Irish SAR discussion

Irish Steve

This thread has been created by moving significant numbers of posts out of the R116 Crash thread, as they are not directly related to the crash, but are relevant to the wider discussion of the SAR and Air Corps operations in Ireland. Please use it to continue the discussion about SAR and Air Corps related issues, rather than using the R116 crash discussion related thread.

I am aware that the split is not perfect, and there may be some breaks in discussions, but we need to keep the main R116 thread on the specific topic of the crash, and related actions that are directly related to that event, even if it means that there is less activity on the R116 thread.

smurfjed

What is the status of the present SAR fleet, are they still one machine down?
Has anyone questioned the minister about the lack of Aer Corp support? And if there are now any plans to provide that level of support?

Coil Kilcrea

smurfjed wrote: »

What is the status of the present SAR fleet, are they still one machine down?
Has anyone questioned the minister about the lack of Aer Corp support? And if there are now any plans to provide that level of support?

The Air Corps need to be given the proper resources once and for all. Too often we've read about staff shortages and experienced pilots leaving for the private sector. We simply have to stop this exodus of experience and talent. It's a recurring theme in both the R111 and R116 tragedies. Top Cover must be provided by the Air Corps and they should have the capability to fully support SAR. The communications difficulties between R118 and R116 seem to have played a role in this terrible event.

We, Joe public, must demand better from our politicians. We're an island nation with a strong maritime tradition who deserve better.

A simple glance on Marine Traffic shows the enormous number of fishing boats/ships operating in our waters. And the North Atlantic is a particularly treacherous operating environment. If we're going to ask our SAR people to perform such difficult missions, let's arm them with the very best resources and training. We've come a long way, the equipment and training seems to be first class but we can do much better.

homerjay2005

smurfjed wrote: »

What is the status of the present SAR fleet, are they still one machine down?
Has anyone questioned the minister about the lack of Aer Corp support? And if there are now any plans to provide that level of support?

hasnt this all been "outsourced" to CHC so thus, its not a matter of resources or a government issue?

smurfjed

Good point, i would say that the required number of helicopters is down to CHC as per contract, as probably is the requirement to provide top cover. But AFAIK there is no SAR provider that used fixed wing aircraft to provide top cover. 
So regardless of the present contract, we have now unfortunately discovered that there might be a better way of providing top cover, so in my eyes, the government has to get involved as changes will cost money. The same goes for NVG, someone will have to assess if they are required and most likely the government will have to pay for buying them and initial training, unless of course there was a requirement for them to be used 6 months after the contract started (posted by another person).

homerjay2005

smurfjed wrote: »

Good point, i would say that the required number of helicopters is down to CHC as per contract, as probably is the requirement to provide top cover. But AFAIK there is no SAR provider that used fixed wing aircraft to provide top cover. 
So regardless of the present contract, we have now unfortunately discovered that there might be a better way of providing top cover, so in my eyes, the government has to get involved as changes will cost money. The same goes for NVG, someone will have to assess if they are required and most likely the government will have to pay for buying them and initial training, unless of course there was a requirement for them to be used 6 months after the contract started (posted by another person).

i dont think NVG would have avoided this accident. they had 12 or 13 seconds to avoid the island and they didnt .

as somebody pointed out, if you were driving at 120km/h and had 12 or 13 seconds to react to an obstacle before you, theres a really good chance youd be able to react and make the necessary adjustments to avoid that obstacle.

ProfessorPlum

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i dont think NVG would have avoided this accident. they had 12 or 13 seconds to avoid the island and they didnt .

as somebody pointed out, if you were driving at 120km/h and had 12 or 13 seconds to react to an obstacle before you, theres a really good chance youd be able to react and make the necessary adjustments to avoid that obstacle.

I think that's a bit simplistic. We've no indication of the urgency of the situation until the instruction from the rear crew, 2 seconds before impact. From the transcript, its dufficukt to know if the rear crew realised how imminent any the danger was until almost the last seconds too. The unhurried nature of confirming the turn, checking the heading selections etc, would suggest that there was no suspicion of imminent danger. "You want to come right guys" doesnt give me the impression that there was.
Also bear in mind they were doing 75kts 100 odd feet below the level of the terrain. I don't do helis, but I guess this equates to a fairly low energy state in an S92. How much climb or turn they'd be able to safely get out of it I don't know.

