Interesting times in Aussie SAR/EMS
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well done guys and all the best.

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

please explain ?????

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

in most cases it is absolutely possible.

a quite unfathomable idea to most at emq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smells of Incompetence to me !!
 

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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!

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.

Is my information wrong?
 

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.

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' ;)

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.

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"

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmm....

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

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

Good luck Queensland... :uhoh:

:E

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

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................

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 ;)

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

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

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