In recent weeks, Estonia has seen lively debate over the future of the country's aviation capability. On the table is an investment of roughly a quarter‑billion euros and a proposal to renew the Police and Border Guard Board's (PPA) existing helicopter fleet and expand it to five helicopters plus an additional surveillance aircraft. The goal is noble: to ensure better rescue capability, medical assistance, border security and fulfillment of NATO‑related obligations. No one is likely to argue with that — nor do I.

I have been the head of the PPA's Air Unit and have spent much of my life working with helicopters or leading such units. I know very well how important it is that a person in distress at sea receives help, that a missing person is found, and that the state has the aviation capability it needs in peacetime, crisis and wartime.

The problem exists — that is clear — but will five new helicopters and a surveillance aircraft solve it? In leadership, a simple principle applies: if you do the same things the same way, you should not expect a different result.

Much has been said about the low availability of the existing AW139 helicopters, long maintenance times and the aging fleet's inability to ensure the required readiness. Air Unit head Rain Jõeveer has also highlighted this, noting that maintenance takes a long time.

The AW139 is actually a very capable aircraft used successfully around the world, primarily for transporting people but also for search and rescue, security and medical missions.

The problem lies more in how the system as a whole functions. As a government agency, one must follow procurement and procedural rules that make maintenance processes significantly slower than in the private sector. Maintenance often uncovers additional work and parts that need replacing. That means new procedures, new approvals and often new procurements. As a result, a helicopter may sit in maintenance for months — sometimes even over a year — as Interior Minister Igor Taro has also noted.

So if our biggest problem is long maintenance times, why is the first solution to buy more helicopters instead of changing the maintenance system?

My experience working with medical helicopters in the United Kingdom showed that a 1,200‑hour maintenance typically took a couple of weeks, not months. Therefore, before buying new equipment, we should analyze whether the bottlenecks in the existing system lie in the machines or in the processes.

Another question needs an honest answer: must the state provide all aviation services itself? Right now we are trying to use the same system to perform very different tasks — including maritime search and rescue, medical flights, border surveillance, special‑operations support and crisis response.

Is one universal solution the best for all these tasks? My experience says that every job requires the right tool. A car repair shop does not use a Swiss Army knife for every task.

Medical flights are a good example. Most European countries have created specialized HEMS systems designed to bring medical care to the patient as quickly as possible. In Estonia, the NGO Estonian Air Ambulance has for years pointed out that a rescue helicopter and an air‑ambulance helicopter are not the same thing. A large maritime rescue helicopter is an excellent tool at sea, but is it always the best solution for helping a single patient quickly? This question deserves at least a discussion.

The same applies to transporting special‑operations units. If the goal is to move a larger fully equipped unit, we must honestly assess whether the chosen platform meets the actual need.

In my view, we should not look only at helicopters. We must analyze the entire system. Estonia's population is aging, and healthcare is increasingly concentrating specialized services. Smaller county hospitals are reducing some services, and treatment of complex cases is shifting to regional centers. This means rapid patient transport will become even more important in the future.

At the same time, we have not solved even basic infrastructure issues. Both the North Estonia Medical Centre and Tartu University Hospital have for years planned modern helipads, but due to procurement delays and rising construction costs, priority has shifted to developing main hospital buildings and care environments.

Elsewhere in Europe, the focus is more on developing people and systems rather than pouring millions into concrete. Therefore, helicopter capability should be assessed together with ambulance reform, hospital network development, regional policy and investments in healthcare.

Equally important is evaluating aviation capability from a national‑defense perspective. In recent years, Estonia has already shown willingness to change long‑standing structures. A good example is the maritime sector, where part of maritime surveillance capability and larger vessels were moved under the Navy's responsibility. The state decided to look at the whole picture and consolidate similar capabilities where they were considered most effective.

The same discussion should take place in aviation. Yes, the discussion has been held, but it has always stalled due to institutional motivations to implement changes without rationally considering the bigger picture.

Estonia is investing unprecedented amounts in national defense, and the security environment around us has changed. In crisis or war, aviation capability means not only rescue and border surveillance but also situational awareness, intelligence, transport, evacuation and supporting allied operations. Having done this myself in real wartime conditions, it is sad to see that we rely almost entirely on allied help in this field.

Therefore, before making a quarter‑billion‑euro investment, we must ask what role PPA aviation capability has in crisis and war, and whether its development and management are placed at the right long‑term level.

The analysis must look at the whole picture and assess how ambulance reform, the hospital network, regional policy, aviation, maritime rescue, national defense, NATO obligations and Estonia's next twenty years of investments fit together. Only then can we say with confidence that we have found a solution that is not best for one agency or ministry, but best for Estonia as a whole.

Estonia is too small a country to afford bad investments — but not so foolish as to avoid necessary ones. That is why the real issue is not five helicopters or a quarter‑billion euros, but what kind of Estonia we are building for the next twenty years. One where each agency develops its capabilities separately, or one where the entire system works toward a single goal?

If we invest a quarter‑billion euros, we must buy not only machines but more safety, more saved lives, stronger national defense and a better future for the people of Estonia. Equipment ages, organizations change, but well‑made strategic decisions serve Estonia for decades.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!