it appears that the RAF have decided the EC135 is unsuitable for rearcrew training
How about the RN and Army? You do realize that RW training has been tri-service for over two decades now?
However the view from inside the H145 winching seems to tell a different story?
Reliable- 135 is superb
Simple - ditto
Easy to fly - yes
No vices - yes, but not much different to squirrel
Simple to operate and fix - even better than squirrel, everything is modular
I bet (hope) in a few years time there will be people like me saying how it has actually worked out alright in the end. If I'm wrong I'll admit it when the time comes but we could just give it a chance?
Please don't come on here with facts and actual experience, or a request to be reasonable. This bandwidth is reserved for whingers and naysayers, dontcha know.
Probably the 139 since you can winch easily from it, the cabin is fairly roomy (just not very high but same with 212) and it has good single engine capability (at training weights) by all accounts.
All true, but it's also horrendously expensive to buy and operate.
Going to something like a 139 would seem to be encroaching on front line capability in many regards.
Exactly - see above.
DHFS didn't need fixing - it wasn't broken but someone decided to do it anyway.
Well, apart from flying ancient aircraft with twist-grip throttles, analogue cockpits and (in the case of the Griffin) poor availability and serious performance limitations.
makes a stretcher entry impossible
So what?
do you need to update your views?
How dare you.
I expect that suitably qualified and experienced rear-crew were part of the decision process at all stages of the requirements process and subsequent competition................
Why do I find myself thinking of the heady days of Soteria and Hank Semi?
any idea what will happen to SAR in Cyprus
Best left to the Cypriots? 139 trumps Griffin on every count, and we don't have to pay for it!