Disgrace full that this service is being scrapped
The Raf and navy are a highly trained team
And experienced in all conditions and fully surport
Mountain. Rescue teams up and down the country 365 days
A year. 24hrs in some really bad conditions

They also deal with the coast hard incidents
As well .
I as a volunteer. Mrt member can't see
A private company working to the same standards
As the Raf and royal navy set out
This is a sad time to put the rescue services out to tender

We all must try and stop this happening
Let's all surport Raf and the royal navy
To keep this invaluable service .

Alan Yates

The RAF and Navy regard assisting MRTs as valuable training for their rescue helicopter crews. This is a loss to the crews, the Armed Forces in general, to Mountain Rescue teams and ultimately the public who go onto the hills and pursue hobbies in the Outdoors.

A civilian tender is NOT going to provide the same level of service or dedication to the job- money will always be a factor in that kind of contract.

This should not be allowed to go ahead.

Since you may have missed it civlians have been providing the same service for nearly 30 years........as well as working with MRT's for almost the same length of time in Scotland.

another silver lining to someone elses pocket and will cost the more in the long run the raf and navy give a sterling service risk ther lives for the rest of us in need when we need most hope thes service will continue when it changes.

As an experienced hill walker, have been out on mountains in all conditions.

The RAF and RN helicopters give important assistance on land as well at sea.

Hope HRH Prince William based at RAF Anglesey North Wales reads this.

I thought the original idea was that SAR gave real time training for RAF/RN Crews.

The saying 'price of everthing, value of nothing comes to mind'.

I can see the need for rescue insurance coming soon just like the Alps.

Will MR have to carry credit card machines?

On line petition anyone?

about 80% of the coastguard aircrew are ex navy or RAF, so what you are getting is the same personnel in much much better aircraft and using better equipment. Your also getting dedicated SAR aircrew that train only for SAR, rather than somebody on a 2 year posting from their 'front line' job.
That, coupled with a paramedic in every coastguard aircraft which the military can not provide as the guys don't spend long enough in SAR to qualify as paramedics. Civilian SAR is a win win for the person in need of rescue.
toni - ex military - now recently civilian SAR.

I think there is a need for a petition against this, or for some serious guidance on how much this service may potentially cost.

Some one get an e petition going. This idea will not only deprive the RAF/RN of valuable experience (although it will save them money on AvGas...), it will undoubtedly lead to a need for insurance when 'private' contractors decide to charge a fee- it WILL happen, its called capitalism.

As for the weak argument that services will be fine, as all the pilots will be ex-forces... isn't this the 'helicopter pilot's paradox'? With no uk specific military SAR background, we will eventually end up with solely private SAR trained staff - who will simply not get the experience and training afforded to their predecessors by the RAF/RN at the moment.

And what will this mean for MREW? I'm going to guess they will call for air support less, especially if the civlians decide to start charging...

Its already a joke that air ambulances ARENT funded by the government, and now this is another joke. 'cost cutting'??? Yeah right, this is just pocket lining for some one in power. Once again, uninformed and frankly idiotic ministers will destroy a functional and worthwhile service in the name of 'progress'.

And I'm not flying in one of those russian helicopters - they are gash.

So just to get this correct, you want to make a e-petition against a service that has been doing the job for almost 3 decades, does it cheaper, has more modern equipment, has no other priority other than SAR.....etc

I think the sevral thousand people that have been help'ed by civie's over the last few years better check there bank balances as we must have swiped there cards while they were not looking and they will have to have a look through there post for there invoice..... no wait that has never happened.

Oh and guess what..... some of the more experianced pilots on the Civi SAR bases are not ex-Military..... Shock Horror!

The original idea of the MIL SAR service was to rescue there own when they reguarly had pilots and crew ejecting out of (or crashing in) unrelible aircraft.... now that is a very rare occurance and the last two times it happend the aircraft that went (guess who) was the Civi Coastguard helicopters.

As for money being important to a private company, of course it is... but where the Mil SAR bases go off state (normaly due to there old seakings breaking down) nothing happens with the Civi SAR base they start getting fined for time they are offline. So if they dont provide the service they are contracted they LOSE MONEY!

As for training the Civi SAR bases never have a issue with not being able to train due to saving money...

I suggest you talk to some people in the north of scotland that actually interact with Civi SAR helicopter crews before you start bemoaning.

And remember again this is nothing new it has been going on for almost 30 years and no one has been charged a penny!

Though Im with Ben not to keen on any Russian Helicopter..... but a helicopter made by a frim founded by a man from russia I would! :) And so do they Navy and RAF at the moment.

It is a great shame that the lads and lasses, who have priovided a great service under some extrememly difficult conditions, and worked along side various volutneer organisations, with the same purpose, are to be disbanded.

