I agree, SARMM does a great job of evaluating methods and pushing new training requirements. Bottom line though, SAR crewman can't push meds, fluids, or blood. Essentially they are excellent at doing one thing, keeping someone alive within 10 miles of the boat or 20 minutes of a trauma center. As far as the unit SAR eval goes, it's not really that tough. When I was the Command SAR PO of HSC-22 I led two unit evals. The training is canned, the scenarios are the same as they've been for 30 years, and you have your best crew running them. It's not hard to pluck an uninjured survivor out of the water when you have your Command SAR PO, the SAR Officer, and two other hand picked crew playing the game.I guess I don't see the need for additional school - the product as well as the checks on standardization are pretty rigorous. HSC-3 SARMM doesn't mess around.
I think you answered your own question there.Additionally - overland rescue is far more complicated and would require significant investment in pilot training for mountain flying as well as specialized training for crewmen (e.g. short haul, rappel).
The CG is light years ahead of the Navy with respect to training, equipment, and doctrine. When I left the community in 2008, we were using a version of the TRI-SAR the CG had abandoned 6 years prior. They have radios that actually work in the water. They have SAR crewman who are more effective at keeping someone alive, administering more than basic combat-level first aid. They have better medical equipment at their disposal. They have better training facilities and crewman who are proficient and knowledgeable about survival equipment. The Advanced SAR school at Cape Disappointment has long been the industry standard in bad weather Maritime SAR, but I can count on one hand the number of Navy swimmers who've attended.
As far as the AF owning the overland SAR mission, the same could be said for the CSAR/PR mission as well. I haven't seen that stop us from beating our heads against that wall yet.