Ombudsman seals fate of Portland coastguard helicopter

Dorset Echo: Ombudsman seals fate of Portland coastguard helicopter Ombudsman seals fate of Portland coastguard helicopter

COASTGUARD helicopter campaigners have been dealt a blow after the parliamentary ombudsman was unable to find fault with the government’s decision-making process to scrap it.

Back in the summer South Dorset MP Richard Drax submitted evidence to the parliamentary ombudsman and asked them to look at the decision-making process that could see the Portland helicopter axed in 2017 under current plans.

Mr Drax said at the time that although the ombudsman ombudsman could not change the decision about the helicopter, he did have the power to ‘criticise the procedure’.

However the ombudsman and the National Audit Office said that proper procedure had been followed in the decision-making process.

In a letter to Mr Drax from Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, said: “I recognise the decision to close the Portland base is disappointing for you and your constituents.7 “I referred your letter to the National Audit Office (NAO). They have raised your concerns with the Agency. On the basis of the evidence the Agency provided of the processes followed to reach the decisions on the search and rescue bases to be going forward, the NAO have concluded that there is no evidence to warrant a further investigation on their part.

“The Mari-time and Coastguard Agency followed a proper and clear process in reaching its decisions.”

Under the new government contract, 22 modern helicopters will operate from 10 locations around the country and all bases will be operational 24 hours a day. But the Portland base is due to be axed.

The Government has said that the new helicopters will be able to reach a larger area of the national search and rescue region within one hour of take-off – adding that those response times are faster than is currently possible.

Mr Drax said: “I am severely disappointed that both the parliamentary ombudsman and the NAO, have been unable to find fault with the Government’s decision-making process.

“I am, of course, grateful to both organisations, and to Mrs Hodge, for responding to my request to look at procedure and, in particular, the former Secretary of State’s claim that there was no need for consultation because she was ‘improving the service’, something I and many other campaigners fundamentally disagree with.”

He added: “I have always believed, and still do, that helicopters based at Lee-on-Solent and Culdrose will simply not be able to respond quick enough which, ultimately, could lead to unnecessary deaths, a tragedy when the Government has been warned so many times on the consequences of removing our SAR helicopter in 2017.”

However, Mr Drax said that the 100,000 signature-strong petition to retain the service would be presented to Number Ten in the New Year. He added: “I sincerely hope, even at this late stage, that ministers will take it into account and reconsider a flawed decision.”

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:02am Wed 18 Dec 13

Dave Aitch says...

"The Government has said that the new helicopters will be able to reach a larger area of the national search and rescue region within one hour of take-off – adding that those response times are faster than is currently possible."

What utter rubbish !
Too many people in high places have their head in the sand.
"The Government has said that the new helicopters will be able to reach a larger area of the national search and rescue region within one hour of take-off – adding that those response times are faster than is currently possible." What utter rubbish ! Too many people in high places have their head in the sand. Dave Aitch

9:38am Wed 18 Dec 13

Rodwellocal says...

Dave Aitch wrote:
"The Government has said that the new helicopters will be able to reach a larger area of the national search and rescue region within one hour of take-off – adding that those response times are faster than is currently possible." What utter rubbish ! Too many people in high places have their head in the sand.
The problem is, that if they had their head in the sand off the Dorset coast beyond 2017, it is unlikely they would survive long enough to be rescued.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Aitch[/bold] wrote: "The Government has said that the new helicopters will be able to reach a larger area of the national search and rescue region within one hour of take-off – adding that those response times are faster than is currently possible." What utter rubbish ! Too many people in high places have their head in the sand.[/p][/quote]The problem is, that if they had their head in the sand off the Dorset coast beyond 2017, it is unlikely they would survive long enough to be rescued. Rodwellocal

10:54am Wed 18 Dec 13

Laadeeda says...

A bad, sad decision!
A bad, sad decision! Laadeeda

12:54pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Dont JustSitThereVote says...

