Interesting times in Aussie SAR/EMS

[Scattercat]

Media release 30/12/06

Joint Statement:
Premier and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Peter Beattie

Minister for Emergency Services
The Honourable Pat Purcell

Saturday, December 30, 2006

ADDITIONAL FUNDING IMPROVES RESCUE HELICOPTER SAFETY


Queensland Premier Peter Beattie and Minister for Emergency Services Pat Purcell have announced $7.2 million additional funding over the next four years for the Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) Helicopter Rescue service, as part of the State Government’s mid-year budget review.

The additional funding will supplement the $48.3 million previously provided to purchase three new state-of-the-art Augusta Westland 139 (AW139) helicopters.

Mr Beattie said the funding announced today would enable the seamless operational implementation of the AW139 helicopters into service beginning in mid 2007.

The funding will ultimately improve service delivery through several initiatives, including funding the transition to dual pilot Instrument Flight Rules operations.

“Rescue helicopter pilots are often required to operate under challenging conditions, day or night, in all types of weather in order to provide life-saving aero-medical and rescue services to Queensland communities,” Mr Beattie said.

“By funding the transition to dual pilot Instrument Flight Rules, we will be setting a new standard in Australian aero-medical retrieval, significantly improving safety standards for both the rescue crew and patients by reducing the risks associated with a single pilot operating a helicopter in difficult conditions.

“The AW139 helicopters have an enhanced capacity to perform challenging operations at night, over water and in a wider range of weather conditions.

“By moving to dual pilot operations, we will be ensuring these additional capabilities can be used,” Mr Beattie said.

Mr Purcell said the funding would also allow the 16 current EMQ Helicopter Rescue air crew officers to be trained as co-pilots, as well as training and re-certification of current pilots and maintenance engineers on the AW139 helicopters.

“The Department of Emergency Services provides world class training programs to all staff and volunteers, and the additional funding announced today will ensure this is applied to EMQ helicopter rescue staff requiring training to operate the new AW139 helicopter fleet,” Mr Purcell said.

“All current pilots and engineers will undertake extensive training to become proficient in AW139 aircraft operation and maintenance, and the current air crew officers, who already perform many of the co-pilot functions, will be trained to operate as co-pilots, reducing flight risk and boosting operational functionality.”

The new AW139 helicopters will be based in Brisbane, Townsville, and Cairns and are faster, carry more fuel, carry more equipment, have a longer range, and are significantly quicker than the current fleet.



Media enquiries: Premier’s office 3224 4500

Tim Shipstone 0409 620 571

30 December 2006

[skidbita]

Does this mean the AW139 will not be certified SPIFR??

Lucky crewies..... licence paid for and first job flying the 139 at 105hrs

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

Great news for the guys at EMQ and in the industry in general!!!

It would appear to most that EMQ are leading the way in EMS/SAR in terms of best equipment (Government funding always helps...and it should be this way anyway) and also in relation to best practice. :D

The aircrew officers at EMQ have already been acting as co-pilots in a non-flying fashion for years, as have many other aircrewman across the Australian industry for many years following the advent of multi-engine IFR operations in EMS/SAR. Its a step in the right direction and the organisation should be applauded for the all hard work that would have gone into getting this through the Government bureaucracy.

Well done guys and all the best.

PS. Lucky crewies for sure, but they will certainly have their work cut out for them starting out on such an advanced machine...given their operational backgrounds, it probably will not prove to be much of problem.

[sea breeze]

Sounds like Aussie Governments finally funding their Aero-medical systems to the level that they so deserve, Congratulations. Exciting times ahead for the new generation of EMS crews as the days of the charity machines are coming to an end due to technology and customer demand are pricing them out of business.

[imabell]

The aircrew officers at EMQ have already been acting as co-pilots in a non-flying fashion for years

please explain ?????

[SMOUFW]

You would need a truck load of lemons to wipe the smile off the face of a EMQ aircrew officer at the moment. Good luck to them.

I wonder if any of them are happy just being a crewie and don't want a free CPL(H) plus AW139 Endorsement?(could that be possible?)

SMO

[imabell]

I wonder if any of them are happy just being a crewie and don't want a free CPL(H) plus AW139 Endorsement?(could that be possible?)



in most cases it is absolutely possible.

a quite unfathomable idea to most at emq.

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

IMABELL...What I should have amplified earlier is that my understanding of what the aircrew officer guys do as non-flying co-pilots is all the duties associated with piloting, except for the actual hands on controls flying ie checklist readouts and cross checks, radio and NAVAID frequency selection, reading approach plates, managing the majority of the radio traffic, calling heights, airspeeds etc etc. Now I guess they actually get a pole and will be able to fly the machine should anything happen to the PIC. I am sure this set-up can only boost the current CRM and overall safe conduct of every tasking they undertake to complete.

As for the smiles being removed from their faces, you'd think only plastic surgery would remove their smiles at this point. It would be interesting to hear if any of the guys do not want to complete their CPL's in order to act as co-pilots. I am sure the machines will still fly if a few of the aircrew officers choose not to do their CPL's, however, it would be quite bizarre that people would not accept what is essentially a free CPL. Wish I had been an aircrew officer now!?!?!?:rolleyes:

[Oogle]

What is more important in this whole scenario...... Being a competent aircrewman or a co-pilot??

150 hours co-pilot and being asked to take over control if the aircraft is in IMC?? Good luck.

This co-pilot/crewman thing is VERY difficult to implement and maintain.

They will need the extra $7 million a year just to keep the captains and (now) co-pilots current year round. Poor check and training captain and base managers now have to keep current another 16 co-pilots as well as the current captains. :ugh:

I'm sure a few training schools around Brissy/Gold Coast/Sunshine Coast are gearing up to win the training contract for the 16 students!! :E

Good luck with it but I'm glad I am not in charge of getting this implemented. :sad:

[topendtorque]

aircrew officer!?!?!?:rolleyes:



Lick my finger, flick a few more pages, must be here somewhere??

[Loose Mast Nut]

For those that are unaware, the 139 has obtained Single Pilot IFR status in Europe [surprise surprise considering the Italian influence] but not in the USA.

And its stated as unlikely that full Single Pilot IFR will be granted by the FAA until after delivery of the first 139 into Queensland.

So unless the folk with Red Faces want to admit that CASA maynot accept the JAR Folks Certification and wait on the FAA accreditation, then they had better convince the Premier to give funds for Dual Pilot training to maintain IFR capacity.

Or go VFR.

Smoke screens are absolutely wonderful.

