Today's meeting will be in two separate public sessions. The purpose of today's meeting is for the joint committee to discuss the work times of search and rescue crews. On behalf of the committee, I welcome from Bristow Ireland Limited, Mr. Philip Bartlett, director of Irish search and rescue, and Mr. James Lorraine, director.

Witnesses within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or entity outside the Houses or an official of the Houses either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Bartlett to make his opening statement on behalf of Bristow Ireland Limited.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before them. I am the accountable manager and director of search and rescue, SAR, for Bristow Ireland, with responsibility for overseeing the delivery of Ireland’s search and rescue helicopter and fixed-wing operations. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. James Lorraine, a fellow director of Bristow Ireland. As well as holding a senior management position at Bristow Group, Mr. Lorraine is a fully qualified, highly experienced AW189 SAR pilot with many years’ experience in European SAR operations.

Bristow Ireland is honoured to have been awarded the ten-year contract for the delivery of search and rescue services for the Irish State through the Department of Transport and the Irish Coast Guard, IRCG. The delivery of this service is one that comes with tremendous responsibility: for the safety of the Irish people and, equally, for our SAR crews delivering this essential State service. I take this opportunity to state my utmost respect and support for those crews and the broader Bristow Ireland team supporting us.

Bristow is the global leader in search and rescue aviation operations, experienced in saving lives in some of the world’s most challenging environments. We currently operate SAR services for governments and industry in countries, including the UK, Norway, the Netherlands, the USA, Trinidad, and the Dutch Caribbean. We have performed over 31,000 SAR missions worldwide during half a century of exemplary service, saving more than 19,000 people in the process.

To put this in further context, our European SAR operations crews flew a total of 4,303 hours on more than 3,000 emergency taskings this year, rescuing 678 people and bringing urgent aid to a further 900 people in need. Since Bristow’s operations commenced in Ireland last year, more than 300 taskings have been undertaken on behalf of the Irish Coast Guard.

In Ireland, as in every other country, we work to strict operational procedures, requirements and expectations. These are set out in law, defined by regulatory authorities or stipulated within the contract. The services we deliver align with, and are approved by, the Irish Aviation Authority. Our operations are strictly governed by regulators, and our delivery is continuously audited by the Department of Transport against clear contractual requirements.

The IRCG aviation service is currently in a transition phase and, when complete, will see Bristow Ireland operate from bases at Shannon Airport, Weston Airport, Sligo Airport, and Waterford Airport. We work closely with the Department of Transport, the Coast Guard, the Irish Aviation Authority and trade unions at every step. Under this new contract, the Irish SAR fleet will comprise six modern, technologically advanced search and rescue configured AW189 helicopters and, for the first time, two fixed-wing aircraft.

Safety is at the core of everything Bristow does. Our target zero culture means zero harm to people and zero compromise on safety. Every decision we make is driven by this principle. Safety in aviation is achieved through a comprehensive safety management system. This system manages all aspects of safety and, together with our procedures, ensures the highest possible quality of operations and maintenance.

Relating to fatigue specifically, safety is assured through a core component of our safety management system known as the fatigue risk management system, FRMS. FRMS enhances safety with a data-driven, science-based approach, continuously monitoring and managing fatigue-related safety risks, and ensuring personnel maintain required levels of alertness for safe operations. For example, the system includes automatic circuit breakers whereby a base is taken offline to allow the crew to rest and recover from taskings completed during certain time periods. Besides such mandatory protection, Bristow crews are empowered to control their workload in response to any fatigue issues. FRMS is mandated for national coastguard aviation operations and approved by the Irish Aviation Authority. FRMS ensures that any potential fatigue of flight and technical crew is proactively managed on a continuous basis. To summarise, fatigue management is an essential part of safety and, in our operation, is carried out to the highest industry standards. Safety is therefore not at risk.

I turn now to rosters and duty time management for SAR crews, in particular the way working time is recorded and the application of factoring. Our crews are rostered and perform duty in accordance with our approved flight and duty time schemes described in our operations manuals. These specify how crews may be rostered, how much flying time is permitted, and how crew rest may be managed, all to ensure that fatigue is avoided. These procedures are in accordance with O.58, which provides the detailed working time and rest limitations for helicopter crew. Of note, crew duty is limited to 2,000 recordable hours per year and, in accordance with regulation, duty hours are accumulated throughout a shift, whereby hours spent in the crew rest facility overnight are factored appropriately. Factoring is the established process by which aviation operators determine duty time when taking non-flying elements into account. Indeed, factoring is well established in Irish helicopter SAR operations and is common in SAR operations in Europe.

To further clarify the practice of factoring, this refers to overnight crew rest hours between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. when there is no activity beyond holding readiness for emergency response taskings. During this period, crew are at an extended 45-minute readiness to launch for taskings as opposed to their 15-minute readiness in the daytime. This aspect has been the norm in IRCG helicopter operations for many years. If crew rest and sleep are not interrupted, that is, if there is no call-out during these hours, then 16.5 hours are logged for the shift in accordance with the regulation. If they are called out during standby hours, then the full 24 hours are logged. This arrangement, which is familiar to crews in Ireland as well as in other parts of the world, enables the efficient delivery of safe and effective lifesaving services to the community. Our evidence and data gathered provide us with resounding confidence in the suitability of these practices in Ireland and are further supported by our decades-long experience and evidence from our global safety management systems in other jurisdictions.