Increasing the catchment area increases the likelyhood of the single hellicopter being required when already on a call.
Increasing the catchment area increases the likelyhood of the single hellicopter being required when already on a call. Dont JustSitThereVote

1:22pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Bob Goulding says...

Let's be clear about this: the ombudsman and NAO have not endorsed the decision they have simply confirmed that the decision making process included the necessary consultation elements (though personally I'm still not convinced that the input from the consultation was properly considered).

What remains is the fact that the decision is still wrong for all of the reasons that have been highlighted over recent years (including those above) so it is imperative that we keep the pressure on to reverse the decision before it becomes irreversible and lives are lost!!
Let's be clear about this: the ombudsman and NAO have not endorsed the decision they have simply confirmed that the decision making process included the necessary consultation elements (though personally I'm still not convinced that the input from the consultation was properly considered). What remains is the fact that the decision is still wrong for all of the reasons that have been highlighted over recent years (including those above) so it is imperative that we keep the pressure on to reverse the decision before it becomes irreversible and lives are lost!! Bob Goulding

3:51pm Wed 18 Dec 13

schadwick says...

So hit No.10 website
https://twitter.com/
@Number10gov
https://twitter.com/
@Number10press
https://www.facebook
.com/DavidCameron
http://uk.linkedin.c
om/in/davidcameronmp

If Portland's islanders and Weymouth's people all hit the site they would have to take notice
I found it by putting in David Camerons website

YOU CAN DO IT!! DON'T LET ME DOWN.........
So hit No.10 website https://twitter.com/ @Number10gov https://twitter.com/ @Number10press https://www.facebook .com/DavidCameron http://uk.linkedin.c om/in/davidcameronmp If Portland's islanders and Weymouth's people all hit the site they would have to take notice I found it by putting in David Camerons website YOU CAN DO IT!! DON'T LET ME DOWN......... schadwick

4:38pm Wed 18 Dec 13

schadwick says...

Further to my earlier comment further information:
To send further correspondence, please visit https://email.number
10.gov.uk and select 'Contact the Prime Minister's Office'
make him see the decision
Further to my earlier comment further information: To send further correspondence, please visit https://email.number 10.gov.uk and select 'Contact the Prime Minister's Office' make him see the decision schadwick

5:35pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Foursite says...

I actually think the government are right, they will be looking @
data of rescues and see how many could have been avoided,IE
un seaworthy vessels,none wearing of life jackets,unsupervised
sailing or,canoeing, dogs off lead near cliffs,too close to
the edge,silly rescue attempts, the list is endless.you need
to be a lot more savvy these days as many brought up by the
sea usually are.But as this is stretching on to be an election issue
don't be surprised of a u turn to catch your vote,only to have
another u turn if they win?
I actually think the government are right, they will be looking @ data of rescues and see how many could have been avoided,IE un seaworthy vessels,none wearing of life jackets,unsupervised sailing or,canoeing, dogs off lead near cliffs,too close to the edge,silly rescue attempts, the list is endless.you need to be a lot more savvy these days as many brought up by the sea usually are.But as this is stretching on to be an election issue don't be surprised of a u turn to catch your vote,only to have another u turn if they win? Foursite

5:43pm Wed 18 Dec 13

bargain price says...

Unfortunately the deal has been done and no matter what the people of Weymouth and surrounding areas want, the ones in London have had there brown envelopes we all know that keeping the helicopter here will save lives. I don't know why we need a private company to do what we can do better because at the end of the day its about money not lives
Unfortunately the deal has been done and no matter what the people of Weymouth and surrounding areas want, the ones in London have had there brown envelopes we all know that keeping the helicopter here will save lives. I don't know why we need a private company to do what we can do better because at the end of the day its about money not lives bargain price

5:45pm Wed 18 Dec 13

bargain price says...