[gulliBell]

Could someone in the know elaborate on the crewman/co-pilot role? Say for example, is the co-pilot to perform all co-pilot duties in the IFR enroute phase, and then when they arrive at the destination, he get's out of the co-pilot seat and hops in the back to man the winch. And when that is done, he jumps back up the front for the return to base? What if it was a night over-water winching mission, will there be a co-pilot actually in the co-pilot seat during the winch? What about flights over-water generally, if there is a ditching will there be a crewman in the back at all times to assist the passengers with evacuation, or will he be riding up-front flying?
It is an admirable move to have the aircrewmen trained and competent to perform a flying role, as long as it doesn't detract from the function of aircrewman. To my way of thinking, it is better to have 2 pilots up front and an aircrewman in the back, at all times.

[helmet fire]

From the press release:
“By funding the transition to dual pilot Instrument Flight Rules, we will be setting a new standard in Australian aero-medical retrieval,
You mean: "following a previously set two pilot IFR retrieval operation established 11 years ago in 1995". :ok:

I believe we have a great system in Australian EMS with a SPIFR capable aircraft crewed by a SPIFR captain and a crewman trained to copilot standards to complement the winching/mission radio and nav management. Seems to be the best of both worlds. The challenge has always been establishing the training standards, competencies and CRM to make that happen, and each organisation will believe they have "the worlds best practice".

To my knowledge, only Hunter Rescue and CareFlight NSW send their crewman overseas to the simulator with the pilots as a true indication that they fully support this mix. And seabreeze, ....they are charities.

What EMQ are doing is not innovative, but it does up the competency levels required of crewmen these days, and more importantly to me, shows a real investment on the personnel of the industry which is to be loudly applauded. Congratulations and well done.

I am sure that the commercial companies will be hot on their heels wont they seabreeze?

[Oogle]

While the QLD Govt. is throwing ridiculous amounts of money around to fund their own service, they may as well put the Captains through a winch operator's course!

Then everyone on board will be truly dual rated! :eek:

[Rocker]

[QUOTE=flungdung;3047404] "I for one would much rather fly as PIC with a QR crewie who has 105 hours as pilot and 2000 as a crewie than most 1000 hour co-pilots with no SAR/EMS experience."

I'm sure the crewies at QR are spot-on with their experience and will perform great in their dual role position. Congrats to them for a great opportunity.
However, wouldn't it make more sense to hire qualified pilots and train them as crew? True, 1000 hour co-pilots with no SAR/EMS experience may not perform as well as the seasoned crewies - in the beginning. Everyone is new at some point in their career - even a crewie. Also, who says it needs to be a 1000 co-pilot? QR is a very desirable place for a career pilot. Perhaps a 2 or 3000 hour pilot would love to transition through a co-pilot position even if it means performing a dual role. It would be considerably cheaper for the gov't and provide a career track for future PIC's. It's a lot easier to promote an experienced co-pilot from within than hire from the outside. I would venture to say there are many medium to high time single-engine pilots who would love to transition into EMS, but lack the multi-engine experience. Some of these pilots would do an excellent job with the right training, but due to insurance requirements they are shut out of EMS.

If insurance companies are so restrictive about EMS operators hiring PIC's with less than 500 hours multi-engine experience (regardless of other experience), how are they comfortable hiring a 150 hour co-pilot with no multi-engine experience?

Should experienced pilots now apply for a crewie position and then transition into a pilot spot? Yes, it's a joke, but I can't be the only one who thought it!

Cheers!

Rock

[Shirtless]

For those that are unaware, the 139 has obtained Single Pilot IFR status in Europe [surprise surprise considering the Italian influence] but not in the USA.

And its stated as unlikely that full Single Pilot IFR will be granted by the FAA until after delivery of the first 139 into Queensland.

So unless the folk with Red Faces want to admit that CASA maynot accept the JAR Folks Certification and wait on the FAA accreditation, then they had better convince the Premier to give funds for Dual Pilot training to maintain IFR capacity.

Or go VFR.

Smoke screens are absolutely wonderful.

There's no smoke screen other than from the US....CASA will accept both EASA and FAA approvals. In fact EASA is more stringent than the FAA in most things aviation and CASA is well aware of this. I've seen the EASA paperwork approving SPIFR and I've flown the 139 with the SPIFR fitout and it is a far more capable SPIFR machine than some of the SPIFR helos we have flying in Australia.
Remember that Bell pulled out of the 139 because they have a vested interest in promoting the 429 as the competitor to the 139 and knowing the Yanks the FAA will make sure they look after their own!

[imabell]

a very good idea rocker,

from now on the emq should not hire a crewie that is not a commercially rated pilot with instrument rating and bags of hours.

i heard that the crewies will have to take a pay cut to take on a flying role as co-pilot.

exactly oogle.

[Loose Mast Nut]

I am not suggesting either Certification Agency is better than the other. They both have to ensure compliance with their ICAO responsibilities.

My statement is that CASA has NOT [at this stage] certified the aircraft as Single Pilot IFR therefore has not accepted the European certification automatically as it does [normally] the FAA certification, and there is a general feeling that it won't by the time the aircraft arrives into Australia.
I believe that date has slipped into 2008 by the way.

[rotorque]

Are there any EMQ drivers without ATPL(H)?

Multi-crew changes things a bit for any that don't yet have it....

I know you have it 'scattercat' ;)

[Shirtless]

My statement is that CASA has NOT [at this stage] certified the aircraft as Single Pilot IFR therefore has not accepted the European certification automatically as it does [normally] the FAA certification, and there is a general feeling that it won't by the time the aircraft arrives into Australia.
I believe that date has slipped into 2008 by the way.

True CASA has not certified it yet because there is not one here yet to C of A.....but CASA now will accept both EASA and FAA certifications equally.

I don't believe that the decision is motivated by some two pilot IFR requirement or the threat of it....otherwise they would hire co-pilots for permanent placement in the LHS. The crewperson has important duties in the back as well and can't be in both places all the time......hey Willo / Kempo how about stopping this thread dead by telling us the true phyilosphy behind this? Being Government it would of taken much time, effort and motivation to get this through the red tape.

[rivnut]

Your words ring true Shirtless! There is more to this than just 2 pilot IFR....could it be that by being licensed that the crewies are now subject to the same legal rules and regulations as are pilots? Same scrutiny by CASA with flight and duty times, etc....

Maybe this is the only way to get the recognition that the crewies deserve and will surely upset private contrators and NGO's! The QLD gov't should be applauded for taking on this financial risk...which is more than you can say for their counterparts down South!

[Shortarz]

"Maybe this is the only way to get the recognition that the crewies deserve"

rivnut

Please explain??

Surely these guy's are professional enough to do the job for reasons other than recognition.