Cloudio9

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i dont think NVG would have avoided this accident. they had 12 or 13 seconds to avoid the island and they didnt .

as somebody pointed out, if you were driving at 120km/h and had 12 or 13 seconds to react to an obstacle before you, theres a really good chance youd be able to react and make the necessary adjustments to avoid that obstacle.

I suspect if the pilots had NVG there would have been quicker reaction time. We can see from the cvr that several seconds elapse before the warning from the rearis processed. Part of that time is the guys in the front reconciling what they can't see with what the rear crew can see.

Negative_G

smurfjed wrote: »

What is the status of the present SAR fleet, are they still one machine down?
Has anyone questioned the minister about the lack of Aer Corp support? And if there are now any plans to provide that level of support?

As has been previously discussed here, the SLA between Dept Of Transport and Dept of Defence does not mandate the AC to provide a 24 hour top cover service and specifically provides for cover on a "best effort" basis.

As it currently stands, the AC have one Casa which is restricted to flying between 0800-1800 Monday to Friday. There was a insightful article in the Irish Times yesterday examining the staff shortages across technical, pilot and ATC spectrums.

One of two things will happen as a result of this accident with regard to top cover.

A. The AC will be obliged to provide and maintain a 24 hour capability. They don't have the manpower or aircraft to do this so will involve significant expense. Which instantly puts it off the table.

B. CHC will pursue their own fixed wing top cover asset. This will also involve siginficant expensive additions/alterations to current or future contracts.

As both options will ultimately fall on the government to finance, neither will happen in my opinion, regardless of what any final report recommends.

The unforunate demise of R116 has highlighted just how under funded, under resourced and I'll equipped the AC is.

arubex

Negative_G wrote: »

B. CHC will pursue their own fixed wing top cover asset. This will also involve siginficant expensive additions/alterations to current or future contracts.

On that issue it is interesting to note that the CHC contract is currently at its half-way point and the Coastguard recently closed a tender for a consultant to assist in determining the scope of the follow-on contract.

I suspect that top-cover will loom large in the discussions, even if perhaps it means compromises on the east-coast SAR cover.

The unforunate demise of R116 has highlighted just how under funded, under resourced and I'll equipped the AC is.

But yet enough funds were available for another PC-9 to do... something fighty against someone, possibly at some point in the future. There goes €6 million.

Something is very wrong with the allocation to priorities at the top of the IAC and this incident has highlighted that.

Stovepipe

An attrition spare for the PC-9s is probably part of an older deal with Pilatus and as such, has nothing to do with funds for Casa availability.You are dealing with incredible levels of bureaucracy, subheads and accountability in terms of the DoD and the AC. It's really up to the AC as to how it manages it's manpower, if it is failing to deliver top cover, but right now, it's ass is covered, so to speak, because of it's SLA, as has been pointed out above. That's the get out of jail card for the Don. Now, if you were a ruthless dictator, you could go into the Don and do a clear out of desks, at the point of a gun, and start finding people drawing tech pay and flying pay but manning desks instead of turning spanners or flying but that would leave holes in tech management and flight ops that also would have to be filled. If the Casa unit is short of manpower, draft them in from the Cessnas or PC9s or whatever until the job is jobbed....but then, we can't do that so other solutions will have to be found.

siobhan08

One thing that confuses me with all the talk of staff shortages in the Air Corps is why don't they increase the age limit from 25? You never know there be people who are 25 or over and would be interesting in joining but are excluded due to their age.

Negative_G

arubex wrote: »

But yet enough funds were available for another PC-9 to do... something fighty against someone, possibly at some point in the future. There goes €6 million.

Something is very wrong with the allocation to priorities at the top of the IAC and this incident has highlighted that.

The funds you have referred to have probably been fought for since the loss of 265 in 2009. That's potentially 8 years of trying to acquire what is essentially an attrition replacement.

The cost of 2 Casa 295's is probably in the region of €100 million once the aircraft Is specced with mission equipment/radars etc. €6 million, if that is what it cost, wouldn't go very far.

The CASA's are due for replacement in 2019 as per the White Paper on Defence. The acquisition of a PC-9 is a completely separate issue entirely.

As an aside, the PC-9's are never going to do anything 'fighty' against anyone, it simply will never happen. They are a training aircraft and if you are trying to cycle pilots through training faster so they can occupy a seat in a Casa then it makes sense to have the full establishment of aircraft to achieve that.