Foursite wrote:
I actually think the government are right, they will be looking @
data of rescues and see how many could have been avoided,IE
un seaworthy vessels,none wearing of life jackets,unsupervised
sailing or,canoeing, dogs off lead near cliffs,too close to
the edge,silly rescue attempts, the list is endless.you need
to be a lot more savvy these days as many brought up by the
sea usually are.But as this is stretching on to be an election issue
don't be surprised of a u turn to catch your vote,only to have
another u turn if they win?
I hope you never need to call on the helicopter and find a wait and charge for the service
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: I actually think the government are right, they will be looking @ data of rescues and see how many could have been avoided,IE un seaworthy vessels,none wearing of life jackets,unsupervised sailing or,canoeing, dogs off lead near cliffs,too close to the edge,silly rescue attempts, the list is endless.you need to be a lot more savvy these days as many brought up by the sea usually are.But as this is stretching on to be an election issue don't be surprised of a u turn to catch your vote,only to have another u turn if they win?[/p][/quote]I hope you never need to call on the helicopter and find a wait and charge for the service bargain price

7:48pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Foursite says...

I would not dream of endangering lives of others through my own stupidness as mentioned in the reasons above half price.
I would not dream of endangering lives of others through my own stupidness as mentioned in the reasons above half price. Foursite

9:29pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Laadeeda says...

Foursite wrote:
I would not dream of endangering lives of others through my own stupidness as mentioned in the reasons above half price.
What if you needed the facility NOT because of your stupidness?

Accidents happen. Few go out with the intention of being rescued. Any number of unforeseen circumstances can result in needing the help of the emergency services.

In my opinion this is a financial decision and not based on the geography and use of the sea around our coastline. A good use of resources would be to use the existing facility at Osprey Quay as not only the home of Rescue 106, but Portland Coast Guard and the associated rescue teams. All resources under one roof.
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: I would not dream of endangering lives of others through my own stupidness as mentioned in the reasons above half price.[/p][/quote]What if you needed the facility NOT because of your stupidness? Accidents happen. Few go out with the intention of being rescued. Any number of unforeseen circumstances can result in needing the help of the emergency services. In my opinion this is a financial decision and not based on the geography and use of the sea around our coastline. A good use of resources would be to use the existing facility at Osprey Quay as not only the home of Rescue 106, but Portland Coast Guard and the associated rescue teams. All resources under one roof. Laadeeda

11:03pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Foursite says...

Laadeeda wrote:
Foursite wrote:
I would not dream of endangering lives of others through my own stupidness as mentioned in the reasons above half price.
What if you needed the facility NOT because of your stupidness?

Accidents happen. Few go out with the intention of being rescued. Any number of unforeseen circumstances can result in needing the help of the emergency services.

In my opinion this is a financial decision and not based on the geography and use of the sea around our coastline. A good use of resources would be to use the existing facility at Osprey Quay as not only the home of Rescue 106, but Portland Coast Guard and the associated rescue teams. All resources under one roof.
This is the coastguard helicopter we are talking about, if you read
my opinion correctly I state that the government would have looked
at all the data, or done their homework.Of course it is a
financial decision, everything is with this government.I don't
believe they wont have the area covered. Our coastguards do a well
worth job and are great at it.We still have an air ambulance
and police helicopter do we not,we still have the lifeboat and plenty
of ships in the channel.all these guys do a great job.If you believe
we need this coastguard helicopter fight for it,Mr Drax needs more
signatures for his petition make it an election issue.
I told you what I think and stand by it.
[quote][p][bold]Laadeeda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: I would not dream of endangering lives of others through my own stupidness as mentioned in the reasons above half price.[/p][/quote]What if you needed the facility NOT because of your stupidness? Accidents happen. Few go out with the intention of being rescued. Any number of unforeseen circumstances can result in needing the help of the emergency services. In my opinion this is a financial decision and not based on the geography and use of the sea around our coastline. A good use of resources would be to use the existing facility at Osprey Quay as not only the home of Rescue 106, but Portland Coast Guard and the associated rescue teams. All resources under one roof.[/p][/quote]This is the coastguard helicopter we are talking about, if you read my opinion correctly I state that the government would have looked at all the data, or done their homework.Of course it is a financial decision, everything is with this government.I don't believe they wont have the area covered. Our coastguards do a well worth job and are great at it.We still have an air ambulance and police helicopter do we not,we still have the lifeboat and plenty of ships in the channel.all these guys do a great job.If you believe we need this coastguard helicopter fight for it,Mr Drax needs more signatures for his petition make it an election issue. I told you what I think and stand by it. Foursite

12:27am Thu 19 Dec 13

Dave Aitch says...