Does anybody in the know have any idea how the crewies actually feel about this?? What about any that don't want to be EMQ co-pilots.

[rivnut]

"Maybe this is the only way to get the recognition that the crewies deserve"

rivnut

Please explain??


What I was alluding to is that crewies not being licensed have and still do, I'm sure, get abused to certain extent with duty times and minimum rest periods. Have known crewies to be asked (made to) work double shifts or more than 7 days straight or with rest periods less than 8 hours before starting another shift on the basis that they are not licensed and hence not under CASA scrutiny. Sure this does not happen often and not sure about these days with company resposibilities and threats of litigation but in the past when I was active in EMS I saw quite a bit of it.
Sure many of the crewies jumped at the chance to earn extra money doing so but at the end of the day as the PIC I want the crewy sitting in the LHS assisting me under difficult IF and night conditions to be as sharp as I'm expected to be.
Being licensed means that the crewy sitting in the LHS will have to comply with the same duty limits as the pilot even if or she doesn't want to.

[sea breeze]

EMQ is a government run operation to my understanding. I ask why would they go to the cost level of training flight crew just to bring them under CASA regs for flight duty time, when they just need to introduce it into their SOP’s. CASA requires Pilots to work to flight duty hours but the area of operational flight crew is left to the operators. Any responsible company would place a flight duty time on their crew to minimise their risk exposure to in flight or work place incidents.

CASA rules are in place for guidance and for limits. There is no rule to state that flight and duty limits can only apply to pilots, the same could be applied to engineers, crew and management if a company is responsible enough.

These limits may vary to hour duration but assessed on work to be performed and risk associated with it.

[someplace]

Can anybody answer gullibell's question ( with some authority ) or was it to hard.

[Arm out the window]

I'm not involved in this kind of work, but it seems a strange idea on the face of it.
If they're saying two pilots are needed, it wouldn't be the cruise segments that would be critical, it'd be when they were searching / descending / approaching / winching etc - the very times when the crewie is probably going to be vacating the front seat to do his job in the back. Not a great scenario CRM-wise.
If, as someone said above, the crewies are good at flying the aircraft, how does that work, unless they're licenced and receiving instruction, or rated, and employed in a pilot role with the company? Or do they have some exemption allowing them to do this?
Two pilots makes sense, but not if one of them has to stretch him or herself between two sometimes conflicting roles.
Why don't they want two pilots and a crewman full time? Is it the money factor?

[Oogle]

It was an EMQ helicopter that rescued the Capricorn Bell407 crew off Rockhampton some years ago - at first light. These type of rescues can only be safely carried out with two instrument rated pilots

If this rescue/winch operation was carried out at first light (which it was), why do you need two instrument rated pilots up front?? :hmm:

Another question... why the need to have an ATPL(H) to fly the AW139? EMS/SAR work in Australia is classed as aerial work.

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

To hazard a half educated guess to some of the questions posted earlier, I can only imagine that:

1) Reason for not employing a second full-time co-pilot and having a crewman in the back at all times adds extra weight to the aircraft and also adds to the salary budget, which in this case would be around 16 extra co-jos, going from what the media report said. That soon adds up to quite a bit of money...so first of all, extra weight and salaries to fork out for. There are always going to be sacrifices in world that has restrictions and is not perfect.

2) I think the aircrew officers/aircrewman they employ are very experienced operationally and it would be a huge loss to not take advantage of that knowledge and experience. There is an argument for employing an experienced crewman with 1000hrs of crewing plus a bare CPL vs a 1000hrs VFR pilot from a more secluded part of general aviation...operationally, who would perform better? I personally would prefer the crewman next to me. Nothing against the 1000hr guy or gal who could probably fly basic VFR stuff better than the crewan, but would not have that operational or IFR or CRM experience. Food for thought.

3) I believe that SAR/EMS these days in the land of Oz is made up of around 70% plus hospital transfers (ie point to point IFR) and the rest is primary stuff (ie the occasional winch, road side landing etc). So for the greater majority of the time you will have a co-pilot up front for IFR operations and the remainder of the time, when its required for the crewman to be in the back, that small proportion of time they are away from the cockpit and winching or providing a clearance etc...So overall, in my humble opinion, it sounds like the crewman will never be too far away from the front of the aircraft. Besides, with a paramedic, (maybe even a nurse on some jobs) and doctor and rescue crew down/the wire guy in the back, how many more people do you need back there? As for training a crewman, it takes quite a bit to train someone in overall operations. Winching is not as easy and straight forward as some people would think, having seen some crewman I have worked with get people in and out of some very tight spots in very trying conditions. Overall, its the operational experience which is so hard to get and it takes time to get that...time that a co-pilot off the street would take years to obtain.

Anyway, that is my humble few words to help answer some of the questions people have asked. Overall, sounds like a good gig and like anything in this world, no matter what you do, there will always be people who knock you and applaud you for different reasons. I still think a huge applause is due...its creating some opportunities for a lot of people and its bettering the industry as a whole, regardless of how they choose to implement this new strategy.

[imabell]

one of the ironies of this whole idea is that you cannot get from the front seat to the back of a 139 while the machine is in flight, there is a bloody great bulkhead in the way.

one of the prereqisites of the tender is that you could move back.
the 139 i had a look at makes it impossible.

the crewies that take this up,(and a few wont), will have to take a pay cut from their $65,000+ paypacket to get what a co pilot currently gets.

a lot of the crewies are well over 40, some 48 and over fifty and they don't need a change late in life.

the crewies will never be given full command and cannot move up if a captain retires. :{

oogle, you are right, the rescue operation that picked up the 407 crew had gone to the reef to pick up the crew of a stricken yacht and found the crashed helicopter when they arrived.

the 412 guys won't do a night winch even with auto hover because they rarely use it and are not always up to speed. another good sop from qr.

[imabell]

flungdung, that's right,

i was pointing out that the crewies are getting a lot more pay than an industry co pilot is getting currently under the award, so you would have to think that the co pilots wages should be raised rather than the crewies being lowered, either way it is a problem as i don't think this has been allowed for in the new eba under consideration.

some interesting news may be forthcoming.

there is a bit of head shaking going on in bris vegas

ps. both brisbane and townsville declined the task that ended up rescuing the capricorn crew because the standard operating procedures in place at emq strictly prohibits night winches over water. if i remember one machine had auto hover the other did not. capricorn did not have any such procedures.