In our considerable experience delivering first-class SAR operations, there is no indication across any of our systems to suggest that our flight time and duty practices adversely impact safety.

If there were, we would respond immediately.

Similarly, the requirement stipulated under the contract for crews to remain on base for the duration of their shift is, in our opinion, a positive step towards a safer and more effective service. Remaining on base lowers fatigue and has a generally positive impact on safety while avoiding potential outside factors, such as adverse weather, traffic, car breakdown or defective mobile phones. Any of these elements and more could potentially prevent critical team members from responding to emergency calls in time. Similarly, driving into work with urgency at night detracts from the attention needed to mentally prepare for the tasking at hand and exposes crew to avoidable risk.

In recognition of this, Bristow Ireland is investing in modern, purpose-built accommodation to provide crews with a high level of comfort during overnight hours. These facilities are furnished and equipped to high standards and will ensure crews can rest and recuperate properly overnight. As stated, the priority is always safety. Bristow Ireland ensures the highest safety standards are achieved and our working practices align with the regulation, contract and all relevant legislation.

I assure the committee that Bristow Ireland is committed to delivering a service that is not only safe, reliable and accountable but one which is primed to deliver an ever greater level of emergency response, with new helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, technology and facilities for our excellent Irish teams. We welcome oversight and engagement and we will continue to work with regulators, unions and communities to uphold the highest standards of safety and transparency. Perhaps at some stage, the Cathaoirleach, along with the committee members, will have the opportunity to visit the bases to see our operations and facilities at first hand. Bristow Ireland would be grateful for the opportunity to welcome them at that time. I thank the committee for the opportunity to attend. We are happy to take questions.

I thank Mr. Bartlett for his opening statement. I acknowledge the extraordinary work his search and rescue crews do. No one in this room doubts their professionalism, dedication or, indeed, the pressures involved. These are people who leave their families at short notice, fly in the worst weather and save lives. I wish to be clear that the purpose of today's committee meeting is to understand why these changes were made, whether the hours people work are being fairly and accurately recorded and ensure the system is safe for the public and crews. We are not here to take sides. Rather, we are here to get clarity because there are two different stories being told. My speaking slot is first but I will ask Deputy Crowe to speak first, followed by Senator Cosgrove, who is taking Deputy O'Gorman's slot.

I thank the witnesses for being here this morning. I also sincerely thank all of Bristow Ireland’s crews for what they do, in particular Rescue 115 in my constituency. We had a family situation last year which a crew attended. I believe I have communicated privately to Bristow Ireland in that regard. Its heroic efforts were greatly appreciated. I have quite a number of questions so I am going to go straight into it. CHC Helicopter records 17 hours and 15 minutes for a 24-hour shift and their crews go home at night, whereas Bristow Ireland logs 16 hours and 30 minutes but its crews are required to stay at company accommodation. Why is Bristow Ireland only recording 16 and a half hours? How is this legal? Who agreed this?

To broaden the question out, the contract that Bristow Ireland has gratefully received and is implementing requires the crews to be on base. That is certainly a change from previous iterations of the contract. Whoever got the contract-----

Who signed off on it?

It was part of the tender process.

Did the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, give certain approval to factoring or the fact that crews would be on base accommodation for 24 hours?

Yes. Factoring has been present in Ireland for many years and is covered under Irish legislation. Aeronautical Botice No. O.58, issued by the Irish Aviation Authority, allows for factoring. There is no change in factoring from the previous contract to this contract.

I read Bristow Ireland’s code for business integrity, COBI, which states that the company must at all times be within law and regulation. I suggest that, at the moment, given the factoring system and how Bristow Ireland is accommodating workers on site, it is not in line with Irish or EU law. Indeed, it could be in breach of those specific laws. I am specifically referring to SI 507 of 2006. There is no mention whatsoever of factoring in that statutory instrument, so how is all of this congruent with Bristow Ireland’s legal obligations?

I will explain the regulatory environment Bristow Ireland operates in. In order to conduct the search and rescue services we have been approved to provide by the Irish Aviation Authority, we have to comply with thousands of pages of regulations that cover a number of areas, including an air operator certificate, air carrier operating licence, approval to conduct maintenance under Part 145 of the European Aviation Safety Agency's regulations, our continuing airworthiness management-----

It is a highly regulated environment. Within those regulations, however, there is SI 507 of 2006, which deals with the working time legislation for mobile staff in civil aviation. Is Mr. Bartlett familiar with all the details of that particular statutory instrument?

In respect of EU and national regulations for the running of the SAR service, we are in compliance with all regulations. I can make that statement on the basis of thorough legal advice received through our Bristow Ireland counsel.

Away from aviation, Bristow Ireland also has to adhere to employment law. I again contend that what it is doing at the moment could be in breach of EU and Irish employment law.

I referred to the fact that we have had comprehensive and thorough legal advice which has said that we are in compliance with all requirements.

Mr. Bartlett stated that Bristow operates in various jurisdictions. From my research, is it correct that – Mr. Bartlett may clarify this - in another jurisdiction in which Bristow operates, it was deemed that some of its work practices were in breach of national and European laws? Did it get some underwriting in that jurisdiction from a minister or government department to allow it to proceed?

