jimf671
The trouble with the geographical risk profiling that has been used as the entire basis for the 10 base solution is that every task (excluding false alarms) has been given equal weighting. An ECMO, a hospital transfer, searching for red flares, chasing an inadvertently activated beacon or providing top cover for an RNLI task are statistically at least considered the equal of proper, hardcore winching rescues/medrescues. Additionally, tasks in supposed hot spots are inevitably clustered around a small stretch of coastline where there is scope for the local authorities to repeatedly use a well known local asset because of its proximity - irrespective of whether it was the most appropriate asset for the task or not. Conversely in somewhere like the North Sea, there are roughly an equal number of worthy tasks but they usually involve a much greater flying time and are more widely spatially distributed, giving small individual cells on the risk map the appearance of being lower risk areas.
The upshot is we end up with half the North Sea and its coastline covered by just one flight because the bulk of it is somehow considered a low risk area - which as half the population of Britain knows is boll0cks.
Shocking naivety displayed by those that provided the analysis. It will only be a matter of time before those chickens come home to roost. The papers will have a field day.
Last edited by Vie sans frontieres; 30th November 2014 at 07:30.