Post 2017 Scenario: Diver with symptoms of the bends at Portland Bill. Radio/mobile phone call made. CG coordinating. Scramble available SAR from available location. Lee or Culdrose. Add in flight time from either CU or LS. ( What ? Neither AC available? Both AC already airborne on tasking ? ) Diver ...... ??? If both AC available prioritise which AC to scramble depending on present weather at LS or CU. Time would be wasted if a strong head wind for LS SAR. Send CU SAR with strong tail wind...if it can start its rotors. Wind speed is above maximum rotor start limits. Have to send LS SAR. Time Time Time. Extra in flight time due to strong head wind. When they arrive on scene at PB, winch diver in to AC and fly to nearest available chamber. Poole chamber just gone U/S or in use. On to next one. Time Time Time. Not something a diver with the bends, has.
2013 Scenario: Elderly man falls off the end of PB. Severe head and other injuries sustained. CG/ambulance called. Portland CG calls SAR, based at PO which is already airborne on its AM check only minutes away. SAR on scene. Elderly man recovered and casevac to DCH LS or rugby field. No flight time from either CU or LS in the equation. Elderly man recovers due to timely rescue and lifesaving medical attention received. Time Time Time.
Which would you prefer if you were the elderly person or the diver ?
Post 2017 Scenario: Diver with symptoms of the bends at Portland Bill. Radio/mobile phone call made. CG coordinating. Scramble available SAR from available location. Lee or Culdrose. Add in flight time from either CU or LS. ( What ? Neither AC available? Both AC already airborne on tasking ? ) Diver ...... ??? If both AC available prioritise which AC to scramble depending on present weather at LS or CU. Time would be wasted if a strong head wind for LS SAR. Send CU SAR with strong tail wind...if it can start its rotors. Wind speed is above maximum rotor start limits. Have to send LS SAR. Time Time Time. Extra in flight time due to strong head wind. When they arrive on scene at PB, winch diver in to AC and fly to nearest available chamber. Poole chamber just gone U/S or in use. On to next one. Time Time Time. Not something a diver with the bends, has. 2013 Scenario: Elderly man falls off the end of PB. Severe head and other injuries sustained. CG/ambulance called. Portland CG calls SAR, based at PO which is already airborne on its AM check only minutes away. SAR on scene. Elderly man recovered and casevac to DCH LS or rugby field. No flight time from either CU or LS in the equation. Elderly man recovers due to timely rescue and lifesaving medical attention received. Time Time Time. Which would you prefer if you were the elderly person or the diver ? Dave Aitch

1:17am Thu 19 Dec 13

Zummerzet Lad says...

Needs some sort of operation like air ambulance which is funded by contributions like RNLI , Perhaps Portland Port, Condor Ferries and any other business able to support such a venture could start the ball rolling.

It's an idea as it looks like Government will leave this area high and dry.
Needs some sort of operation like air ambulance which is funded by contributions like RNLI , Perhaps Portland Port, Condor Ferries and any other business able to support such a venture could start the ball rolling. It's an idea as it looks like Government will leave this area high and dry. Zummerzet Lad

9:20am Thu 19 Dec 13

Foursite says...