I am not personally familiar with that. I can certainly take that away and come back to the Deputy, but I am not aware of any such details.

Is Mr. Bartlett familiar with the European directive on working time and various rulings of the European Court of Justice under which, if an employer restricts the freedom of its employees' working time, that time needs to be counted in full?

As I said, the legal advice we have received as part and parcel of this coming to Bristow Ireland has been thorough and extensive. We believe we are in compliance with all-----

I thank Deputy Crowe. I will let him back in again. I call Senator Cosgrove.

With respect, and this is not personal, Mr. Bartlett is doing a fine job representing his company but it should have sent its legal team here. I have read the opening statement and my understanding is that he deals in the world of regulation and air safety and getting people out there but the legal team has poorly advised him. I have taken legal advice as well and I believe it has signed Bristow Ireland up to stuff that is in breach of Irish and European employment law. The fatigue risk management system does not allow for those long-established laws to just be overridden. Bristow Ireland should have had a third of fourth person present to deal with those legal questions. They have not been sufficiently answered in the opening statement or in my questioning.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their briefing documents. I live in Sligo so I know the contracts for search and rescue will happen in February. It is a difficult job for the people who work in search and rescue. Not everyone can do it. People in those working conditions are not going to have a dispute or bring matters to attention unless something is wrong, so the fact it has come to this stage makes me question. My first question is similar to one from Deputy Crowe. There seems to be a differential in how factoring is applied between airlines and the rescue service. That is one thing I wish to ask. Is this compliant with EU regulation? I argue it is not. Second, in the context of the new contract, factoring and Aeronautical Notice No. O.58, which Mr. Bartlett spoke about, when will the contract be renegotiated? Who decides this? Who is responsible? If removing factoring is going to make things easier or resolve the current dispute, whose responsibility is it? Is it that of the Minister or the IAA? Where does the buck stop?

First, I am delighted to say that we will be taking the Sligo base on 16 December as our third base, and we are thoroughly looking forward to that.

If I may broaden the picture again, it is important to understand the working day of the crews. They operate a 24-hour shift, and over that 24 hours, the period from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. is a standby period where the crews stand down on a standby basis and go to their accommodation, waiting for tasking.

I am sorry to interrupt. If they lived nearby, could they go home if they wanted to, from a safety point of view, to rest and recuperate?

That is an excellent point. The contract stipulates that the crews are required to remain in base. We see this as a very positive step. By having the crews together for the 24-hour period of time, the elimination of distractions is real.

They have requested it. They have said that if they could go home, they would like to go home, because of the dangerous nature of the job. We hear the term “factoring”. That is what I am trying to understand. If people have requested to go home from a safety point of view, should they be able to go home? How can that be changed? This is the worry with regard to the new contract. It is not about pay. It is about safety.

It is a valid question. It was not for Bristow to determine the criteria for this contract. What we see is that more and more search and rescue contracts around Europe and other parts of the world require the crew to remain on base. That is exactly to enhance safety. It is to remove the multiple distractions that might occur away from base. It is to remove the need to drive in urgency, possibly in inclement weather, already thinking about the task ahead of you. In our experience, it is quite common that this is there.

In relation to the other element of the Senator's question as to where the buck stops in this respect, in the end, the correct way of accounting for crew duty is found in O.58 or its successor, when it is reviewed.

It is a really important issue across the State, particularly in the south east, where I represent Waterford. Rescue 117 is part of the fabric of the county and our coastal communities and responds not just to incidents at sea and on our coastline but also to medical evacuations, road traffic incidents and all the rest.

Mr. Bartlett said in his opening statement that safety is a priority for Bristow. I do not doubt that safety is somewhere on the list of priorities, but I would venture to say that the bottom line of profitability is the number one priority. This is a commercial contract. That is borne out by this decision over factoring and how hours are counted. It is effectively an accounting trick. It is a mechanism for squeezing more out of staff without employing more personnel. The way it looks to me is that 24 hours are being counted as 16.5 hours, which is not honest. I do not believe it is compliant. I understand there might be correspondence from the IAA saying it is compliant, but if that were tested in the courts domestically or at European level, I think Bristow, the Government and the IAA would be found wanting.

Has Bristow lobbied the Irish Aviation Authority on this? Has it sought in any way to influence its interpretation of the regulations or to influence or lobby it in terms of the regulations themselves or how it would see them implemented?

To focus on the question about lobbying, I would like to state that Bristow does not lobby. As an operator, though, Bristow is required and expected to maintain a professional relationship at multiple levels with any key stakeholders, be that with the Department for the delivery of the contract, but most certainly with the Irish Aviation Authority. Our contact with it is daily, if not multiple times per day, under significant oversight-----

My time is limited. Within the professional contact that Bristow has with the Irish Aviation Authority, has it sought to influence its interpretation of the regulations or the design of the regulations?

No, not in that manner. What we have done is connect at the correct levels, from director to COO and, indeed, from our legal counsel to its legal counsel. At those levels, there is a professional and required amount of communication, but solely for the purpose of clarifying regulations and ensuring compliance.

Has there been contact between Bristow's legal team and the legal representatives of the Irish Aviation Authority, especially in relation to the issue of whether 24 hours can be counted as 16.5 hours?

