Perhaps consider the extra risks that non-licensed mil pilots have been willing to accept in order to save lives (sitting committed in the hover when winching to a restricted site or hover-taxying up mountains in cloud for example) knowing that generally the worst they could expect if their actions were not seen as reasonable would be a slap on the wrist.
If the CAA take a dim view of a pilot's actions, it is his licence and therefore livelihood that is at risk - will there be a conflict of interests there?
Will the CAA baulk when they realise how much SAR work has no chance of meeting PC1 or even PC2 standards, especially at night?
Who will carry the can if a non-licensed winchop, using AHT on a vessel or similar structure because the pilot's references are poor, manages to get close enough for a tip-strike?
Claiming that new and whizzy helicopters will make SAR better and more efficient is just a facade - yes you can get there quicker and easier and a better icing clearance will help with that but the vinegar stroke of many SAROps is a manual hover with visual references and neither of the new helos has a pilot's window that opens so you don't have to view those references through rain streaked perspex - a little fold-down peephole just isn't good enough, especially in the dark.
UKSAR could have been made a not for profit organisation when removing it from the military, an option that doesn't ever seem to have been considered.