You could of course argue what is the point if the availability of an operational aircraft is so restricted, which is what is currently happening.

Either give the Air Corps the funding and aircraft it needs to perform the role or let CHC provide their own.

I asked this some time ago in the thread but don't think an answer was given. Is there any civilian contracted SAR service which provides its own fixed wing top cover aircraft?

Psychlops

siobhan08 wrote: »

One thing that confuses me with all the talk of staff shortages in the Air Corps is why don't they increase the age limit from 25? You never know there be people who are 25 or over and would be interesting in joining but are excluded due to their age.

USAF upper age limit is over 35 to join, the IAC need to get rid of the fact only Officers fly, in the UK with the British Army Air Corps if you are an NCO you can fly an Apache.

The IAC needs a very severe and extreme shake up, if CHC can have 4 S92's available 24/7/365 with an on base crew of 4 & 2 techs then why cant the IAC?

The IAC needs to observe the way it is done in civvy land & replicate in the Don.

Those CASA's should be available 24/7/365 if not even for T/Cover but for night patrols & to work with the Navy, I am always amazed they are still based in Bal when there work takes place off the west coast.

Negative_G

siobhan08 wrote: »

One thing that confuses me with all the talk of staff shortages in the Air Corps is why don't they increase the age limit from 25? You never know there be people who are 25 or over and would be interesting in joining but are excluded due to their age.

The age maximum age for a cadetship is 28.

The maximum age for enlisted ranks is 25. 27 if joining the naval service.

There are many reasons why militaries the world over impose upper age limits. Health and fitness being one of them.

The reality is that given the numbers that apply year on year, their is no incentive for the DF to raise any of the limits. They already have an ample size of candidates who apply to select from.

The increasing number of retirements and the subsequent knowledge drain won't be stopped by hiring older candidates. The issues it seems stretch far beyond the initial entry requirements.

Psychlops wrote: »

USAF upper age limit is over 35 to join, the IAC need to get rid of the fact only Officers fly, in the UK with the British Army Air Corps if you are an NCO you can fly an Apache.

The IAC needs a very severe and extreme shake up, if CHC can have 4 S92's available 24/7/365 with an on base crew of 4 & 2 techs then why cant the IAC?

The IAC needs to observe the way it is done in civvy land & replicate in the Don.

Those CASA's should be available 24/7/365 if not even for T/Cover but for night patrols & to work with the Navy, I am always amazed they are still based in Bal when there work takes place off the west coast.

According to the, albeit unofficial, link below, your statement is slightly misleading. An age waiver is required for the upper age limit of 35, the criteria of which I am not privvy to.

https://www.thebalance.com/age-requirements-to-become-a-military-pilot-4054190

Air Force

Must meet a selection board before age 28 1/2. Must enter Undergraduate Flying Training (UPT) before age 30. Age waivers up to the age of 35 are considered. To qualify as an air force pilot, you will need at least a bachelor’s degree, earned at either a civilian college or university, or at the Air Force Academy, located outside Colorado Springs, Colo.

There is nothing to prevent serving personnel from all branches applying for and completing a cadetship. In fact, there are even bonus marks available to serving enlisted ranks. The bonus marks for having a level 8 degree have been removed, giving serving personnel a distinct advantage.

The concept of NCO pilots is a moot point. You still have to train them, and then figure out how to retain them. Recruitment isn't the issue, retention is. Unless of course you believe NCO pilots are somehow immune to the higher rates of pay in airlines etc.

It's all well and good having servicable aircraft but if you haven't got the technicians to maintain them, pilots to fly them or ATC to dispatch them, they are confined to the hangar regardless.

The blame for the current state of affairs lies at the door of the DOD. They are the ones who set policy and who control the purse strings.

Your desire for the AC to emulate CHC, a private profit orientated company is also superficial in my opinion.

In 2016, the defence budget (Vote 36) was €682 million. Of this €682m, 72% was related to pay. This means that approximately €190million covers the cost of training and equipping 9,000 personnel, 8 naval vessels, 26 aircraft, all capital and routine expenditure and maintenance across a multitude of locations across the country.

In contrast the CHC contract equates to €50 million per year for 5 aircraft across 4 bases. Roughly broken down it equates to €1m per base, per month over 10 years. I can't recall the number of personnel involved in total (it was posted previously) but it is significantly less than the AC. I would argue that the AC, and indeed the DF provide very good value for money given their budget allocation.

