I'm not surprised HNZ failed the CASA audit If the latest rumour on the street in Broome is true that HNZ had an "incident" whilst winch training where the winch cable recoiled up just missing the main rotors and wrapped itself around the winch!!

What are HNZ's credentials in the SAR role? Do they have a decent track record or are they another 'anyone can do SAR' outfit?

Failing an audit would seem to answer that question.

[quote=Brother;9844926]Not a big deal, paperwork mostly. won't take long for it to be all up and running, it will all be sorted in a couple of weeks. QUOTE]

Brother, you have said that you work for HNZ. Are you employed in the PR department and do you have a direct dial straight into CASA?
Still as Rrekn opened this thread in 2016, surely it won't be long now......Will it?

So how have they been allowed to fail to meet the contract start date and fail to provide what I understood to be an all-weather 24/7 SAR service?

Glad I don't live there or run the risk of needing rescuing!

It goes back to some of the previous statements which were quickly put down by the localism brigade. HNZ Oz have had plenty of offers of actual help/experience from elsewhere for setting up SAR on the S92 and everything has been knocked back with a 'we know what we're doing' attitude. Funny old thing that was the attitude in SAR for the S92 intro in CHC Ireland and look how that ended.

Hedski - :ok:

Fair comments I guess but in this field we all live in glass houses to some extent. The RAF SARF was hardly perfect Crab. Forty year old aircraft, committed to pretty much everything under the aircraft and some dire manning issues towards the end. Striving for excellence is great but look hard enough and you can find holes anywhere.

Good Heavens, Watt ever next?

Drugsdontwork - drawing parallels between an underfunded Mil system with ancient aircraft (which we all knew needed replacing) and a modern SAR setup with new and shiny kit doesn't really prove anything.

The point is that if you claim to be able to provide a service, and win a bid based on those claims, you should be able to deliver - on time and to the full spec. Anything else smacks of incompetence or even fraud.

I'd go with incompetence. The solution was there from before the go live date but conveniently ignored at the whim of those who just don't like foreigners and are too arrogant to listen to those with greater relevant experience. SAR 92 captains new to type who's only previous SAR experience was day only on a non all-weather BK117...!!!??? Amongst those who commented previously that there's as good experience in the Oz offshore heli community as anywhere what are their thoughts on line trainers who are new to type and the recent HNZ 139 that almost flew into the water flying day vmc?

HNZ might have a couple of contracts in Australia but they are a NZ company, not Oz. Most of their pilots and management are Kiwis. They do not even operate 139's in Australia AFAIK. Don't tar the entire Oz offshore community with the same brush.

Hedski

Evidently you haven't read the Clients' SAR Standard documents?

No I have not. Does that change my assertion? No.

Line trainers new to type is no big deal. Presumably the customer has specified experience requirements for the various pilot roles, and if the pilots HNZ has recruited for the contract meet those requirements then that's a tick in that box. If you scrape through with bare minimums above contract requirements it's still a tick in the box. That's all they will be aiming for, getting a tick in every box. Go cheap on the price, provide nothing more than asked for.

Yep. They had the chance for better standard but didn't take.

Ticking the 'bare-minimum' boxes is a pretty crap way of providing an all weather SAR service:ugh:

Yes. But apparently it's the brave new world we all now have to survive in.

The race to the bottom currently underway is very likely to result in undesirable consequences.


Hopefully the money saved can pay for a bigger "safety department" which can dream up some fabulous acronyms. "Bowties" will save the world. :ugh:

Tis not a brave new world; always been like it in my 30 years ..... more established companies expand training and safety at behest of aviation advisors, to gain trust and hopefully prolong contracts. Oil prices crash or new operations push aviation advisors to one side, and the bean-counters rule the roost. Crying 'snot fair doesn't help - it's probably the sort of innovative, risk taking commercial success shown by the new upstart operator that started their own company previously!

Bow ties ....... if all pilots understood the bowties (in conjunction with studying accident reports), and if the safety department could find a better way to disseminate them, pilots might understand more fully why procedures are in place or checklists are set out ...... then perhaps several of the more prevalent CRM / CFIT failure accidents might have been avoided?

I dislike "Bowties" as well as the overuse of "Risk Assessments" which, even though a good idea, can turn into a 1hr debate as we assess every possible concern, including asteroid hits on the planet. Some folks seem to think we start at the premiss of "We are not going!" and there is a prize for not departing.

The bowties should already be in place for any standard operation; risk assessment should there be a chance of going outside those norms. Short and sweet - agreed. Don't think I was ever accused of not wishing to depart ......