Yes, there has indeed, to verify compliance. As the discussions commenced, we were required to double down on our confidence in our compliance. As my colleague stated, if there is any doubt about compliance, we are forced to act.

Legal advice was mentioned. Would Bristow be in a position to publish that legal advice?

I will have to take that away and verify whether there are sensitivities around that matter. I am happy to come back to the Deputy on that.

Staff who were previously employed by CHC, the previous operator, were taken on with a transfer of undertakings. Will those same terms and conditions of employment be maintained for new entrants?

That is, again, a very valid question. On the topic of transfer of undertakings, the spirit of transfer of undertakings has been maintained as that is the basis of their transfer. In this respect, we do not believe this matter is material but the staff's conditions, working conditions, pay and so on have been transferred. With all of the trade unions, there were subsequent negotiations around collective agreements between themselves and Bristow, the basis of which was the previous undertakings.

They will apply to new entrants who are directly recruited by Bristow but had not been previously been employed by CHC.

Yes.

On a point of order, sometimes, when an action is requested by a committee, it needs to be seconded to become formal. I would second the request that the legal advice be brought forward to us. I do not think legal advice can ever be considered to be in the realm of commercial sensitivity. It is key to a State contract, key to work safety practices and key to rescue helicopter and SAR safety practices. I wish to formally second that and ask that it be furnished in advance of our next committee meeting.

Noted.

My first question relates to the fatigue risk management system. What do the reporting mechanisms of that look like? What are the indicators it uses? How is it analysed to ensure fatigue is being managed in the workforce?

I am delighted that the Deputy was able to attend Weston and see the facilities that I spoke about in the opening statement. FRMS is a database system, as the Deputy has highlighted. We have a number of mechanisms within that system. The crews at the beginning and end of their shift record their fatigue on a recognised scale. We welcome it being updated at any time throughout the day, and we do see feedback from the crews that that is the case. We also have fatigue risk management reports, which are submitted by crews, and we monitor those for trends. We also have environmental monitoring for the crews, both at the accommodation and the crew rest areas, for example, temperature and noise monitoring. That forms the basis of the data we would collect.

How often is that reviewed?

Daily.

I was at Weston. One of the questions that came up in relation to the general issue of fatigue was the flight paths. There has been concern that flight paths are going over residential areas. Has that been tightened up in recent weeks or is it still an issue?

We work very closely with the airport at Weston and all the other airports to ensure that we comply with all the noise compliance requirements of the particular airfield. We have weekly meetings with Weston to discuss noise, and we are constantly reviewing that and working with the airport.

Is Mr. Bartlett satisfied that Bristow is minimising the disruption potential?

Yes, as much as we possibly can at the moment.

Since when has Bristow been operating at Weston?

Since 1 July.

Since when has the base that is available there been operational?

We are in temporary facilities while our main base is being prepared to be built. That will be completed in quarter 4 of 2026.

And what is the number of crew there at any one time?

It is 30, with the ratio of 10:10:10 for pilots, tech crew and engineers.

Would ten be in the temporary facilities base at any one time, or would they be-----

No. On a day-to-day basis, it is a crew of six over a 24-hour period.

Great.

I thank our guests for their time today. I acknowledge the important work their crews carry out. It is important that they be treated with respect. This is a workers’ rights issue but also one of protecting the public and ensuring the service of Bristow Ireland is sustainable. The trade union representatives who will be here later outline that the factoring of the shifts endangers the safety of the service. Twenty-four-hour and 16.5-hour shifts are being logged. It essentially enables Bristow to squeeze more shifts out of the workers. Does Mr. Lorraine not believe that by mandating workers to do more shifts, there is a risk of increased fatigue?

I thank the Deputy for the question. It is important in this topic to focus on the fact that we are not asking workers to do any more shifts. We are maintaining the same or higher levels of staff in every department. In that sense, there is no change. This is not a new issue. It was an existing issue; however, that it is being discussed today does not make it any less valid. In fact, the only change is that the crews remain on base. We can have a discussion about the compliance in that regard. We have stated our position. However, irrespective of compliance, we will state that the arrangement increases safety. Any change that has occurred, in our opinion, exclusively increases safety.

The crews are on base for 24 hours. Is there a risk of increased fatigue?

No. In all our experience and in all our SAR operations – I have 20 years of SAR experience in various countries, under various jurisdictions – we have-----

Was any specific risk assessment carried out on this?

Not just risk assessments but also scientific trials, including sleep studies. External scientists, expert in the field of fatigue, were employed not just at our end but also on the side of the Irish Aviation Authority. The schemes are approved only after thorough verification by us and, subsequently, the Irish Aviation Authority. They undergo a trial, and only then are they fully approved.

I understand the SAR service is financed by the State. In 2023, the Department entered a ten-year contract with Bristow Ireland for coastguard services. Has it made the Department aware of the process of factoring the workers’ hours?

What I can state is that the basis of our crewing solution is part of our tender submission. That is a transparent process. We specify at tendering stage the exact number of staff involved. Subsequently, throughout mobilisation, there is very frequent communication, sometimes daily, with various members of the Department’s team. On a monthly basis, at the very least, the joint management board discusses in great detail any issues or risks that arise or are presented against the mobilisation and transition. Bristow is expected to provide mitigation measures and solutions to any arising issues.

