Their rearcrew recruitment strategy has baffled many. Beggars can't be choosers. No rearcrew = No SAR. Explain that to the DFT.

This could be the future... Not entirely sure though, as some of the results of ab initio haven't been great.

I remember many moons ago when BHL took people straight off the street with no medical or winch experience and some of them are still in the service now having had very successful careers.

Off the streets.
 

Shetlander that's not quite the case,
The handful of civil trained winchmen from old BHL i.e when they had S-61's where already employed in ground roles and where selected to be trained up internally as they where known as Public Transport winchmen and eventually got the experience and opportunity to go full SAR but it took a number of years.

When CHC took over some off them struggled to pass at the time modular IHCD paramedics course.

There is no short cut to SAR and good quality medical skills rear crew wise.

shame they don't seem to want to pay a decent wage for those skills:{

Shared SAR resources are not a new concept.

And anyone expecting a parochial approach from Bristow is probably ignoring 60 years of the reverse.

Running a service for these islands from Dyce, Dalcross and Stornoway with some pen-pushers in Redhill and an EU/EEA border in the middle somewhere isn't rocket science. It might make the VAT returns more complicated. They have always been different legal jurisdictions anyway.

Stating the obvious but this might explain the unfilled vacancies.

From a regulatory and 'union' perspective are the UK SAR rearcrew and paramedics considered aircrew or passengers (like UK police observers and air ambulance paramedics)? I guess as they are still not licenced from an aviation perspective they do not require aviation medicals or to follow CAP371 flight time limitations?

SW I believe they are called SAR Technical Crew Members.

An August revision of CAP 999 mandates less formalised medical requirements for SAR Technical Crew. However they will still be required to remain within their FTLs, despite the lack of licence.

Thanks Handy & SAR RC. So who mandates the FTL? The authority or the company? How can the authority mandate people who they do not licence? But if it is the company then what stops the company simply changing it when needs must? Or is all that covered in CAP999 too?

SW

Edited to add....Thanks for the link Jim.....!

Chapter 4 refers to Training and Checking for both pilots and rear (SAR Technical Crew). To me it reads like a company thing based on a mix of EASA regs (HHO) and Chapter 4 additional items.

The company define the ftl within the operations manual. However, the ops manuals are approved by the authority....

Shetlander - they have to pay the pilots well because there is competition in the market, not least the N Sea.

The poor, unlicensed rearcrew have no real competition for their considerable skills and whilst organisations keep trying to create SAR rearcrew on the cheap through training up paramedics and the like who are already used to low wages - not much will change.

An extra £10-15K would have enabled many more military SAR rearcrew to take up posts without having to take a big lifestyle/wages hit.

Nice to see that the guys who do all the dangerous and demanding stuff in SAR get paid the least ......go figure:ugh:

Bristow always looked down on the rear crew. Many a Bristow trained pilot heard to exclaim "how could a crewman do that job" when referring to a position of management or organisational responsibility. Good to see values are still the same...:ugh:

Crab, nice to see that you recognise the underpaid Engineers.. oh.. sorry, my mistake.:rolleyes:
3D
;)

Bristow Managed Transition literature lists prospective engineer starting salaries to be one and a half times greater than those for rearcrew. So who are the underpaid ones?

Equal Pay scales
 

You will find in the coming years that Licensed aircraft engineers pay scales coming in line with pilots as the need for engineers will out strip demand for pilots. And you can see it happening now with Bristow and CHC looking at engineering apprenticeships.

Perhaps some of you chaps could have a look at 3.5 to 3.7, Performance Requirements. A comparison with 2.1 to 2.3 of Chapter 3 in the 2010 version reveals a few changes. I would be grateful for your opinions on how this may affect real world SAR flying 'between a rock and a hard place'.


If you are Navy then you may wish to be excused, since, of course, it's only hovering. :E


(I have the PDF of the May 2010 version if anyone needs it.)

Vsf
And not before time.:ok: My comment was meant to be tongue in cheek!
Things have obviously changed since I stopped spannering. Not that long ago!:hmm:

I am not taking anything away from the guys/gals in the back,(or front), they all would get medals if I had my way and have my utmost respect. And I told them that more than once!!!!
3D