linkedin or not.
 

So why does someone have to have a publicly viewable history liked linkedin to make them credible?
You could argue that these internet social sites are just a penis extension (not in ms wilenbakers case) for many who like to show the world (or at least people they know) how good they are.
Always watch for the quietly confident ones. The noisy ones will tell you they can do the job but they are often far from the best at it.
That,s life in general not just flying.

It's not compulsory.


... occupied by the stable extroverts recently mentioned on another pprune thread.

anymore news on the recruitment front-positive or otherwise?
seems to be taking a hell of a long time,surely they need people to ramp up-type training etc by early 2014?

The first invitations to interview have been received. Although the timings have slipped somewhat since the spring, there's no great rush yet - those already current on the relevant types will only need a few months SAR training before the first bases stand up in 2015.

Not sure what the requirements for an interview are? I 'know' a pilot...7000 hours...has been CP of ASU, North Sea experience, NVG, current IR, lives 5 miles from one of the bases and couldn't get an interview for a Co-Pilot!

windsor loft: I think he didnt make the grade because:
a) No SAR experience.
b) Too many other applications with better credentials
c) What on earth does him lving close to a future base have to do with the selection process?

Apart from that he'd be fine.

a) No SAR experience.
b) Too many other applications with better credentials
c) What on earth does him lving close to a future base have to do with the selection process?

Thanks for your reply!! :D

a) Even for a co-pilot?

b) Even for a co-pilot?

c) - Absolutely nothing. It was just to make a point that the guy is very experienced, ticks 'most' boxes, no relocation issues and would more than likely show a loyalty to Bristow, seeing out his career as the base is on his door step.

"Even for a co-pilot?"

Yes, even for a co-pilot. Why take someone with no SAR experience when you have a stack of 500plus cv/resumes from folks with previous or current SAR time.

Windsor - Bristow are taking over the whole of UK SAR which is currently populated by people with SAR experience - the more SAR experience they employ, the less their training burden and the more likely the new service can be launched on time with the required capability.

If you were to employ a new pilot on an ASU, would you take the guy with thousands of hours but no police experience or the guy with a few less who has done the job lots before?

Stick with it Windsor - no harm meant;)

OK, I have a Q for existing civvy SAR drivers under EASA regs, please:

There is a shout and you check out the weather and decide to go based on the rules governing launching for a SAR mission.[CAP 999 or whatever]. You drop the casualty off at the hospital under same rules. Now of course, you are no longer a SAR operation, but merely a commercial operation making your way back to base and the weather hasn't changed during launch and mission (it being sh*te) but out of limits under your commercial AOC. What now?
[There isn't an ILS at your base].

The mil used their "rules and limits" with some massaging around the edges to get home. How does a SAR outfit regulate for this?

{Genuine Q, no catchu or snipes:suspect:}.

From CAP 999

SAR Operational Flight
A flight by a helicopter operating under a SAR AOC when tasked by the SAR Tasking Agency, the purpose of which is to locate and deliver to a place of safety persons in distress and recover to base. The procedures for this are to be defined by the operator and approved by the CAA.

So, just like a HEMS the mission starts and ends at the operating base.

JB - cap 999 actually says this at the top of the SAR section note the controlled circumstances caveat.

However, your extract is further down under SAR operational flights.

Which takes precedence? I am sure I don't know. Maybe someone who is operating under a SAR AOC can clarify.

Crab
They are in essence the same thing.
My reference allows the completion of the mission back to base. The"controlled circumstances" will be those procedures laid down in the OM-A and approved by the CAA. These approved procedures, which will include use of exemptions and guidance to crews in their application, will provide a proper risk assessed set of procedures to allow SAR to function.
The aim will be to provide sufficiently flexible operating procedures, but preventing "red mist" / pressonitis such that missions drift from acceptable risk, to unacceptable risk to dangerous events.
HEMS has applied a similar style of risk v need management over many years and many tens of thousand of missions with acceptable levels of risk and outcomes. Granted, HEMS does not operate in the same day / night, poor wx as SAR may be required to do. However, the risk v need analysis is broadly similar. SAR benefits from a multi-crew approach with enhanced equipment levels etc, as such the CAA approved OM and the State AOC under which SAR will operate will reflect this and more to allow SAR to deliver its service safely and effectively.

Off thread but pertinent.

In the eighties Bristow were doing the financial efficiency thing. One of these was saving money by not doing the Helipad Take Off during base checks as it was not used offshore or on airfields.

A new captain picks up a medevac from offshore who is required to go direct to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary so he and his 332 delivers the casualty to the hospital helipad.

Two hours later it takes off again after a qualified captain has been driven out from the airfield.

They included HLOs in the checks after that because the oil companies were not impressed.

JB - I think the difference is about the returning to base.

The weather limits for a SAR rescue are often applied for the return to base where an internal aids letdown to the coast and a hover-taxy up an estuary might be completely acceptable in the military (can't speak for MCA).

I suspect that such activities might not be justified under an AOC such that aircraft may have to divert rather than returning to base and resuming standby.

Crab
Correct re Mil and CAP999 will allow the same. The difference will be each base / weather case will have to be risk assessed, limits and procedures applied and OM approval granted for the AOC.
I suspect that post Haddon Cave, you now have had to do a similar justification process.
Remember it's "only" SAR, and the risks must be justified against the need. The need is to get back to base to re-fuel and re supply and be ready for further tasking. The risk is the weather and terrain etc getting back in.
Caernarfon and St Athan are both smack on the coast, so an acceptable low level let down be procedure could be devised and approved although anyone driving down the B4265 past St Athan when you do it might well soil their trews as you pass overhead!! But if your are spending a few million on a base you could always install some traffic lights!!
I suppose that we shall just have to wait and see, but the mechanism is certainly there.

Except that Caernafon is at sea level and St Athan is 200' up - one of the reasons Chivenor is such a good base - sea level and an excellent weather factor:ok:

Rear crew crossover
 

Does anyone know if there has been much interest from serving rearcrew to apply for vacancies at Bristows?

Very good article in the autumn edition of The Log on page 18 for those who are interested. :D:D

No link to the article? That's not very helpful. Should we guess?

I don't suppose it bigs up privatised SAR does it? ;) Seamless transition, no loss of capability, brilliant new aircraft.