Interesting times in Aussie SAR/EMS
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over the place for work
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flungdung....I agree and well said! 
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 $45000, but it will certainly be a cheaper and probably an overall better option then employing full-time co-pilots in the long-term. Co-pilots have their role, hell I was one too like many before me. But for this operation, it sounds as though they will do fine without one and again, they are doing their best with what they have whilst promoting and nurturing those within.
When its required, it is no worries to call in another pilot/co-pilot for those difficult night or over water missions. Just remember, these guys probably still have cost restraints and their doing the best they can with what they have. Like many smaller GA companies, you can only do so much with what you have. Operationally, what they are doing fits nicely and its the best case scenario overall.
Whether they need to complete ATPL's is inconsequential. Its a great opportunity that is being provided and if people do not want to step up to the plate and accept the inevitable changes for the better for their industry and for themselves, then probably better they bow out sooner rather then later.
Its nice to see someone with some constructive comments rather than the usual gaggle of people prepared to bag, question for all the wrong reasons and hang s$#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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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!
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
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!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: australia
Age: 60
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew person comment
"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.
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.
Thread Starter
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!)
Thankyou Crewguard. Well said
Thankyou Crewguard. Well said
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.
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.
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?
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?
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….
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….
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 69
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over the place for work
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 69
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over the place for work
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Maitland
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing the point?
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.
"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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircrewmen Ops
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.
Yet again, suggest you disengage rotor brake before pulling collective.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over the place for work
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over torque?
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.