I suppose that depends on your definition of fail.


The word was they got issued a 'Show Cause' notice potentially in relation to winching.


Also heard that they imported 2 Canadian SAR specialist pilots with validated CASA licenses, but as Canada don't have winching endorsements, they didn't allow them to perform any winching ops.

They should have brought in some ex-UK Coastguard S92 pilots. Oh - wait, the UK doesn't have winch endorsements either! Sounds like a BS finding.

At least I'm sure it was entirely impartial and absolutely no prospects of any COI issues.......

Knowing who the inspectors were, I'm sure there wasn't even the hint of that! ;)

457 (or whatever) Visa is required, due the massive shortage of qualified pilots in Australia. :yuk:

Failing a CASA audit is not a big deal !! Interesting....

They were offered the S92 current SAR training team who were immediately available in Canada after the Halifax SAR contract had finished and most were rejected. TRI's wouldn't be allowed by CASA to transfer qualifications. And to top it all off no line trainers or SAR 92 captains with any experience on type. Sounds very much like visas or not foreigners definitely not welcome.

Hedski, visas or not. Australia has a surplus of qualified pilots at the moment and frankly, it won't get better. You're unlikely to get a CASA official to admit that foreigners aren't welcome. As a gauge, on another thread, co-pilots are required however they must already have the B412 rating on their licence. That's a big ask for a 500 hour total time position. But there will be plenty of over qualified pilots throwing their resumes in the ring for that.

Cheers FP

I think that job posting also required co-pilots to have a Command IR. That will filter out even more, but still, plenty of applicants who'll have a tick in every box.

Foreign pilots have always been welcome in Australia.
However, rightly (in my opinion) or wrongly, Australian pilots get priority in the current tough times.
I'd suspect it's similar in other countries.

By employers, yes. Not by Australian pilots who have been passed over for Australian jobs by foreign pilots.

I personally work with many foreign pilots, almost all of whom are now Australian pilots. Some still live in Australia's most Eastern state - New Zealand. (Almost spiritual Aussies, and covered by the two way "Trans Tasman agreement".

Again, in the current employment environment, bringing pilots in on any kind of visa is a total BS move, and reflects dreadfully on any company low class enough to do it. (And reflects dreadfully on any government incompetent enough to allow it.)

So you can squash the Rumour that someone else is covering HNZs SAR contract due the "not a big deal" issue?

Strikes me as a big deal when another operator is Fulfilling the contract which HNZ is meant to be

I hope BRS have upped the rates for the extension until the paper work issues have been cleared up.

But when those local pilots do not have any experience on the complex type being used, or any relevant role experience in a modern glass cockpit aircraft, the pitfalls of which have grave consequences unless the proper experience and currency, and refuse to listen to those who have that experience and advice to offer at least in the short term to get things moving..... That's the first hole in the swiss cheese.

I'm certain that I heard a story once of an almost identical situation on the Brent offshore contract, years ago. North Scottish were awarded the contracted with AS365's, but had been unable to get all the crews to the required levels of experience and currency to meet Shell's demanding requirements for the contract. At the last minute, Shell approached Bristow with a request to extend the contract on an interim basis until North Scottish could fulfill the contractual requirements. Bristow responded that they certainly could, the instant that Shell signed a new multi-year year contract, or the machines would be leaving at midnight on the day of contract termination and be re-assigned to other contracts and be unavailable.

The contract was signed and continued for a good number of years and I believe that North Scottish was in some manner compensated for the investment they had made.

Of course, this may just be a good bar version of the actual events? I'm sure someone will know that real version.

There are plenty of qualified and experienced local pilots that get ticks in all the boxes. Operators employ foreign pilots over qualified local pilots for reasons known only to them.

Possibly one issue may be that the CDN drivers are paid far less then the local AUS crews? Just curious?

SAR S92 pilots? Surely still employed by Bristow if they're running another SAR S92, no? Glass cockpit SAR pilots then, no? What baffles me here is not the local or not connection, it's the fact that experienced training options were offered but the local collective insisted it wasn't required when it clearly is. Just the fact that this option had foreign elements seemed to be part of the issue.

Glass cockpit helicopters have been operating in Australia for the past 20 years...SAR optioned helicopters even longer. S92 is a more recent introduction to the national fleet. But a helicopter is a helicopter so surely there is ample local experience out there to fully crew all Australian requirements without needing to import foreign labor. It's a sign of the times moving away from expatriate helicopter pilots: China, Thailand, Indonesia, Nigeria, and many other jurisdictions are gradually closing up shop to foreigners and hiring and training only national pilots.