I'm not sure how you can draw any correlation at all. If there was a correlation, surely people would be dying on the beaches close to the locations that the military service had been withdrawn from? So, for example, Chivenor was a military SAR base, but there hasn't been any increase in the number of deaths in the area just because Chivenor closed. Same applies up at Boulmer - no big increase in deaths just because there is no SR service on the doorstep. The sad events in Newquay a couple of weeks ago were down to pure bad luck and a horrendous turn in the previously benign sea conditions - the SAR helicopter was on scene within a few minutes, as was the Air Ambulance and the RNLI (there is a SAR base on the door step much closer than the Navy SAR at Culdrose was hence were on scene much quicker) but events unfolded too quickly even for the beach lifeguards to deal with. So, no correlation at all - I know people want to try and blame anyone they can for these sad situations but unfortunately, it's time to face up to the fact that sometimes accidents happen, and sometimes people need to take personal responsibility for their own safety. As for the new SAR service - yes, technically they're a Coastguard asset but tasking is allocated on the basis of urgency and clinical need by a central tasking authority and this includes a huge amount of inland work if you want to know how they're performing, ask the North Welsh, Scottish or Lake District mountain rescue teams. From what I've seen on social media and the MCA website, it all looks very positive.