Dave Aitch wrote:
Post 2017 Scenario: Diver with symptoms of the bends at Portland Bill. Radio/mobile phone call made. CG coordinating. Scramble available SAR from available location. Lee or Culdrose. Add in flight time from either CU or LS. ( What ? Neither AC available? Both AC already airborne on tasking ? ) Diver ...... ??? If both AC available prioritise which AC to scramble depending on present weather at LS or CU. Time would be wasted if a strong head wind for LS SAR. Send CU SAR with strong tail wind...if it can start its rotors. Wind speed is above maximum rotor start limits. Have to send LS SAR. Time Time Time. Extra in flight time due to strong head wind. When they arrive on scene at PB, winch diver in to AC and fly to nearest available chamber. Poole chamber just gone U/S or in use. On to next one. Time Time Time. Not something a diver with the bends, has.
2013 Scenario: Elderly man falls off the end of PB. Severe head and other injuries sustained. CG/ambulance called. Portland CG calls SAR, based at PO which is already airborne on its AM check only minutes away. SAR on scene. Elderly man recovered and casevac to DCH LS or rugby field. No flight time from either CU or LS in the equation. Elderly man recovers due to timely rescue and lifesaving medical attention received. Time Time Time.
Which would you prefer if you were the elderly person or the diver ?
inexperienced divers, and old men too close to the edge,exactly my point.
Thanx
[quote][p][bold]Dave Aitch[/bold] wrote: Post 2017 Scenario: Diver with symptoms of the bends at Portland Bill. Radio/mobile phone call made. CG coordinating. Scramble available SAR from available location. Lee or Culdrose. Add in flight time from either CU or LS. ( What ? Neither AC available? Both AC already airborne on tasking ? ) Diver ...... ??? If both AC available prioritise which AC to scramble depending on present weather at LS or CU. Time would be wasted if a strong head wind for LS SAR. Send CU SAR with strong tail wind...if it can start its rotors. Wind speed is above maximum rotor start limits. Have to send LS SAR. Time Time Time. Extra in flight time due to strong head wind. When they arrive on scene at PB, winch diver in to AC and fly to nearest available chamber. Poole chamber just gone U/S or in use. On to next one. Time Time Time. Not something a diver with the bends, has. 2013 Scenario: Elderly man falls off the end of PB. Severe head and other injuries sustained. CG/ambulance called. Portland CG calls SAR, based at PO which is already airborne on its AM check only minutes away. SAR on scene. Elderly man recovered and casevac to DCH LS or rugby field. No flight time from either CU or LS in the equation. Elderly man recovers due to timely rescue and lifesaving medical attention received. Time Time Time. Which would you prefer if you were the elderly person or the diver ?[/p][/quote]inexperienced divers, and old men too close to the edge,exactly my point. Thanx Foursite

1:39pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Dave Aitch says...

Thanks FOURSITE. I hope you never need any assistance, ever. You may not put yourself in any danger. Its the other person(s) with you or heading the other way, that may. Good luck.
Thanks FOURSITE. I hope you never need any assistance, ever. You may not put yourself in any danger. Its the other person(s) with you or heading the other way, that may. Good luck. Dave Aitch

1:59pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Bob Goulding says...

Using your perverse logic, four site, we could scrap a large proportion of the ambulance and paramedic service that deal with accidents in the street by simply telling people (of all ages) to be more careful. What and idiot!
Using your perverse logic, four site, we could scrap a large proportion of the ambulance and paramedic service that deal with accidents in the street by simply telling people (of all ages) to be more careful. What and idiot! Bob Goulding

