I honestly believe that NPAS can work if it can be resourced and structured as suggested in The 1992 report (with any suitable adjustments to account for the passage of time and changes in technology, etc). And I do have sympathy for their situation … stuck between the rock of promises and expectations, and the hard place of economic reality and austerity. It's the attitude that sticks in most people's throats. NHS are the same … less ambulances, hospitals, out-of-hours cover … all delivered with the patronising line that it is better, or more efficient.
I'm sure that there wouldn't be talk of further base closures, and cheaper aircraft, if they weren't being forced into further cost-cutting (ignoring that they seem to have got their sums wrong initially). I mean … I like fixed-wing … and unless you have worked one, you cannot be expected to know how it can do most of the tasks that rotary can do … just different techniques. But I also know that simply replacing a rotary with a f/w because it is cheaper and the base has a runway will not give the same standard of service unless certain other elements are in place.
Obviously … a runway! And ideally a choice, to avoid crosswind limitations. Unless you have control of, and priority use of, the airfield (or more importantly, that runway), you immediately face a response time problem. If you have to operate in Controlled Airspace … it can be quite viable … until you start running in to Class A. Icing conditions may not inhibit f/w … but low cloud and reduced viz obviously favour rotary. And no … I really wouldn't like to be conducting a search in narrow valleys in Wales and the Peaks in a f/w with low cloud full of cumulo granite.
Thomas Coupling has it … it's better than it could have been. It remains to be seen if it can preserve what has been saved to the point where it can be brought up to what it promises, and we expect.
Coconutty … funnily enough, that prospect (of forces going back to doing their own thing) has been suggested. Providing that they can get round the Section 22 requirement for forces to subscribe to a central source of air support … doesn't mean that they cannot pay a minimal amount (the letter of the law) but look elsewhere. And there's nothing that says that you can't use a single engine aircraft for police work … just that you cannot use it under certain conditions and avail yourself of the PAOM easements. Could use single engine rotary or f/w for some tasks. We had a former ACC who said that if photographic tasks became an excessive proportion of our work, he would consider just hiring in something like a Cessna 172 to do them. Didn't come to that, but the thinking was there … and that ACC was very supportive of air support.
Cabby … the Scottish situation … most of their 5 and a bit million population are in the southern areas. Guess that there are large parts of Scotland where they don't get 98% of the population with a 20 minute response … more like 20% with a 98 minute response!