gatwick.
Let me know if I have got anything wrong. I know I can rely on you.
