Elfan ap Rees
The Collective Column
IT IS becoming more and more difficult to find anyone, understanding the subject, who agrees that UK government plans to hand all search and rescue (SAR) operations over to a civil contractor from 2011 are a good idea. Despite instructions to say nothing, both bidders and military personnel are privately voicing concerns that the result will be disastrous if sufficient helicopter capacity and trained crews are not available for surge flexibility, as is required during flood relief and some long range SAR missions. And that still excludes military combat SAR requirements.
At present UK SAR is predominantly a Royal Air Force mission, meaning that military flexibility applies in terms of aircraft availability and rules of the air. This has been demonstrated on more than one occasion in recent years when helicopters have been pulled out of servicing to be deployed on flood relief and crews have flown outside the limits permitted for their civil counterparts. A common fleet of long range helicopters and experienced crews also makes life easier for the coordinators, as aircraft can be deployed without worrying too much about differing performance and capabilities.
Already today the UK Coast Guard contribution to the national SAR cover has been downgraded through the replacement of the ageing but capable Sikorsky S-61N by the new technology but smaller AgustaWestland AW139 on the south coast. Whilst the latter is fine for rescuing yachtsmen in its area of operations, it will be found failing if a cruise liner or any vessel with more than 20 passengers and crew aboard runs into difficulties in the English Channel. Further, if a surge is required, the operations commander will now have to juggle and calculate his mixed resources, complicating the issues at hand. This scenario can only get worse if the military are taken completely out of the equation and a mixed fleet, based on economics rather than efficiency, is established around the entire UK coastline.
So why is the Royal Air Force not arguing the case more loudly? Well, apart from being told to shut up by the government, it also may be true that the Two Stars setting up Joint Helicopter Command in the late 1990s had no love for the SAR cause. Some had actually failed the SAR course, but most were keen to ensure that much needed battlefield helicopter and crews received priority, and have been willing to sacrifice the home front accordingly.
Elsewhere - Denmark for example - which also faces funding pressures SAR is seen as a government responsibility, to the extent that it actually receives priority in the Air Force over and above all other missions. Whilst this may be seen by some as an abdication of NATO responsibilities, at least it can be said that the Danes put their own countrymen first.
In the UK 70 percent the role is expected to be for the Home Office, which so far is not contributing one penny, whilst the currently available emergency response fleet of 45 helicopters will reduce to just 20. For the UK SAR on the cheap should not be an option.
Elfan ap Rees, editorial@aviapress.fsnet.co.uk