[Rocker]

There is an argument for employing an experienced crewman with 1000hrs of crewing plus a bare CPL vs a 1000hrs VFR pilot from a more secluded part of general aviation...operationally, who would perform better? I personally would prefer the crewman next to me. Nothing against the 1000hr guy or gal who could probably fly basic VFR stuff better than the crewan, but would not have that operational or IFR or CRM experience. Food for thought.
As for training a crewman, it takes quite a bit to train someone in overall operations. Winching is not as easy and straight forward as some people would think, having seen some crewman I have worked with get people in and out of some very tight spots in very trying conditions. Overall, its the operational experience which is so hard to get and it takes time to get that...time that a co-pilot off the street would take years to obtain.

RW,
Comparing a 1000hr crewman with a 1000hr VFR pilot is not a compelling argument. As I said in my previous post, why do you need to hire a co-pilot with only 1,000hrs who can only fly basic VFR? There are pilots available for the position with 2000 hours or higher. Some of these pilots even have instrument ratings with IFR experience. Also, some of these potential pilots even have multi-crew experience, perhaps in a similar EMS operation. Either way, everyone is new to the operation at some point. Some will learn and adapt quicker than others. You say it will take a co-pilot off the street years to obtain operational experience. I say this depends on the previous experience of the pilot among many other personal traits.
You seem to value operational experience over flying experience. Of course, ops experience is very important. However, the biggest task of the pilot is flying the aircraft and there is much more to flying than just being able to move the controls and read the gauges. What about the years it takes to obtain the pilot skills necessary for this type of work?
My personal opinion is pilots should be hired to perform pilot duties and crewies should be hired to perform crewie duties. Each is equally important to the operation. However, the jobs are very different and appeal differently to each person. If the crewies wanted to be pilots, wouldn’t they have gotten a license by now? My understanding is they are required to pass a few theory exams already. Also, I’m sure there have been opportunities to log 412 hours. Maybe, just maybe, they enjoy being a crewie for all of its challenges and have no interest in being a pilot. Are the crewies who have no interest in being a pilot going to be forced to go through flight school? That’s not a smart move.
Rock

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

Rocker - You raised some valid, correct and constructive comments...stuff I had not considered, so thanks. I am sure there are plenty of guys around who would like to do some co-pilot stuff, but given the chance to advance to a PIC position, I am sure it would become a revolving door for the co-pilots in no time at all, as EMS positions seem pretty stable throughout the land of Oz.

I am sure there would be aircrew guys or girls there who may not want to change from being crewies and I am sure this has been factored into the whole idea...is the AW139 not certified for SPIFR anyway? The way of the world these days is to always improve and ongoing study requirements are seemingly becoming a constant in order to stay ahead of the next person and generally better oneself. If it means doing a CPL for those who want to, then great for them. For those who don't, that is fine also...its probably going to become the way of the future and become industry best-practice so once those operators move on, the new standard will probably become a CPL combined with crewing. As for the argument of not really wanting to be pilots, that is true...however, the guys are basically doing the role of a pilot at present, with the exception of actually flying hands on.

Either way you look at it, sure it would be great to have two full-time pilots onboard at all times, however the machine can be flown SPIFR (or so I believe it can be) and having a trained co-pilot next to them, who also doubles as an aircrewman is a huge advantage. I am sure if cost and weight were no option, they'd go for a dual pilot configuration for flight. Once you add up a once off basic CPL for 16 odd aircrewman vs 16 odd co-pilots on full-time wages for however long they use two pilots, the savings are substantial in terms of training the aircrew officers to start with. Add to this their operational background (albeit limited flying background), its the best case scenario given what they have to work with. Its a step forward whichever way you look at it, which is always better then a step backwards.

Are their any aircrew from within who are for/against the idea. Anyone from EMQ care to comment? Be interesting to hear general thoughts.

[Shortarz]

Quote: "...however, the guys are basically doing the role of a pilot at present, with the exception of actually flying hands on."

Jack: Are you quite sure about this??? No disrespect to the individual crewies intended, however I understand that a number of the (older) EMQ crewies have basically been dragged "kicking" into the LHS role. Will these same people now embrace the role of co-piloting (in the true sense of the word) the most advanced SAR/EMS aircraft in Australia??

It seems to me that this whole idea raises many more questions than it solves.

Does anybody actually know if the AW139 is (will be) certified SPIFR by CASA in Australia?? Or will EMQ have to wait until they bring the first a/c into country?

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

Shortarz...I can only go on what I hear and read and by the sounds of it, most aircrewman in EMS/SAR in Australia are basically non-flying co-pilots, or heading that way...its been an evoluntionary process as the machines and missions undertaken have become more advanced and difficult respectively.

I personally think the days of having a sole pilot and a sole aircrewman working separately in the machine are slowly coming to an end ie having a bloke at the sharp end and one at the blunt end and never the two jobs shall mix...they are limited as the game has changed over the years and these guys and girls are flying more missions, some of which have a much higher risk profile then years before. From a basic CRM perspective, this alone has made significant changes to flight safety and I am sure the next step in this evoluntionary process for these types of operators is to be trained to a higher standard for their role. If that means learning to fly, then it means learning to fly.

I think that aircrewies at EMQ are being offered a pretty good opportunity to advanced themselves professionally and anything thrown at me by a company to better by skills and possibly my earning potential, I am all for it. Some people embrace change better then others, and it might just be that some people do not like change and like things just the way they are. Others are all for being taken out of their comfort zone.

Look around the world and have a look at what most of the really good operators are doing. They are training ALL personnel who fly on a machine to be more aware of, and proactive towards contributing to flight safety, from police observers to flight nurses to regular pax who charter aircraft and conduct some form of airwork.

At the end of the day, its an opportunity worth $45,000 odd dollars per person for training being offered to these operators which provides for some professional development and improved safety for all concerned...the PIC, the Aircrew Officer/Co-pilot, the medical staff onboard, the patient, the patients relatives etc etc. I still think good on this organisation for making some very positive changes towards bettering the overall EMS/SAR side of Australian EMS/SAR and the industry as a hole. :D

[spinwing]

Mmmm....

Well whatever happens and however it is done .... the empire that will be built and then controlled by ??? will be only second to Nat. Safety Council Air Wing (remember them) in complexity .... already some of the proposed decisions look dodgy!

Crewies as co-pilots on that class of machine is a silly concept. If you want a professional operation you use TRAINED and PROFICIANT pilots to drive and TRAINED and PROFICIANT crewies to do the lookout, paramedic stuff and winch operating.

Good luck Queensland... :uhoh:

:E

[SMOUFW]

Jack said

''At the end of the day, its an opportunity worth $45,000 odd dollars per person for training being offered.....''