3:37pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Foursite says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Using your perverse logic, four site, we could scrap a large proportion of the ambulance and paramedic service that deal with accidents in the street by simply telling people (of all ages) to be more careful. What and idiot!
I don't think teaching Health & Safety at school is such a bad idea rather than putting that onus on businesses after leaving school.After all we are being prepared for the next 50 years of work. I use the same perverse logic as was the cycling proficiency test many years ago.? Harsh as it may sound I think this government is right.too many idiots putting lives at risk including their own.and as I said on previous occasions, if you don't like it .use your democratic right sign the petition force the debate and see what happens.make it an election issue.do something about it bang on a few doors if you passionate people collectively done this instead of talking about it or writing about it this may not be irreversible because you wont keep it otherwise. or by calling me an idiot. End of X
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: Using your perverse logic, four site, we could scrap a large proportion of the ambulance and paramedic service that deal with accidents in the street by simply telling people (of all ages) to be more careful. What and idiot![/p][/quote]I don't think teaching Health & Safety at school is such a bad idea rather than putting that onus on businesses after leaving school.After all we are being prepared for the next 50 years of work. I use the same perverse logic as was the cycling proficiency test many years ago.? Harsh as it may sound I think this government is right.too many idiots putting lives at risk including their own.and as I said on previous occasions, if you don't like it .use your democratic right sign the petition force the debate and see what happens.make it an election issue.do something about it bang on a few doors if you passionate people collectively done this instead of talking about it or writing about it this may not be irreversible because you wont keep it otherwise. or by calling me an idiot. End of X Foursite

5:07pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Bob Goulding says...

Foursite wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Using your perverse logic, four site, we could scrap a large proportion of the ambulance and paramedic service that deal with accidents in the street by simply telling people (of all ages) to be more careful. What and idiot!
I don't think teaching Health & Safety at school is such a bad idea rather than putting that onus on businesses after leaving school.After all we are being prepared for the next 50 years of work. I use the same perverse logic as was the cycling proficiency test many years ago.? Harsh as it may sound I think this government is right.too many idiots putting lives at risk including their own.and as I said on previous occasions, if you don't like it .use your democratic right sign the petition force the debate and see what happens.make it an election issue.do something about it bang on a few doors if you passionate people collectively done this instead of talking about it or writing about it this may not be irreversible because you wont keep it otherwise. or by calling me an idiot. End of X
We have collectively been 'banging on' about this issue from the moment the cuts were made public. I have already signed three petitions (two e-petitions and one paper petition) so I don't need your advice in this regard. The only course of action open to us is via the 'democratic process' using the power of verifiable evidence as well as professional and public opinion. We will continue to apply pressure now rather than wait for an election which any idiot knows will do nothing to further our objectives because, by then, it will be too late
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: Using your perverse logic, four site, we could scrap a large proportion of the ambulance and paramedic service that deal with accidents in the street by simply telling people (of all ages) to be more careful. What and idiot![/p][/quote]I don't think teaching Health & Safety at school is such a bad idea rather than putting that onus on businesses after leaving school.After all we are being prepared for the next 50 years of work. I use the same perverse logic as was the cycling proficiency test many years ago.? Harsh as it may sound I think this government is right.too many idiots putting lives at risk including their own.and as I said on previous occasions, if you don't like it .use your democratic right sign the petition force the debate and see what happens.make it an election issue.do something about it bang on a few doors if you passionate people collectively done this instead of talking about it or writing about it this may not be irreversible because you wont keep it otherwise. or by calling me an idiot. End of X[/p][/quote]We have collectively been 'banging on' about this issue from the moment the cuts were made public. I have already signed three petitions (two e-petitions and one paper petition) so I don't need your advice in this regard. The only course of action open to us is via the 'democratic process' using the power of verifiable evidence as well as professional and public opinion. We will continue to apply pressure now rather than wait for an election which any idiot knows will do nothing to further our objectives because, by then, it will be too late Bob Goulding

6:40pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Tillydog says...

Old Bob bites harder than me Foursite, he signs petition 3 times, what an idiot cheating will put Harold in jeopardy Foursite some people just don't like honesty.so pack it in now. Dog bless.
Old Bob bites harder than me Foursite, he signs petition 3 times, what an idiot cheating will put Harold in jeopardy Foursite some people just don't like honesty.so pack it in now. Dog bless. Tillydog

9:59pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Foursite says...

Hook,Line,and Sinker. .Merry Christmas to all.X
Hook,Line,and Sinker. .Merry Christmas to all.X Foursite

9:25am Fri 20 Dec 13

marabout says...