In any of those meetings, did the Department seek changes to the use of factoring?

No. As my colleague has outlined, as part and parcel of the tendering process we provided the details of the manpower we would bring. I reassure the committee that we will have no less manpower employed than the outgoing operator. In fact, Bristow has commenced a number of cadetships. A unique, bespoke one for pilots has already commenced. We have taken on four cadets – young people who will be given a fantastic opportunity to qualify as SAR pilots. Two of them have commenced training already and there will be a further two in May. We have just closed off the recruitment phase for a tech group cadetship. We are recruiting four more tech crew, whom we will train. Our commitment to the staff is solid, and we are seeking to grow as we move forward. Coming from an engineering background, I can state we will be employing apprentices in due course.

It is now my slot. Particularly on behalf of the people I represent, I reiterate the extraordinary work done by SAR crews. People listening in, including in my constituency, will note there are complex issues at the heart of this. Why change the system? Can the delegates explain in simple terms why they are moving from allowing crews to go home at night to keeping them in a base for a full 24 hours? What problem were they trying to solve?

To refer to my opening statement, the safety element and factoring are two separate things. On the other Deputy’s point, safety has been and has to be our number one priority. In this regard, we are held to account internally, and externally through the Irish Aviation Authority. The Irish Aviation Authority engages in rigorous oversight across the various approvals I mentioned. As a result, we are able to come here today very confident about our safety system, our fatigue risk management system, FRMS, and our management of fatigue. Nothing in the legislative landscape in Ireland has changed since the move from the outgoing operator to us.

I believe the question concerned the problem we were aiming to solve and why we would keep crews in a base for 24 hours?

For the ordinary people at home.

We partly addressed this in answering the Senator’s question but I will restate the position. It is a requirement of the contract, not a choice of Bristow. However, in my professional experience and in our corporate opinion, it is a positive step towards safety. By keeping the crews on base, you significantly reduce the risks of external disruption to rest and remove the risks associated with driving to and from work at night, including in inclement weather. It was not a choice of Bristow to do this; however, it is in our requirements, so responsibility still rests with us to implement correctly.

Does Bristow accept the position from a crew’s perspective? Being on a base for 24 hours feels like 24 hours’ work, irrespective of how it is recorded on paper. If I were required by my employer to spend 24 hours on site, irrespective of what I was doing on site, it would feel like 24 hours’ work.

It is important again to state that in some of the media it was reported that this was also applicable to pay. It is important to note that is not the case. Staff are always compensated with the same annual salary irrespective of the number of shifts they do. The number of shifts staff do for us is subject to agreement with the trade unions. That is the forum at which we discuss and agree how much work is required in any roster control period. The principle of accounting for a factored number of hours during rest is not uncommon in Ireland, although the change to staying on base has been highlighted. In many other European jurisdictions, the practice is common. Therefore, in our experience it is not uncommon. What I can state is that our Irish crews’ numbers of shifts, done under similar conditions, are very similar to those of crews in other jurisdictions. In our experience, the practice is not uncommon in the EU and is certainly very safe and proven.

Can Bristow assure the committee that the decision was not shaped by cost savings and staffing constraints, for example?

Absolutely. The second round-----

If I may-----

Very briefly because I want to allow members to contribute again for a second round of four-minute slots of questions and answers.

With regard to concerns about the 24-hour day, from 10 o’clock at night to 8 o’clock in the morning, the crews step back from the base itself and go to their accommodation. That accommodation is well equipped with private and serviced beds. It has gym facilities, a kitchen, communal areas and so on. Bristow has invested heavily in the accommodation blocks for all four bases.

I would always sleep better in my own bed at home rather than a bed provided by an employer, even though I was never in that situation.

First up in the second round of four-minute slots is Deputy Crowe.

Does Bristow treat all of its employees equally? Does the company's code of practice cover how it treats people on base?

In principle, certainly-----

I presume it is a simple "Yes". I will answer for Mr. Lorraine. It is "Yes", obviously, is it not?

Perhaps the Deputy could give more context for the question but in principle-----

It has to be a "Yes". Is it not a given? If a company is asked if it treats everyone equally, the answer is "Yes". Why it is the case, then, that flight crews have to do factoring but when engineers are on site, they get to log a full 24-hour period? That does not seem like equality. We are expecting them all to work through the dark hours and in awful weather conditions but only some are able to count the full 24-hour period while others have to factor. Why is that?

The answer to that is that the Irish Aviation Authority's aeronautical notice O.58 applies to flight crew only and not to engineers.

I will hone in on notice O.58 if I may. That allows for a maximum of 60 hours in a seven-day period or 190 hours in a 28-day period. That is what the notice sets out. However, practically and how it is currently working, flight crews are being asked to work up to nine 24-hour shifts across a month or a 28-day period. That very clearly exceeds the limits that are set out in regulation.

It is quite a complex regulation. The figures that the Deputy has quoted relate to flying hours but one must take into account the flight duty period as well. We are in full compliance with the union agreements and, as my colleague has said, we cannot unilaterally change any agreed shift patterns that are in existence with the three unions, including the recently balloted and agreed collective agreements.

