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.

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

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

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!?!?!?

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.

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!!

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

topendtorque

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:
You mean: "following a previously set two pilot IFR retrieval operation established 11 years ago in 1995".

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!

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

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

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.