I personally, would like to say a big thank you for their dedication to their duty, though thankfully, I've not as yet needed their assistance, but it is nice to know, they are there on standby, day or night, sun, rain, wind, snow or whatever the weather throws at them, to come out and save lives.

Our only hope is that the privatised services will continue to provide as a minimum, the same level of cover and continue to liaise with other like minded volunteer organisations, and not go the way that many other privatised concerns have gone, purely money making and looking after the shareholders....

The sad part of all this is for RAF and navy crews who may in future be in bother in other areas of the world, because their SAR crews will have lost all this live trg/experience, as for our SAR crews, whether they be private or military, finance will always be an issue which the Government ultimately has to fund and that is where the problems will arise.

I'm kind of split with this news. The RAF/Navy have done an incredible job over the years and there big heavy choppers cope well with the difficult conditions in the British mountains. In the Alps the rescue service is civilian or police and they also do an incredible job saving lives. I've never heard of someone not being rescued because of conditions or money. Private rescue cover costs me 40€ a year and covers me worldwide up to 6000m. its not really breaking the bank.

As was said in the House yesterday, a valuable 'visual presence' of our military services will be lost. Insurance will likely come - remember Bill Walker (Biggles) during the 80s.

I have know issue with the service that those services provided in Scotland, however we all know that this system runs in the EU and comes at a cost.

I don't think the petition needs to be against who runs it, but who funds it. Should this be a right or a privilege. I know lots of people who go out well prepared with a vast array of experience who will not purchase insurance, and would never call the emegency services unless a complete an utter disaster had happened and that all other options had been looked at. They would also not get insurance to cover any cost with this unlikely event.

Maybe sometime in the future, when all is privatised and insurance is needed before a walk up your local hill, someone will reinvent the voluntary rescue service.

As a member of a MRT in Northern Scotland I have been working with HMCG crews for years and they provide a high standard of professionalism and safety.
If the Sea King replacement comes anywhere near their standard then no-one has anything to worry about.

Find any rescue report on Grough and you will often see many comments calling, "Charge them", and, "Sent the idiots a bill". The moment a private SAR is proposed there is a call of "Nooo we won't we pay for rescue?!" (And there is currently no proposal for charging by the way).

I think we should all just shut up and be grateful for what we've got.

pish

I might point out that the whole UK land-based Air Ambulance operation coverage is provided completely without Government (ie: tax-payer) funding, all the operating costs being met by public donation. So in the end it all comes down to the skill and determination of the fund-raisers.

Quite a thought, isn't it!

Mark Wilkins
The County Air Ambnulance Trust.

Is the Air Ambulance Service in Scotland not fully funded by NHS Scotland? While in England and Wales it is a charity.

The proposed contract to civilianise SAR helicopters worries me!

Civilian crewed choppers (MCA for example) currently have to fly under CAA rules and are more limited in what they can do than the MOD. Alot of the time this is not a problem but there are times when it can cause life threatening risks.

For example MOD SAR choppers can fly over land using Night Vision Goggles, Civi SAR choppers aren't allowed to. I have recent experience of MCA chopper being unable to drop below 5000ft because it was too dark, he went home without doing anything, was replaces by RAF who flew straight in at ground level and did the job with no fuss.

If this contract go's ahead and the choppers have to operate under CAA rules with no NVG don't expect to be recued by one at night, it wont happen!

Scottish MRT Bloke... The MCA helicopter was tasked by the ARCC (RAF) despite the crew saying the RAF was a better asset for the job as they were closer and had NVG. They went anyway and found the walker. They could not safely pick him up in the dark so requested the RAF or MRT do it.

There is no Issue with The crews using NVG....but it was not part of the contract requirments for the MCA so they are not issued with them. if it was in the contract then they would get clerance to use them from the CAA like some police air support units do.

So please stick to MRT stuff (which i dont know much about) as you dont have much of a clue about aviation matters.

Perhaps the whole idea that you need a hugely expensive (and essentially, under-utilised) fleet of helicopters & highly trained pilots/crew on 24hr stand-by should be reviewed.

To put it in crude terms, what is the cost per life saved & how does that stack-up against, say, a better ambulance or fire service? You might even broaden it out to compare cost effectiveness against more NHS spending for treating serious illness & A&E units.

We already have a comprehensive lifeboat service for those in trouble at sea - true, helicopters can be useful here - but again, what's the cost-per-life-saved here? And why is is better to save a life at sea rather than one in a hospital or at a road traffic accident?

As for people who voluntarily put themselves in danger & expect others to risk their lives rescuing them (mountaineers, walkers, pleasure craft of various kinds etc) - why not have an insurance scheme (as mentioned by a previous poster) as they do elsewhere?

Simple fact is we can't just do everything, all the time & too hell with the cost, like we used to. It would be nice, but we've got to be more realistic, and yes, pragmatic about the cost/benefit even in the different ways we can deploy resources to help the whole population - be that on land,sea, air, hospitals, roads etc.