We heard earlier that there was no change in hours but if the limit is 190 but in real time it has gone up to 216, that is a 26-hour increase for people. That is a full day in a calendar month, so it is an increase. It is not fair to say that nothing has changed. There is a major change here. Mr. Bartlett just said that the company cannot unilaterally change these things. Again, I go back to the question I asked earlier. Has the IAA changed something here? Like all of us here, the company is also covered under the Regulation of Lobbying Act. Has the company been lobbying the IAA or the Minister? If it has sought regulatory change, has that been declared under the Regulation of Lobbying Act? Is it there to see on the lobbying register?

I will reaffirm what my colleague has already said. We do not lobby but we certainly engage at various levels with the IAA, as we are obligated to do as an operator across those approvals that we have done. We certainly seek engagement on, and clarification of, regulations but we do not lobby.

Did Bristow specifically seek some changes to aeronautical notice O.58?

No.

Whether we call it lobbying or engagement is beside the point. Did the company seek changes?

No.

Notice O.58 is under revision. In that sense, we are consulted as an industry partner. That is the length-----

What changes is the company seeking to it?

We are not seeking any changes. We are seeking to make sure that we are clear on-----

I do know the details but I presume notice O.58 is quite rigid. It sets a limit of 190 but the company is operating at 216, which exceeds it. I am running out of time but again, I go back to the point that there is a gap in the information being provided here today. The company's legal team needs to send the committee some content. While everyone appreciates what the company's crews are doing, the company also works in an employment law situation and based on European Court of Justice rulings, Irish law, SI 507/2006 and aeronautical notice O.58 the company is out of alignment. I agree with my colleague that safety does matter to the company but it is a new contractor and this is a more commercially efficient way to run things. I would ask the company to treat engineers, flight crews and technical crew at base equally. Finally, I would ask that all of the legal advice, which is so central to what we are talking about here, which is the welfare of workers and the welfare of people the company is dealing with out on site when it flies missions, be furnished to the committee. A report should be produced by this committee and sent to the Minister and the IAA. I am convinced that something has happened here. The company is either compliant with regulation or it is not. If it is not compliant, then there is some correspondence somewhere that we as a committee need to see and need to be furnished with. Whether one calls it lobbying, which would be my terminology, or engagement, which is Mr. Bartlett's terminology, that needs to be furnished to us in the next round of correspondence.

Senator Cosgrove is next.

The company is saying it is compliant but it seems to be exceeding the limit, which is a concern in terms of safety. How many technical crew members are employed nationwide?

I do not have that figure off the top of my head but we have ten per base. That is our baseline. At the moment we operate across two bases so we have ten and ten and with the other two bases coming on, we will see exactly how that pans out.

I would add that the reason the answer is not straightforward is because that number is varying during the transition.

Is it around 40?

It would be around 40 in steady state. We have a higher number of crew than the normal amount required for the number of bases we have because we are transitioning. During that phase, additional staff are employed. That transition team, consisting of engineers, pilots and technical crew, deliver the service from an operational base while the crews from the outgoing operator are undergoing their training.

From a safety rather than commercial point of view, if more technical staff were employed, could the factoring completely change?

Factoring could change but it does not change safety. Again, I want to reiterate that we have decades of experience running operations like this. In Ireland, this has been the norm from the perspective of workload and number of shifts. There is no indication and no safety argument that we can see that suggests it should be less-----

Why have factoring at all then? Would the company object if factoring was taken out of notice O.58 completely?

Bristow built the solution that we deliver today based on the legislation that was applicable at that time. If the legislation changed and that drove our headcount up, that would have implications for our cost base. If that was significant enough, that could be to the detriment of Bristow Ireland, for sure.

Is this in the gift of the Minister? To resolve this from a worker's rights perspective and in order to comply with EU regulations, could the company say that it wants to have factoring removed from notice O.58?

No, we would not because we see no need to do so. What is more, to do so would negatively impact our ability to deliver the service from a crew numbers perspective.

Is that in terms of profit making?

In the short term it would affect our ability to deliver and in the longer term, it will have a cost impact.

In my experience, workplace disputes like this do not arise for no reason. That is the crux of the matter here. Technical staff are not happy with their conditions. They do not do this for no reason, given the nature of their job. The precise skills that people working in this area have must be commended right across the board. If there is a difficulty, it is up to the Minister to deal with the IAA and up to the company to negotiate through it. I would contend that if more technical staff were employed, this would not be an issue at all. Is commercial profit, from the company's point of view, ahead of safety?

I cannot speak to the Minister's contact with the IAA and what may or may not change in regulation but I can say that we would never ask to do something that we are not fully confident in. Speaking for myself, I have been many years in this field, with many years conducting search and rescue shifts always being factored, in multiple jurisdictions. Bristow does not today have any indications, from either its experience or its safety management systems, that there is a need to change. If regulation directs it, then we will deal with it at that time.

How much contact has the company had with union representatives and with Fórsa on this issue?

We have great respect for the trade unions and have been in thorough negotiations throughout the mobilisation period. Lots of ground has been covered and generally, we view the relationships as very positive. This topic has been discussed. For a while, it seemed like something that could be a deal breaker. We thought we were beyond this issue but it is back on the table today.

I will go back to the FRMS reports and the daily reports, just to tease it out a bit further. Are they provided to the IAA in terms of summary data or is that just for internal use?

