Nobody has done anything like this before. Not government, not contractor, not regulator. There are other situations around the world where there are comparable situations in one respect or another but not with all these pieces in place.
Could the contractor have done things differently? Well, one could debate the late ordering of the AW189 and it might or might not have changed where we are now. Maybe some dithering here or there but no show-stoppers.
If, but, maybe.
Could the customer (DfT/MCA Aviation) have done things differently? I have suggested previously that principles of Open Government are wasted on parts of the MCA. And then there is the clear and undeniable fact that it took them 30+ years to even think about writing a full and comprehensive spec for a SAR helicopter contract and 40+ years to get it signed up and start implementing it. This magnitude of step-change shouldn't have been necessary.
So that's a YES.
And their political masters, could they have done anything differently? Well many think that the AW189 is a necessary choice for a successful SAR contractor so that AW at Yeovil can be weaned off their fattening diet of MoD cash. But it's probably the only show in town anyway. EC175 anyone?
So that's another if, but, maybe.
Could the regulator have done things differently? If in doubt, reorganise. And so they did. And in spite of having an extra few years to prepare for what was obviously coming, they were still dithering with a few months to go.
So that's a YES.
Could one of the aircraft manufacturers have done things differently? One might expect that AW wanted to sell aircraft for SAR from the beginning. AW knew that the AW189 would be part of this at an early stage in the process. The programme for SAR role fit should not have been an after-thought. It looks very much like an after-thought now. The closer you look at this the easier it is to understand why Alan Bristow punched somebody at Westland.
So that's another YES.
"No plan survives contact."