Interesting times in Aussie SAR/EMS
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the boot
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 69
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the boot
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Another question... why the need to have an ATPL(H) to fly the AW139? EMS/SAR work in Australia is classed as aerial work.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over the place for work
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 77
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 77
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Last edited by imabell; 4th Jan 2007 at 21:36.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over the place for work
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 69
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over the place for work
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
''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
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Maitland
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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................
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................
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
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.