It is provided to the IAA on a monthly basis.

What does a red flag look like? What protocol is in place when a red flag is raised in terms of fatigue levels or when a risk to operations as a result of fatigue levels is perceived?

Each and every report, however that may come to us, as I indicated with the data sources, is reviewed and looked at. We have fatigue safety action group meetings where all of the previous data is analysed. We call an operations meeting every morning and fatigue across the bases is discussed, so if there is any issue that needs immediate attention, it is addressed at that stage. Otherwise, the data is analysed and if there are any trends, we will then act accordingly.

Is there employee engagement as part of that?

Yes.

What does that look like?

We have fatigue risk management officers at each of the bases. We aim to have two at each base and there is interaction there as well. They form part of the fatigue and safety action group.

I might add to the Chairman's remarks that there are fatigue surveys done among the crew where they can anonymously report their feelings or experience with the fatigue risk management system. There are multiple levels of engagement. We are always seeking feedback on the systems' ability to function and where there might be room to further improve.

Has Bristow Ireland got complaints about the operational times of flights and the routes they take? Does Bristow Ireland track that or try to correlate that with any of the fatigue days it has or is that treated separately?

From an operational basis, if and when we have any fatigue reports or data received, we look at all aspects to ensure everything is analysed and taken into account.

Does that include complaints that would come in from members of the public about a flight time that was outside of restricted hours or deviated from a flight path.

Our fatigue risk management system does not deal specifically with noise complaints. We have a separate department for that. The safety management system and fatigue risk management system deal with those.

I get that. The point I am making is, what is the holistic view that is taken of the overall operations of the base? Obviously, fatigue is a factor that is taken into account.

Certainly.

Has there been an effort to implement the 60-hour working rule across search and rescue contracts by the IAA or any other State agency in recent years?

Could the Deputy clarify on the 60 hours?

Has there been an effort by the IAA to enforce and to say that the 60-hours rule, under the working time directive, is applied across operators of search and rescue contracts?

I could not speak to what the IAA does outside of its regulatory oversight of ourselves.

Has the IAA engaged with Bristow in doing that?

It is essential that this be answered. Sorry to interrupt, but that is essential.

Has the IAA engaged with Bristow with a view to making that invitation? When the witnesses say "regulatory oversight", I am sure there would be an engagement from a State agency about it in that context?

The regulatory oversight that we would have cuts across flight operations and airworthiness. We are held to account against the applicable regulations and audited on a regular basis. We have had no such conversations.

There have been no conversations.

Not that I can recall.

There have been no conversations between Bristow Ireland and the IAA about the implementation of the 60-hour rule under the working time directive.

Not that I can recall. Let me take that away to be 100% sure, but not that I am aware of.

Okay, that is fine. I thank the witnesses.

I will bring this first session to a conclusion. There are so many more questions. There is a formal proposal from the floor, proposed and seconded, in terms of making that legal advice that is underpinning a lot of what the witnesses said today available to the committee, and because the proposal has been proposed and seconded, we will formally write to Bristow Ireland Limited as well in that regard.

We appreciate the witnesses' time today and that of those in the Public Gallery, and the members in particular. We will now suspend for five minutes before we being in our next witnesses, representatives from the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association, IALPA, and Fórsa. We intend to engage with the IAA early in the new year and I am sure this is an area we will revisit. I thank Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lorraine for their time today.

Everyone is welcome to today's meeting of the committee to discuss work times of search and rescue crew. On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to welcome to this second session Captain Mark Tighe, president of IALPA, Captain Daniel Langan, vice-president of IALPA, and Captain Mark O'Callaghan, chair of search and rescue IALPA committee, and from the Fórsa trade union, Mr. Eugene Gargan, assistant general secretary, and Mr. Derek Everitt, search and rescue technical crew.

As the witnesses are in the precincts of Leinster House, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official of the Houses either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Captain Langan to make his opening statement on behalf of IALPA.

I thank the committee for inviting the Irish Air Line Pilots Association to give evidence to the committee this morning. IALPA represents pilots operating in both Bristow Ireland Limited and CHC, which provide search and rescue services, among other services, on behalf of the State. IALPA has a positive working relationship with the operators, which includes industrial relations agreements and collective labour agreements which set out pilots’ pay, terms and conditions. These agreements were referenced in the reply to a parliamentary question, reference number 63061/25, and IALPA can confirm that there are no agreements in place that undermine Irish or European law, especially regarding European working time directives.

In terms of the safety standards and operational requirements of specialised air operations, which include the search and rescue function of the Irish Coast Guard, the State has sole responsibility for establishing such standards and requirements in line with European regulations and international regulations. The IAA has statutory responsibility for the regulatory oversight of aviation safety in Ireland and for advising the Minister for Transport and the Government in this regard.

Pilots who operate the search and rescue function on behalf of the State are being subjected to a factorisation of their working hours. They are now required to be on base for a full 24-hour shift, which is a new requirement of the Coast Guard introduced to reduce the amount of time required to get an emergency helicopter airborne and to reduce fatigue. With this change, a method of factorisation is being used for the purpose of recording and logging pilot hours, thereby reducing the actual hours worked to a reduced amount of time being recorded. This has a detrimental effect on the recording of the pilots’ hours for the purpose of flight time limitations, FTLs, the EU working time directive and, therefore, safety.