Unfortunately, when you run an organisation on a shoestring, retention becomes an issue.

Sorry for going off topic, but I felt your comment about emulating CHC deserved a little more examination.

For anyone that is interested, flying in Ireland did a very interesting analysis on the defence budget with good insight into the Air Corps.

https://flyinginireland.com/2016/10/irish-defence-budget-increases-but-is-it-enough/

In addition the Irish Times produced the following:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/staff-shortages-having-serious-effect-on-air-corps-1.3049022

Apologies again for drifting slightly off topic.

Psychlops

Negative_G wrote: »

According to the, albeit unofficial, link below, your statement is slightly misleading. An age waiver is required for the upper age limit of 35, the criteria of which I am not privvy to.

https://www.thebalance.com/age-requirements-to-become-a-military-pilot-4054190

I 100% agree with you also, the blame does lie with the DOD. I as much as anybody else would love to see the IAC with more assets.



There is nothing to prevent serving personnel from all branches applying for and completing a cadetship. In fact, there are even bonus marks available to serving enlisted ranks. The bonus marks for having a level 8 degree have been removed, giving serving personnel a distinct advantage.

The concept of NCO pilots is a moot point. You still have to train them, and then figure out how to retain them. Recruitment isn't the issue, retention is. Unless of course you believe NCO pilots are somehow immune to the higher rates of pay in airlines etc.

It's all well and good having servicable aircraft but if you haven't got the technicians to maintain them, pilots to fly them or ATC to dispatch them, they are confined to the hangar regardless.

The blame for the current state of affairs lies at the door of the DOD. They are the ones who set policy and who control the purse strings.

Your desire for the AC to emulate CHC, a private profit orientated company is also superficial in my opinion.

My apologies, this is the link I got

https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-raises-enlistee-age-limit-from-27-to-39-1.290578#.WPPdhv0VGM9


I still think the IAC could learn from CHC, If they can do it 24/7 then why cant the IAC, the cost is there yes but that mostly went on pay.

CHC total in Ireland Strength is:124, Im stumped as to why the IAC cant replicate this, the current IAC strength is 750.

I am sure it is wholly do able, they are doing very good with the EAS in Athlone, so replicate this to the entire organisation.

While slightly off topic with regards to value for money it is actually more expensive to task the EAS AW139 than to task an IRCG S92, and the EAS is daylight hours only.

Negative_G

Psychlops wrote: »

My apologies, this is the link I got

https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-raises-enlistee-age-limit-from-27-to-39-1.290578#.WPPdhv0VGM9


I still think the IAC could learn from CHC, If they can do it 24/7 then why cant the IAC, the cost is there yes but that mostly went on pay.

CHC total in Ireland Strength is:124, Im stumped as to why the IAC cant replicate this, the current IAC strength is 750.

I am sure it is wholly do able, they are doing very good with the EAS in Athlone, so replicate this to the entire organisation.

It is my understanding that up until last year the Air Corps maintained both a fixed wing and rotary aircraft on a 24 hour basis. These were used for Air Ambulance and Top Cover etc. They also maintained a 24 hour ATC service.

All of these have been stopped or reduced as a result of lack of personnel. It's not like a commercial operation where somebody leaves, you advertise a post and can fill it at short notice. Technicians, pilots and ATC all require substantial and expensive training that can't be rushed as it would compromise safety.

Given the coverage that EAS is getting on social media I would suspect that it is a number one priority. It's a valuable service and good for PR.

Im not familiar with the roster that is in place but I suspect that between people on duty, people resting after a duty, leave, courses, overseas service etc that it has a significant drain on personnel and aircraft.

It is unrealistic to expect the same output from a private company than a military air arm. Private operators are all about money and as a result tend to be more lean and efficient. Militaries are often more archaic and have more red tape to get around.

It is not fair to equate mil and civilian pilots from solely an flying output perspective. Officers will have other ground jobs which can keep them away from flying. Particularly as they advance up the ranks. They are two very different job portfolios. Same goes for technical staff.

As the Irish Times article alludes to, why would someone who has significant training in maintaining helicopters for example want to spend 6 months conducting infantry training in the Curragh just to become eligible for promotion.

While I partially agree with your sentiments, I am sure it is far more complex than simply deciding to emulate corporate working practices. Particularly so when the DOD set policy and budgets and the Defence Forces senior staff are all mostly army officers.