Dave Aitch wrote:
Post 2017 Scenario: Diver with symptoms of the bends at Portland Bill. Radio/mobile phone call made. CG coordinating. Scramble available SAR from available location. Lee or Culdrose. Add in flight time from either CU or LS. ( What ? Neither AC available? Both AC already airborne on tasking ? ) Diver ...... ??? If both AC available prioritise which AC to scramble depending on present weather at LS or CU. Time would be wasted if a strong head wind for LS SAR. Send CU SAR with strong tail wind...if it can start its rotors. Wind speed is above maximum rotor start limits. Have to send LS SAR. Time Time Time. Extra in flight time due to strong head wind. When they arrive on scene at PB, winch diver in to AC and fly to nearest available chamber. Poole chamber just gone U/S or in use. On to next one. Time Time Time. Not something a diver with the bends, has.
2013 Scenario: Elderly man falls off the end of PB. Severe head and other injuries sustained. CG/ambulance called. Portland CG calls SAR, based at PO which is already airborne on its AM check only minutes away. SAR on scene. Elderly man recovered and casevac to DCH LS or rugby field. No flight time from either CU or LS in the equation. Elderly man recovers due to timely rescue and lifesaving medical attention received. Time Time Time.
Which would you prefer if you were the elderly person or the diver ?
Thankfully the Rescue helicopter will not be arriving fem Culdrose as the SAR aircraft there is also closing down when the Sea King goes out of service in 2016.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Aitch[/bold] wrote: Post 2017 Scenario: Diver with symptoms of the bends at Portland Bill. Radio/mobile phone call made. CG coordinating. Scramble available SAR from available location. Lee or Culdrose. Add in flight time from either CU or LS. ( What ? Neither AC available? Both AC already airborne on tasking ? ) Diver ...... ??? If both AC available prioritise which AC to scramble depending on present weather at LS or CU. Time would be wasted if a strong head wind for LS SAR. Send CU SAR with strong tail wind...if it can start its rotors. Wind speed is above maximum rotor start limits. Have to send LS SAR. Time Time Time. Extra in flight time due to strong head wind. When they arrive on scene at PB, winch diver in to AC and fly to nearest available chamber. Poole chamber just gone U/S or in use. On to next one. Time Time Time. Not something a diver with the bends, has. 2013 Scenario: Elderly man falls off the end of PB. Severe head and other injuries sustained. CG/ambulance called. Portland CG calls SAR, based at PO which is already airborne on its AM check only minutes away. SAR on scene. Elderly man recovered and casevac to DCH LS or rugby field. No flight time from either CU or LS in the equation. Elderly man recovers due to timely rescue and lifesaving medical attention received. Time Time Time. Which would you prefer if you were the elderly person or the diver ?[/p][/quote]Thankfully the Rescue helicopter will not be arriving fem Culdrose as the SAR aircraft there is also closing down when the Sea King goes out of service in 2016. marabout

9:39am Fri 20 Dec 13

Bob Goulding says...

Tillydog wrote:
Old Bob bites harder than me Foursite, he signs petition 3 times, what an idiot cheating will put Harold in jeopardy Foursite some people just don't like honesty.so pack it in now. Dog bless.
Three different petitions at different times.
[quote][p][bold]Tillydog[/bold] wrote: Old Bob bites harder than me Foursite, he signs petition 3 times, what an idiot cheating will put Harold in jeopardy Foursite some people just don't like honesty.so pack it in now. Dog bless.[/p][/quote]Three different petitions at different times. Bob Goulding

10:30am Fri 20 Dec 13

Dave Aitch says...

FAO marabout:
Thankfully the Rescue helicopter will not be arriving fem Culdrose as the SAR aircraft there is also closing down when the Sea King goes out of service in 2016.

Really ?! No SAR facility in SW England after 2016 ?
FAO marabout: Thankfully the Rescue helicopter will not be arriving fem Culdrose as the SAR aircraft there is also closing down when the Sea King goes out of service in 2016. Really ?! No SAR facility in SW England after 2016 ? Dave Aitch

1:10pm Fri 20 Dec 13

monkeydog says...