If you mean It costs$45k to bring online a CPL(h) with (at minimum) a co-pilot IR and 5 Hr endorsement then you can doulble your $45k and make it $90k. Probably with 6 cpl exams plus irex including time off to do it you would have a cost of around $100k per pilot. $45k might cover 105hrs in a Robbie around $400-420 per hr.

SMO

[McGowan]

Would they also need to do the ATPL exam as well??
I know the licence isn't available until you have 1200 hours or so but will they need to have that at some stage.
Lots of study and exams, certainly not something for the faint hearted................

[spinwing]

Imabell ....

I think if you check the 139 manuals a bit closer you will see there is no (fixed) bulkhead between the front and back of the A/F ... in the VIP version there might be ... but the utility fit out would allow the co-pilot to move to the back of the a/c in flight if required .... assuming the front row seats are not installed .... be a tricky dance though and for why ... with a Bk with limited payload usefull perhaps but with a 139 !!!


Fungdung ...

If you think you detect "sour grapes" ... you'd be way off the mark your "detectors" must need re-calibrating ....

My comments based on 30yrs experience in the industry and thus you can guess I consider myself far too old (even if I wanted too) to even think about trying to join QES. .... just a statement of my perhaps jaundiced views of whats going on .... you see I think I've seen it all before.

I don't doubt that QES will do a good job ... they have for years .... its just that it will be Ok for those on the inside ... but really f**k up things for those on the outside trying to get in ... those who have worked hard to get their pilot qualifications the hard way ..... will now have to perhaps watch "crewies" who don't really want to do the pilots job get all the "free" training and then look at the career flow being distorted if the only way "in" is to become a "crewy" themselves.... and all for the sake of political correctness due employment rules!

Your arguements in fact seem to be those of a person on the "inside" perhaps with a vested interest in the outcome???

Cheers ;)

[piswit]

Will CHC be opperating their AW139's on the Sydney contract 2 pilot or SPIFR

[gulliBell]

Spinwing,
You may have missed the point of the thread somewhat. The crewmen in question WILL be trained to CPL(H) standard and they are already very PROFICIENT and experienced in SAR/EMS operations. They will be flying with very experienced SAR/EMS PIC's. This can only make a good operation better. And however EMQ choose choose to crew their AW139's you can bet that it will be done properly.


Spinwing did have a point. Whilst it's their trainset and they can do what they want, combining the co-pilot/aircrewman role does muddy the water considerably in the operational context. Sure, train all the aircrewmen as professional IFR co-pilots, but then leave them in the co-pilot seat for the whole mission. Why have them leave a pilot station mid-flight to man an aircrewman station? The excuse being weight limitations is a crock...if you need a co-pilot then have a co-pilot, if you only need an aircrewman then have an aircrewman, if you need both then have both. With that settled, now go and work out your performance parameters.

A very important duty of the co-pilot is to get the ship home should the pilot become incapacitated, which can happen at any phase of flight. How can he do that if he's not at his station, hit the autohover switch on the winch pendant and then climb in the front and take over?? I think not!! Combining the position of co-pilot/aircrewman is fraught with danger, and will lead to some very interesting questions at the subsequent inquiry should there be an incident.

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

Flungdung....I agree and well said! :D :D :D

Its nice to see someone with some constructive comments rather than the usual gaggle of people prepared to bag, question for all the wrong reasons and hang s$#t for whatever reason. :*

Either way, its a good move for what they (EMQ) have to work work and they are providing an opportunity for the crewman to step up professionally and be amongst the most highly trained and capable in their field in the country. Why anyone would bag them or not want to have a go defies logic to me???

When I said it would be a $45000AUD investment, I meant in terms of a basic CPL. Of course, a type co-pilot endorsement will cost more and a basic IFR rating can be completed on suitable taskings. Yes, it will cost more then $45000, but it will certainly be a cheaper and probably an overall better option then employing full-time co-pilots in the long-term. Co-pilots have their role, hell I was one too like many before me. But for this operation, it sounds as though they will do fine without one and again, they are doing their best with what they have whilst promoting and nurturing those within.

When its required, it is no worries to call in another pilot/co-pilot for those difficult night or over water missions. Just remember, these guys probably still have cost restraints and their doing the best they can with what they have. Like many smaller GA companies, you can only do so much with what you have. Operationally, what they are doing fits nicely and its the best case scenario overall.

Whether they need to complete ATPL's is inconsequential. Its a great opportunity that is being provided and if people do not want to step up to the plate and accept the inevitable changes for the better for their industry and for themselves, then probably better they bow out sooner rather then later.

[spinwing]

flungdung ...

Ok, I accept your point of view .... and I recognise it has merits...

Having said that with QES going out and spending $12.5 mil per machine plus what is reqiuired to keep them servicable and operating etc etc WHY WHY then try to "save" some costs (?????) by going with the crewman/co-pilot scenario ...... its bollocks! ... if youwant to be professional BE professional!

Ok so when needed you draft in another set of hands .... great that proves the waste of having of re-training crewies .... what will really be needed is a captain & co-captain set up to ensure you have adequate (roster) flight crew coverage for all circumstances.

While it might sound good at the moment ... the 139 is an excellent,very complex, & fast bit of kit (even though it is physically much the same size as the 412) .... it will most likely end up with a MTOWA of around 7000 kg that is ATPL territory ....it will be interesting to see how it all works out.

Cheers :ok:

PS .... RW Jack ... just because someone disagrees with your point of view does not mean they are putting s**t on you .... constructive comments don't necessarily have to "tow your line" .... keep an open mind eh! :(

[crewguard]

"To Jack of all trades" & "Flungdung" I would just like to thank you guys for your constructive comments over this overall thread and for keeping the facts straight.

When I got my first opportuntity to fly in the LHS in SPIFR EMS/SAR helicopter as a crewman I was thrilled or somwhat honoured to be offered the front left hand seat, even if I didnt have much of a clue on the front seat operations!! I realised there and then that I needed to support the captain and demonstrate knowledge and skills in flying operations that assisted in the role (i.e contribute to reducing the cockpit workload or dont be up there at all!) and not sit back and assume that I could feel good about myself being up front. I spent the best part $15,000 of my own money at the time completing a PPL(A) to demonstrate that committment. Whilst that is only scratching the surface in aviation knowledge, it reduced the cockpit workload and enhanced the CRM support to the SPIFR role. Supporting a small family, my committment to the crewman (the corner stone of my employment role!) and lack of a industry career progression were the only reasons for not going on to further those flying skills. Other crewman have gone on to complete full CPL(H) qualifications like many other pilots at great personel and financial cost in order to professionally develop their skill base and should be commended for their efforts.