TomOnBoard

Storm 10 wrote: »

Bit off topic but Rescue 117 is on the way home after doing a medical transfer from Dublin to London, surely this should be done by the Air Corps and not take a Rescue Helicopter off station.

Or private air ambo if Aer Corps not available?

Especially relevant in the context of:

1. The fleet is already down 20% of its capability and
2. Each aircraft must now have a 16 man-hour intervention after every 10 hours of operation to check the tail rotor assembly in accordance with air worthiness safety instructions.

Growler!!!

TomOnBoard wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Storm 10 wrote: »

Bit off topic but Rescue 117 is on the way home after doing a medical transfer from Dublin to London, surely this should be done by the Air Corps and not take a Rescue Helicopter off station.

Or private air ambo if Aer Corps not available?

Especially relevant in the context of:

1. The fleet is already down 20% of its capability and
2. Each aircraft must now have a 16 man-hour intervention after every 10 hours of operation to check the tail rotor assembly in accordance with air worthiness safety instructions.

So, now that we've established that the fleet is operating with 80% of its contracted hardware and that reduced fleet is further restricted by the need for significant downtime every 10 hours, should its use not be restricted to SAR when other options exist for the non-SAR aspects?

R117 was tasked as it had the carrying capacity to bring the sick child, her mother and a medical team to Northolt. Air Corps 112 only has 4 spare seats when crewed.

TomOnBoard

Growler!!! wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Storm 10 wrote: »

Bit off topic but Rescue 117 is on the way home after doing a medical transfer from Dublin to London, surely this should be done by the Air Corps and not take a Rescue Helicopter off station.

Or private air ambo if Aer Corps not available?

Especially relevant in the context of:

1. The fleet is already down 20% of its capability and
2. Each aircraft must now have a 16 man-hour intervention after every 10 hours of operation to check the tail rotor assembly in accordance with air worthiness safety instructions.

So, now that we've established that the fleet is operating with 80% of its contracted hardware and that reduced fleet is further restricted by the need for significant downtime every 10 hours, should its use not be restricted to SAR when other options exist for the non-SAR aspects?

R117 was tasked as it had the carrying capacity to bring the sick child, her mother and a medical team to Northolt. Air Corps 112 only has 4 spare seats when crewed.

Basically therefore, no other options (incl. air ambulance were possible? If that's the case, then usibg the S-62 was the only way the transfer could have been done. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Raging_Ninja

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Basically therefore, no other options (incl. air ambulance were possible? If that's the case, then usibg the S-62 was the only way the transfer could have been done. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

The coast guard helicopters are used as air ambulances as part of their normal duties. There's nothing unusual about it.

TomOnBoard

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The coast guard helicopters are used as air ambulances as part of their normal duties. There's nothing unusual about it.

In normal circumstances, yes. However, when normal circumstances do not exist, such as now, the capability needs to be wrapped in proverbial cotton wool and not used if other options exist, pending it's being brought back to 100% capability. What may have applied as "normal duties" before the intensity of tail rotor mechanism inspections became mandated in January, coupled with the loss of the aircraft in March, must surely be affected by these events. Therefore the "other options" for carrying out the previously "normal duties" need to be exhausted before the S-92 fleet is used like it would have been up to January.

jimmycrackcorm

On a side note I saw, I presume R118, landing at LKUH at the weekend. They really are majestic machines and seeing them up so close does give a sense of awe for the crews that fly them.

Storm 10

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

On a side note I saw, I presume R118, landing at LKUH at the weekend. They really are majestic machines and seeing them up so close does give a sense of awe for the crews that fly them.

It was 118 ok then it came to Galway from Letterkenny, Rescue 115 has just landed at UHG they look to have carried out a search around the Cliffs of Moher Hope whoever they brought in will be ok.

Wintergirl

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gp-questions-merit-of-rescue-116-call-out-for-tip-of-a-finger-1.3056818

Has it been confirmed officially how serious the injury was.

Wintergirl

It makes a difference for the future, we are spending millions on this service and we have children who can't get surgery to fix their spines.The costs have to be considered within the overall budgetary constraints.Its the taxpayers who are funding this service, the same taxpayers who are begging for the surgery their children need.

CHC ar paid every time a SAR crew go out so they aren't going to be too concerned about how trivial the reason is.

If the Army Corp had been available to go would there have been more information demanded about the nature of the injury or do the Army Corp just respond to everything they are asked to do during the hours they are available.Even a picture taken of the injury would show a medical person how serious it was even if there was a language barrier.

Which body is responsible for monitoring the call outs and what is being achieved by them.

Who sent Caitriona Lucas out in a RIB to look for a body.Is there going to be any investigation into this.Will there be an investigation into why R116 was sent out in the middle of the night for the severed tip of a finger, you wouldn't even call an ambulance for that, you would dress the wound and go to your GP, what could anyone in A and E do for you that your doctor couldn't do.Surely all those trawlers should have crew trained in First Aid on board and if not why not.

Storm 10

Resue 115 tasking to Cliffs of Moher and UHG today

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-in-critical-condition-after-parachute-jump-from-cliff-in-clare-786710.html

Storm 10

Wintergirl wrote: »

It makes a difference for the future, we are spending millions on this service and we have children who can't get surgery to fix their spines.The costs have to be considered within the overall budgetary constraints.Its the taxpayers who are funding this service, the same taxpayers who are begging for the surgery their children need.

CHC ar paid every time a SAR crew go out so they aren't going to be too concerned about how trivial the reason is.

If the Army Corp had been available to go would there have been more information demanded about the nature of the injury or do the Army Corp just respond to everything they are asked to do during the hours they are available.Even a picture taken of the injury would show a medical person how serious it was even if there was a language barrier.

Which body is responsible for monitoring the call outs and what is being achieved by them.

Who sent Caitriona Lucas out in a RIB to look for a body.Is there going to be any investigation into this.Will there be an investigation into why R116 was sent out in the middle of the night for the severed tip of a finger, you wouldn't even call an ambulance for that, you would dress the wound and go to your GP, what could anyone in A and E do for you that your doctor couldn't do.Surely all those trawlers should have crew trained in First Aid on board and if not why not.

The Air Corps don't have Helicopters that can fly that distance and they are not set up for SAR Role, they only use them for the Air Ambulance role around the Country, if it was a family member of yours would you complain, they are not going to question a Doctors request and turn it down. They are very brave people in the Coastguard and we should be very proud of them and not question why they took on the tasking

Reati

Wintergirl wrote: »

It makes a difference for the future, we are spending millions on this service and we have children who can't get surgery to fix their spines.The costs have to be considered within the overall budgetary constraints.Its the taxpayers who are funding this service, the same taxpayers who are begging for the surgery their children need.

CHC ar paid every time a SAR crew go out so they aren't going to be too concerned about how trivial the reason is.

If the Army Corp had been available to go would there have been more information demanded about the nature of the injury or do the Army Corp just respond to everything they are asked to do during the hours they are available.Even a picture taken of the injury would show a medical person how serious it was even if there was a language barrier.

Which body is responsible for monitoring the call outs and what is being achieved by them.

Who sent Caitriona Lucas out in a RIB to look for a body.Is there going to be any investigation into this.Will there be an investigation into why R116 was sent out in the middle of the night for the severed tip of a finger, you wouldn't even call an ambulance for that, you would dress the wound and go to your GP, what could anyone in A and E do for you that your doctor couldn't do.Surely all those trawlers should have crew trained in First Aid on board and if not why not.

I actually don't know where to start with a post of this caliber. I think I'd just be banging my head off the wall so let me address one point.

No, the funding used for SAR operations is not why children are not getting surgery. You need to go have a look and actually try to understand how the government waste money elsewhere if you're that worried about your taxes before trying to argue SAR is overfunded.

gctest50

Wintergirl wrote: »

I think I ..............so if we are spending millions on the SAR service then money is cut somewhere else.

How much is it per head per week ?

Can you produce any figure ?

Wintergirl wrote: »

CHC ar paid every time a SAR crew go out so they aren't going to be too concerned about how trivial the reason is.

.

Any source for this ?

Reati

Wintergirl wrote: »

Of course access to surgery which is denied to many people because of lack of funding is relevant, the money is all coming out of the one source so if we are spending millions on the SAR service then money is cut somewhere else.

You have zero idea how finance or government budgets work if you think cutting SAR funds would suddenly make money available for children surgery.

You're simply trying to use emotive subject to try prove a point. A shameful discussion technique if I'm honest. You don't have anything useful to say you just want attack things you clearly don't understand or what to even try understand. Come join a SAR team and actually learn what and why we do it. Send me a pm and I'll happily tell you the nearest one to you to volunteer for.