There are Australian experienced S92 SAR pilots, including the ones working for another operator, who are providing the contracted SAR service HNZ are failing to suppply. There are also numerous highly trained EC225 SAR pilots, now with S92 endorsements and experience.

I'd suggest, as mentioned by others, the reason for hiring overseas crew is down to the lower pay and conditions they might be prepared to accept. (Especially if still residing in a country with a lower cost of living.) Most experienced Australian pilots are hesitant to work for a company leading the race to the bottom.

Ironically, the rumour is; that part of the reason for HNZs inability to provide contracted service is the failure of some overseas crew to validate/convert their qualifications correctly/sufficiently.

With modern fully automated glass cockpit all weather sar aircraft your assertion is absolutely not the case, as others have found out elsewhere to great cost and sacrifice. HNZ were offered current crews flying the very SAR airframe they later received but rejected this option even as a startup assistance, this would have been the quickest and crucially safest option but was rejected in favour of nationalism. No foreign pilots have been allowed near their SAR operation so any foreign pilots not validating licences in time etc certainly has not affected this. But it is true to say HNZ have rejected applications from former employees of other companies who were type rated and local residents and experienced despite them being short on crew. Also the fact that those appointed as line trainers are new to type is a disturbing situation given the massive s92 experience brought in from elsewhere and not being utilised to its maximum.

That statement is in itself quite ironic.

Strange, HNZ hasn't yet received a SAR airframe.

I include the Lloyd/CHC RAAF SAR as an example of a legitimate SAR capability, although not full glass. And we had modern fully automated glass cockpit helicopters at Esso 20 years ago. Pilots who've been flying those types of helicopters for the past 20 years, and there are plenty of them, would be perfectly capable of doing the same in an S92. And I point out, when we first got the full-glass cockpits at Esso, nobody had any experience on glass cockpit helicopters then. We just got in it, got out there, and got the job done, no drama at all. These over-blown experience requirements that Aviation Advisors mysteriously conjur up and cut and paste into contracts are a joke and shouldn't be used as an excuse for an operator to say "we can't find experienced local pilots to do the job". And I also point out, Esso have been flying helicopters in Bass Strait for 50 years without a single accident.

All of my comments are in reference to the SAR S92, which was Canadian registered but is now on a VH- reg. And just getting out there etc. is the exact attitude when it comes to all weather low level ops including night that gets someone killed. Given crew change flights are day only I don't agree with what you're saying.

There are plenty of people who will claim to be SAR experienced and SAR capable - only to be caught out when the chips are down. An easy label to claim but not an easy one to own properly.

Exactly. And when everyone in theatre has only flown by day as regulations prevent night ops who's got the ability to go live on a new type with more capability to get you into trouble as much as out of it operating at night when nobody there has before!!!

I think you, like me and many on here, are making statements based on partial information.
Regulations don't prevent night ops. Most OS contracts don't allow normal passenger transfers at night. Medevacs, and even freight only flights at night are ok, and are not unusual for regular OS flight crews. Many of the Australian SAR crews are NVG qualified.

And that S92 SAR crew in Ireland who were plenty experienced and SAR capable still got caught out, and caught out in a routine aspect of what they normally are required to do. My point being, the experience being asked for to crew these S92 in Australia doesn't make sense when crew of this level of experience are still having CFIT accidents in serviceable helicopters. Precluding Australian pilots for these jobs based on there not being Australian pilots who have the "right" numbers in their logbook doesn't make sense. Unless it's cheaper for the operator to hire foreign pilots to improve their margin on a contract that they bid low on. Then it becomes a question of Industrial legality.

In Saudi Arabia passenger transfer at night offshore was a routine aspect of the job, no drama at all. I actually preferred flying at night than during the day. But yes, in Australia, the only night OS - for me anyway - was in response to some emergency (non-production related) situation. I don't recall ever flying passengers at night in Australia.

Stop perpetuating the glass cockpit gotta have time on type BS mr. aviation advisor. Medium helicopters generally have 2 engines, 2 hydraulic systems, a main transmission, various gearboxes, a DC and an AC electrical system, navigation and communication equipment. Just because the information is displayed on "ooooh glass displays" doesn't change the information. Companies should be hiring experienced local helicopter pilots without time on type and giving them the ratings. This would happen more if it wasn't for bozo aviation advisors advising only to hire with "minimum xxx hours" on type

I agree with you, 100%

kdj123,
Are you advocating that a potential SAR crew (both FO and Capt) straight out of a simulator, even having completed the SAR Traiing course that deals with the SAR modes of the S92 both be placed directly on a contract to fulfill "all weather" SAR support? Just curious.

This aint the North Sea or Ireland. The weather is pretty good at this time of year. Maybe come wet season they'll figure out that fancy FMS. I mean its not like we only got mobile phone technology last month or the personal computer. Smart bunch down here sometimes, we even managed to invent WIFI.

I still havnt figured out this spell check yet thou!?

This is Australia and when times are tough, we should look after local first.

Goodday heli1980,

It is not the fancy FMS that I was referring to. It is the complexity of the higher modes (SAR modes) of the S92. Yes, I agree AUS pilots are totally capable of figuring out the systems. What I was referring g too was the fact that does a operator wish to place two crew, new to the system together in a aircraft that both have little time on (only sim).
Regarding your all weather statement I agree that your weather may be different but I am assuming that the crew can / may be tasked at night. Were I cone from night equals dark, dark is dark and can be just as challenging as solid IF. It actually dark on a clear night sometimes leads to a false sense of "this should be easy" and crews may not be as alert as solid IMC. Been there done that:ugh:

That never happens. The operator will have a CASA approved training manual which will describe what they need to do, in addition to the sim qualification, to put 2 crew in an operational aircraft.
Something like, the newly minted S92 SAR Captain will need x hours of supervised line operational flying with a training Captain before being released to the line with a co-pilot. Same for the co-pilot, so much supervised flying with an experienced Captain. You wouldn't get 2 newly minted S92 pilots fresh out of a zero time sim qualification being crewed together.

I think the point Gullible was trying to make has been missed.
Australia has all weather SAR experience. For 25 years the RAAFSAR contract has required an all weather capability auto hover aircraft. Granted it is a different aircraft however the principal of night operation remains the same and is not new to the country. There would be no shortage of pilots that have overwater night experience.
I personally would much prefer a new "modern glass cockpit" machine than an S76 that is under powered with a dated auto hover system that has some interesting quirks that require immediate intervention lest you get wet feet.

CHC (Australia) are getting better helicopters. They just got a SAR contract with Esso using AW139. Eventually that sort of capability will take over from those under-powered old RAAF contracted S76A+.

Whatever they get, it will be better than what we used in the 70s and 80s - B model Hueys, 1 engine, no autopilot, no GPS, no FMS, no radalt (though some did have one) and only a single ADF and an FM homing set.

We got the job done then, they will do a better job now.

A real helicopter. Not many buttons to push. I only flew in one once, in 1981 out of Campbell Barracks in Perth. Lots of rides in H-models in the 80's, usually in the rain with the doors off and landing in a festering swamp. Mind you, flying in a 76 with the doors on you get just about as wet.