There are crewman today who dont have any qualifications but have also achieved some of the theory component of aviation core subjects from the PPL/CPL courses. That in itself is demonstrating motivation and committment to the job. Like in any other industry, formal qualifications are the key performance indicators for employment opportunties and career progression.

It might be timely for crew persons to consider from just this thread alone what the captains and some organisations in the industry might be expecting of us in the future. Remember with the AW 139 "level of technology" about to be ushered into oz, crewman need to be thinking upward and onward and how we can best meet those technology challenges as opposed to cocoon ourselves from change!! We wont be flying around in the older twins forever!!

This decision whilst complex at the outset would have be a "threshold moment" and if anything a great opportunity to recognise those crew folk who work at achieving multiple functions and tasks (flying & ground) in support of flight operations in the rotary wing industry.

Over the years the crew persons side of the industry has attempted to recognise the skills associated with helicopter multi - crew operations. Whilst in the majority of organisations like EMQ and other large commercial entities have set the bench mark, other organistions for whatever reason (most likely a financial one) are unable to achieve the same standard of skill set and recognition for crewman. Thats not to say that they dont see the skills of crewman in any less a manner.

Maybe, and its just maybe, we could further this decision by EMQ to look at the recongition of crewman throughout the industry in some form or another. The Helicopter Association of Australiasia is about to meet later in the month to establish a forum of industry recognition and future direction for crew persons as part of its industry representation. ;)

[Scattercat]

Quote:I realised there and then that I needed to support the captain and demonstrate knowledge and skills in flying operations that assisted in the role (i.e contribute to reducing the cockpit workload or dont be up there at all!)
:D :D :D :D :D Thankyou Crewguard. Well said:ok:

[robsrich]

From HAA website:

Non Pilot Crew Representation

CASA has formally advised that its position on regulation of the Helicopter Industry is to be met in part with industry representation through the HAA.

Furthermore it is anticipated that specific functions within the helicopter industry and NON-PILOT MULTI-CREW PERSON functions and skills be managed by the HAA.

The aim of the meeting coordinated by the HAA is to meet with key figures from Rotary wing organisations throughout Australasia to establish a policy direction on the following:

• Recognition of the industry personnel employed in the function of rotary wing operations in a multi-crew environment in all areas (media, EMS/SAR, Government, Law Enforcement, Customs, Engineering)

• HAA to establish a picture of the employment basis of the NON-PILOT MULTI CREW operations with a view to providing full industry representation in this area

• HAA and key industry figures to develop a concept or direction that identifies key issues that will improve the safety and employment standardisations of the these members within the rotary wing industry

• Promote the scope of direction the HAA wishes to adopt in order to attract those members to actively seek HAA representation through increased membership.

[Arm out the window]

What a legal can of worms that'll be.
Surely CASA can't devolve their responsibility to an industry representative group as simply as that.
Rob, when you say 'formally advised', in what way have they done that?

[robsrich]

Not sure.

Public notice above was from HAA website. As I am no longer a member, I can only follow this issue via notices on their website. I agree with your comment, the HAA Constitution allows representation, which is a good thing; but getting into operational standards, safety standards, conditions of employment, categories workers, OHS and other contractual matters with a CASA overview is beyond the boundaries of the present HAA Constitution and especially their resources at present.

Problem arises if only 10% of industry join HAA and speak for other 90%. Assuming their membership is about 200, and there are 1,330 helicopters and say at a guess 4,000 or more pilots, then the representation is rather low at say 5%.

With respect, an alternative may be the AFAP which covers various awards. The AFAP has the legal base, expertise and history in debating industrial matters, usually pay and conditions.

These are interesting times. Hopefully the HAA is being paid by CASA to undertake this form of self regulation?

Apart from research purposes (a CASA task) why do we need this system as suggested, if it is safety related?

Does anyone closer to the debate got an update? With all the changes looming on the horizon in the HEMS industry, it is easy to miss a ball or two?

Please tell us your thoughts….

[Shortarz]

It would seem as though there is growing concerns from within the EMQ crew group as to how this will all pan out. I hear that most of the organisations crewies are not at all keen on the idea of hitting the books and becoming pilots at their varying stages in life!! Where will this leave them if they elect to remain non-pilot crewpersons?? I wonder if the EMQ managment have perhaps misjudged the can of worms that has just been opened??

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

Can of worms opened at EMQ? Here you have an organisation introducing cutting edge techonology - a helicopter which is pretty much the best machine for the job - the first of its type to be flown in Australia - and you believe that there crewies who are not wanting to take advantage of the training that has been offered in order to operate this new machinery and be the amongst the best and most professionally training EMS/SAR crewies in the world...and you believe there are people who are not wanting to step up, commit to doing some work and take advantage of what is a farking amazing opportunity. Wow!!!!

Shortarz - are you one of these over the hill crewies who is fat, dumb and happy in a comfort zone, soon to retire, short on energy and happy to be where you are and never better yourself and maybe work on improving on your professional abilities. It astounds the mind why people would not take advantage of such training. As said earlier on, I am only too happy for companies to invest training into me - whether it be a new aircraft endorsement, ongoing CRM training or anything else - anything a company will invest into you take it or step aside and let those who will take advantage of the training grab a seat and start moving up the grape vine. Sometimes you do stuff cause you want to, other times you do it to keep your job...your choice I guess at the end of the day.

Flying, whether as a crewman or a pilot or whatever, is an ongoing commitment to bettering oneself through training, experience and personal development in order to get the most of what is a great way to earn a living. None of us ever stop learning or gaining new skills. Sometimes we have to do stuff we do not like in order to keep our jobs or to move on up. At the end of the day, there will always be some keen young whipper snapper after our job, so its in our best interest to stay current, keep our skills up to date and be prepared to always help those coming through the system with the knowledge we've gained through experience.

Shortarz - if you are a crewie from this organisation (and it really sounds like it - especially given your new start date with PPRUNE) and you do not want to complete the training, then don't. Put your resignation in, grab a box of Kleenex tissues and head for the door with your retirement cheque. Others will move in and grab your opportunity. There are loads of people around the world who do not want to complete their ATPL's or instrument rating and they are always happy to whinge and bitch about everything...all whilst the world gets on and moves on around them. What exactly is the issue here? The requirement for you to expend some effort and become the best in your chosen field or what? What?

I'd love to hear what the issue is what this can of worms is exactly.

[Arm out the window]

A few possible worms for the can:

* It would seem unlikely that the organisation could require crewies to undertake this training if they don't want to, as it's not just professional development within a role, but a whole career change, in effect.
There may well be people who have good legitimate reasons for not wanting to get involved, and it'd be their right to say no.

* After a few years, there'll probably be crewpersons/copilots jumping ship to further their pilot careers, draining experience from the organisation.

* What happens to those who commence pilot training but don't finish for some reason? Will they have to pay the company back the money spent on them?

* Having someone fill a dual copilot/crewie role puts extra pressure on them and, in my opinion, would tend to reduce their effectiveness compared to having people employed separately as copilots and crewies.

As I said previously, I'm not involved in the organisation, but I can't see too many benefits to this scheme on the face of it.

[Shortarz]

RWJack:
Firstly, I've expressed no personal opinion on the right or wrong of the crewies not wanting to undertake a significant career change later in their working life. (Don't shoot the messenger!) I just hear what I hear!!

Quote: ..."and you do not want to complete the training, then don't. Put your resignation in, grab a box of Kleenex tissues and head for the door with your retirement cheque."
and ..."Sometimes you do stuff cause you want to, other times you do it to keep your job...your choice I guess at the end of the day."

So is this going to be the case?? You are starting to sound like EMQ management perhaps???

Arm out the window has mentioned some of the "worms" and I have no doubt that there will be many other issues to deal with. All I would say is that there will need to be considerable co-operation from the EMQ crewman fraternity for this to "get up". Butting heads won't do it.

FWIW ... No, I'm not a "fat, dumb & happy" crewie with EMQ.

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

I see some of the issues surrounding this new concept, but overall, I still believe its an amazing opportunity to progress on so many levels. There will always be people who will move on for whatever reason - better opportunities, more pay, change of scenery etc etc. After having done some very hard yards in civillian aviation over a long period of time, pretty much funding all of it myself, I am just surprised that a group of people would not welcome such a chance to step up professionally and add to their development. From my experiences of flying around the world in different operational environs, I could say confidently that most crewman in other similar EMS/SAR fit outs would jump at the chance to be trained as co-pilots and better themselves. I am not from EMQ management - by the sounds of this thread, they might be busy trying to sort out this can of worms that has been opened up. What is the alternative then guys? Employ full-time co-jos and live the rest of your lives flying in the back seat? Then, how many people will want to move onto othr organisations to get some LHS flying and improve their skills, knowledge and overall professional abilities. Could be a case of damned if they do, damned if they don't. I am still for the concept personally and think it will work once a few people have a sit down and get some things sorted out.

[McGowan]

RWJack, just a question, what if some of the crewies want to be a crewie, not a pilot. Surely they are allowed that? Being a pilot is NOT the be all and end all of the world. Those that want to move into the other seat, good luck to them, the hard work and study will pay off.
I know some crewmen and they enjoy their job immensley, they are extremely professional and make a pilots job so much easier. They also see the pilot as helping to make their job easier, it's called being part of a team.
I rarely saw anyone wanting to do the others job.

[Torquer]

I have just read this discussion with interest and see that a number of contributors, although well informed, are missing some fundamental information on the future of non-pilot aircrew operations in the Australian rotary wing arena.

Let's canvas some of these issues and put them in to perspective.
1. CASA qualifications. Currently CASA do not have a licensing regime in place for those members of the crew who don't directly manipulate flight controls or repair the machine. This is an increasing legal liability and will be a mandated requirement once NVD/NVG use is widespread. Existing regulations with regards to fatigue, drug and alcohol limitations for pilots do not currently apply to aircrewmen. A misnomer that requires some form of legislative change to be effective.
2. National standards. The PPL/CPL/ATPL etc licensing and qualification requirements are nationally, and in most cases, internationally recognised training regimes that are utilised across all areas of the industry. In this case, what qualifies a person to operate the winch? Who trained the aircrewmen to supervise passengers and send them down the wire? What level of CRM and risk management training do they have? Does the operator need HUET? DG qualifications? Who assessed the aircrew to operate in a crewed environment? As it stands, industry operators are utilising former military operators experience to leverage into individual training plans. Does EMQ recognise CHC Australia's LHS qual? If not, why not? Who can train NVG use as mandated by CASA for CAO 82.4? Just a sample of the issues that need to be addressed before EMQ or any other operator for that matter can confidently say they are operating at 'world's best practice'.
3. Aircrew Officer. At the end of each tax year, what do personnel operating as aircrew other than pilots put on their tax returns? Is the vocation recognised for taxation, insurance or legal purposes? What level of command and control has been legally delegated to the aircrew officers? Once again, areas where CASA have essentially washed their hands of and passed to HAA to determine. In the unfortunate event of another tragic incident, a canny coroner will tear a company or government department apart, with particular attention paid to CASA's complete lack of attention to the matter. Not if, but when.
4. Career progression. As admirable as it is to make all EMQ aircrew officers co-jo's, who replaces them when they move on? What training system is in place to feed the trade? The military experience pool is a finite resource, and relying on interested amateurs doesn't cut it as in the past. As all operators here can attest, it's not as easy as someone walking in the door and giving them a go. To operate the AW139 (and other platforms) in demanding conditions is going to aircrew of high calibre, training and professional ability. Perhaps the Qld govt should consider investing in further aviation skills training in this area and sponsor training positions within specific RTO environments. Certificate IV in Transport and Distribution (Aviation Ops) already exists for military aircrew. Time for the civil industry to catch up.

Conclusion: Having EMQ train aircrew as dual role members on the aircraft is but a small element of the bigger picture. It's time that those members directly affected by the coming changes start thinking about how to contribute to the future of their industry. Failing to do so will see aircraft crewed with a PIC, and two co-pilots. An expensive solution to a niche problem.

[Torquer]

Exactly what point am I missing? At no point did I say that using aircrewman as co-pilots was a suitable outcome. Far from it. EMQ have stipulated that they have received government funding to turn 16 Aircrewmen into co-pilots. "Great!" Did I not say...

"As admirable as it is to make all EMQ aircrew officers co-jo's, who replaces them when they move on? What training system is in place to feed the trade? The military experience pool is a finite resource, and relying on interested amateurs doesn't cut it as in the past. As all operators here can attest, it's not as easy as someone walking in the door and giving them a go. To operate the AW139 (and other platforms) in demanding conditions is going to aircrew of high calibre, training and professional ability."

One of my several points is, if Australian operating aircrewmen don't start contributing data to the development of the trade, the decision will be taken from them and placed in CASA's purvey. Was I not clear enough?

Aircrewmen, predominantly in the SAR/EMS role, have to understand that their continuing presence in a working aviation role without license, accreditation or recognised skills is over. Their future employment will either be imposed or endorsed by CASA. It's up to the relevant companies and operators to decide how this will play. Next time, don't presume that commenters are bereft of relevant information lest you stick a pedal in it.