Foursite wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Using your perverse logic, four site, we could scrap a large proportion of the ambulance and paramedic service that deal with accidents in the street by simply telling people (of all ages) to be more careful. What and idiot!
I don't think teaching Health & Safety at school is such a bad idea rather than putting that onus on businesses after leaving school.After all we are being prepared for the next 50 years of work. I use the same perverse logic as was the cycling proficiency test many years ago.? Harsh as it may sound I think this government is right.too many idiots putting lives at risk including their own.and as I said on previous occasions, if you don't like it .use your democratic right sign the petition force the debate and see what happens.make it an election issue.do something about it bang on a few doors if you passionate people collectively done this instead of talking about it or writing about it this may not be irreversible because you wont keep it otherwise. or by calling me an idiot. End of X
I have struggled to understand your posts. Presumably you believe that anyone in danger through any reason other than natural causes or Acts of God should be left to fend for themselves or wait just that little bit longer for help. Hopefully i never have to rely on someone like you.
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: Using your perverse logic, four site, we could scrap a large proportion of the ambulance and paramedic service that deal with accidents in the street by simply telling people (of all ages) to be more careful. What and idiot![/p][/quote]I don't think teaching Health & Safety at school is such a bad idea rather than putting that onus on businesses after leaving school.After all we are being prepared for the next 50 years of work. I use the same perverse logic as was the cycling proficiency test many years ago.? Harsh as it may sound I think this government is right.too many idiots putting lives at risk including their own.and as I said on previous occasions, if you don't like it .use your democratic right sign the petition force the debate and see what happens.make it an election issue.do something about it bang on a few doors if you passionate people collectively done this instead of talking about it or writing about it this may not be irreversible because you wont keep it otherwise. or by calling me an idiot. End of X[/p][/quote]I have struggled to understand your posts. Presumably you believe that anyone in danger through any reason other than natural causes or Acts of God should be left to fend for themselves or wait just that little bit longer for help. Hopefully i never have to rely on someone like you. monkeydog

10:41pm Fri 20 Dec 13

marabout says...

Dave Aitch wrote:
FAO marabout:
Thankfully the Rescue helicopter will not be arriving fem Culdrose as the SAR aircraft there is also closing down when the Sea King goes out of service in 2016.

Really ?! No SAR facility in SW England after 2016 ?
Nope.

There will be plenty of SAR facilities in the SW but that will not include a helicopter from Culdrose.

It will include RNLI, Coastguard and volunteer rescue agencies. It will also include a Rescue helicopter from Newquay. We will have the Royal Navy ships and aircraft available as well as police, fire and ambulance services.


The decision to rationalise SAR helicopters is correctly a financial despising and frankly we cannot afford a helicopter at Portland. The process of selecting future SAR bases was a proper procedure.

If the local populace of Weymouth want a rescue helicopter at Portland perhaps we could increase the council tax in order to pay for it.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Aitch[/bold] wrote: FAO marabout: Thankfully the Rescue helicopter will not be arriving fem Culdrose as the SAR aircraft there is also closing down when the Sea King goes out of service in 2016. Really ?! No SAR facility in SW England after 2016 ?[/p][/quote]Nope. There will be plenty of SAR facilities in the SW but that will not include a helicopter from Culdrose. It will include RNLI, Coastguard and volunteer rescue agencies. It will also include a Rescue helicopter from Newquay. We will have the Royal Navy ships and aircraft available as well as police, fire and ambulance services. The decision to rationalise SAR helicopters is correctly a financial despising and frankly we cannot afford a helicopter at Portland. The process of selecting future SAR bases was a proper procedure. If the local populace of Weymouth want a rescue helicopter at Portland perhaps we could increase the council tax in order to pay for it. marabout

11:19am Mon 23 Dec 13

ronfogg says...

Another resounding success for Mr Drax. Obviously a man with great influence at Westminster
Another resounding success for Mr Drax. Obviously a man with great influence at Westminster ronfogg

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree