Aircrewmen Ops
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.