[Torquer]

While I'm on the subject, your assertation that a LHS co-pilot doesn't perform the role of an aircrewman is inconsistent with the EMS contracts of CHC Australia, Helicopters Australia and various other entities. It appears that at the current time, an aircrewman who can do both roles is achievable.

Yet again, suggest you disengage rotor brake before pulling collective.

[RWJackOfAllTrades]

Torquer...some interesting points raised. I think the industry in this sector, as far as crewman are concerned, do need to do more to universally improve their skills based recognition as far as qualifications and training are concerned. I understand these guys have a basic certificate of competency for winch operations but that is it, aside from in-house training provided.

My personal opinion is that the EMQ model still sounds like a good idea, given the usual budget constraints imposed on such an organisation. A lot of people say that if they have the finances for a few AW139's, then why not just crew them with 2 pilots and 2 rescue crew all the time? Without going back over it and offering my opinion on the matter, I still believe its a good thing they are doing, with the inevitable problems that they will no doubt face in terms of crew attrition, mission crewing configuration and loads more.

I undertstand they will still crew with a PIC, Aircrew Officer/Co-pilot, Rescue Crewman and Paramedic. I would be interested to find out if these aircrewman receive co-jo training to become pure co-pilots and nothing more? I think the whole idea was to cross train them so that for 90% of the time plus, they are co-pilots and the rest of the time they perform their other duties in the rear of the aircraft...keeping in mind that the machine is awaiting SP IFR and its the way these guys have operated in the past on the 412's...but who know what the current status of the 139 certification is or will be?

At the end of the day, its a step in the direction of improved safety for all concerned. It also provides impetice to the next step for the aircrew guys in that they receive co-pilot training which will no doubt have a lot of common ground with what they are already doing in many facets of their current role.

Finally, letting CASA have anything to do with some form of accreditation for this area is a little frightening to say the least. Having minimal confidence in them in trying to get a freakin medical updated or endorsement placed on your licence is such a frustrating experience, why have confidence in something far more complex such as developing the framework for aircrew training and recognition??? When it seems too hard they seem to hand over to the industry to come up with the answers and when the answers arise, they are often met with disinterest or arguments against...dog chasing a tail. But good idea to get this sorted pronto...most operators treat their aircrewman as pilots anyway as far as flight and duties are concerned so that is a starting point at the very least.

[Torquer]

Meh, perhaps. As far as the future of EMS/SAR crew ops in Australia, there is going to be a point when the larger operators accept the requirement for two pilots and a crewman, predominantly driven not by the SPIFR requirement,but by CRM issues related to NVG ops. If aircraft power becomes a liabilty due crew and mission equipment weights, you would expect to see older machines upgraded to the new generation utility twins and high perf singles.

[CopterD]

Can anyone tell me where these aircraft are being based?

Regards,
CopterD

[Scattercat]

CopterD

They are replacing the B412's that are currently based in Brisbane / Townsville & Cairns. (Queensland, Australia)

Cheers.

[helmet fire]

Torquer,
Wonder if you could explain the reasoning behind your comments that NVD will drive bigger Australian EMS operators to two pilot ops?
Cheers,
hf

[Torquer]

Long time away from the forum.

Single pilot NVD won't be endorsed by CASA. That simple.

[Goggle Up]

When it comes to a dark night, in 8/8ths of s*%t and things go wrong, I'd certainly prefer a guy that has the scan and skill to keep the thing upright rather than the skill in precision winch hook placement. Sounds like the EMQ guys can do both.....nice to have. :ok:

P.S. Torquer - I believe (not sure) that the single pilot cert will be based on altitude eg no NVD SP ops below 1000 ft? Also I've heard that having a crewy in the front on gogs will satisfy requirement for lower level single pilot gog.......I maybe wrong.

GU

[Torquer]

What can I say? There is so much misinformation out there, it clouds the issue and detracts from getting the right information to the operators. Let me say this, NVG operations in the Australian civil aviation arena are in the nascent and formative stage. In 10 years, this will be routine and an accepted part of a prospeoctive commercial rotary wing course, gaining an NVG endorsement.
Unfortunately, there has been roadblocks to implementation that have taken significant levels of work to overcome. How do I know? Let's just say I understand how this stuff works. Training, NVG flight, regulation, use in operations/rescue/tactical environment...

I'd provide more info, but this forum is regarded as a higher level source of information in some circles than legislation or directives, so I'll leave it there.

[Goggle Up]

I think we all agree that this has taken alot longer than it should have. On the bright side, hats off to the guys in the industry that have 'endured' the process and pushed the capability to where it is now. :D

Can't wait to be back in the green world!!

[Torquer]

Coming home to the green? That will be a change. Most think the grass is a different shade along the line. It's not all beer and skittles anywhere else. One of the advantages of working in an organisation that is larger than 7 aircraft and 20 odd people is that you can get things done. Even with the federal government.

NVG usage is allegedly a dark art. It is my intent to shine a light into the corners. That, and the religion that is CRM/Human Factors.

[Torquer]

If you are awaiting your employers approval to use NVG, then watch for the approval of the authorised training competency. It will dictate the minimums required to be deemed comptent to use the kit, and ergo, receive endorsement from CASA to use them in an operational environment. As someone who had a 'large' hand in the drafting of the standards, I would suggest you do the following to easily achieve accreditation.

1. Keep your NVG training record handy. It will be required by an aviation RTO to endorse your training against the standard and CASA CAO.

2. If you have NVG instructional experience from over half a decade ago and haven't used it, you will be required to either demonstrate competence or redo the training to gain an instructional endorsement.

3. Under half a decade, you will either have to demonstrate competence (flight test) or show evidence of competence against the TAA04 Certificate of Training and Assessment to become an NVG instructor.

4. To prove your competence to use NVG, you will need either evidence of a training course via an avaition RTO that holds the NVG competency standard on their Scope of Registration or demonstrate evidence of competence from previous training (ex military preferred)

And then you will have to find a supplier and a trainer that can prove they know what they are talking about. Good luck. Or you could ask me here to find out more. Because I can count on one hand the people in Australia who know all the facts about civil aviation NVG regulations, training and use. Not the bull****ters or those who heard from a mate how they work etc. The facts.

[Goggle Up]

Torquer,

Appreciate the info mate. We are quite a way along with it so alot of the boxes have already been ticked. Another guy in the company is running with it so I'm sure we know a few of the same people.

Cheers, GU

[Torquer]

No worries. There's too much half-truths and rubbish floating around on this topic for me to stay quiet. With live NVG ops just months away, I'm keen to see a large part of civil aviation understand exactly what it is they need to do, see, train and look for when using NVG.