The IAA sets out the FTLs and rest requirements for search and rescue pilots in aeronautical notice O.58. Article 22 of the order states, "Airport or heliport standby will count in full for the purpose of calculating cumulative duty [hours]." This is also in line with international best practice and civil aviation norms. The reason this type of duty or work hours is recorded in full and not factorised is the pilot is in the workplace when on standby and it is normal to record all time in the workplace as actual work or duty hours.

Aeronautical notice O.58 also mandates operators to comply in full with the requirements set out in Directive 2000/79/EC, implemented in Irish law as SI 507/2006, the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006. In 2022, the IAA further published aeronautical notice O.76, which mandated operators of specialised operations to fully comply with the provisions set out in the previous notice O.58, while also allowing an operator to vary the flight time limits should it implement an FRMS allowing for a 24-hour operation. The purpose of fatigue risk management systems is to promote safety and make the operation safer than prescriptive flight time limitations. An FRMS should never be used for the purpose of increasing pilot work hours or reducing their rest, but the opposite, to establish a system that ensures pilots, when at work, are not fatigued and are well rested. With the FRMS approved by the IAA for the Irish Coast Guard service, we have seen the tool being used to allow for the reduced recording of work hours not allowed under previous flight time imitation schemes.

There is no provision in law for a fatigue risk management system to amend or propose changes to the requirements set out in Directive 2000/79/EC, which details how working hours are recorded for pilots, nor for the Irish Aviation Authority to approve or allow such changes. The directive stipulates that the maximum annual working time for any pilot shall not exceed 2,000 hours, during which the block flying time shall be limited to 900 hours. There is no possibility of factorising hours or reducing the actual working time to suit an employer or regulator. In 2010, the then chief Coast Guard officer approached the Minister for Transport requesting the Department give an exemption from Directive 2000/79/EC to the then operator of search and rescue services for the purpose of recording work hours for search and rescue pilots. This request was denied, and our understanding is that the then Minister did not believe the State could undermine or interfere with the European directive on a point of law. It is disappointing 15 years later to learn that the same stringent oversight is not being applied and an FRMS has been approved by the IAA that appears not to be in line with existing legislation or the spirit of enhancing safety.

Good morning. On behalf of the Irish Aviation Executive Staff Association, IAESA, branch members of Fórsa, I am grateful for the invitation to appear before the committee and present an issue we feel requires attention at this highest level. I am assistant general secretary with responsibility for the IAESA branch and for our members in it, the technical crew, who are winchmen and winch operators, as well as paramedics and advanced paramedics. I am joined by Mr. Everitt, who works as a technical aircrew winch operator and winchman paramedic. He has more than 28 years’ experience in his role.

The four keys points we will raise today concern the search and rescue, SAR, aircrew at Shannon and Weston airports who are currently required to remain on site for 24-hour duty periods, starting at 1 p.m. and finishing at 1 p.m. the following day under an immediate readiness model. Aircrew based in Sligo and Waterford will transition to this same model on 1 February 2026. Until September 2025, SAR personnel were permitted to return home during duty periods, provided they lived within 20 minutes of the base.

The distinction between immediate readiness and standby is central to understanding this change. Immediate readiness requires the aircraft to be airborne within 15 minutes in certain situations. To meet this requirement, all technical and flight crew must remain physically at the base for the duration of the shift. Standby, by contrast, involves a longer permissible response time.

Crews may wait for a tasking from their homes or other appropriate location and are not required to remain on base. The second point is that the fatigue risk management is a scheme designed to help identify and reduce fatigue among SAR crews. Here, we argue that it is being misused by the IAA to factor the working hours of search and rescue crews. Both EU and Irish law clearly indicates that time spent at work is working time. Recent EU case law from 2021 reinforces this mainstay of workers’ rights. Finally, current IAA regulations seek to classify the on-duty pilots and technical crew as standby personnel for a portion of their continuous 24-hour shift and allow factoring of working hours that are otherwise defined as full working time under legislation. This misapplication of standby regulations and ignoring of working time legislation has resulted in the repeated under-recording of actual working time as defined by law.

It is important to note that from the very beginning of our engagement with Bristow, we were clear that technical crew would not accept any factoring of their hours, that is, recording fewer hours than those worked, which is done in order to allow the operator to continue to roster workers for duties when they have breached their 2,000 hour limit of recorded hours, otherwise known as clock hours, while technically remaining compliant with European Aviation Safety Authority, EASA, and Irish Aviation Authority regulations. Members of the committee should be aware that the size of the disparity between worked hours, the clock hours, and recorded flight hours can potentially be enormous and possibly up to 800 hours in a year. This depends on the pattern of call-outs during immediate readiness time period from 10 o'clock at night to 8 o'clock in the morning, however.

Generally, we have developed a positive working relationship with Bristow Ireland – save for this one critical issue. Having raised our objections to factoring, Bristow management was unequivocally clear with its position. It would utilise factoring, despite our protestations and arguments against it. It even went so far as to confirm that should any of our members refuse to work more than 2,000 hours, they would be immediately subject to the full rigours of Bristow's disciplinary process. The critical issue here is that despite Fórsa’s best efforts in attempting to resolve the issue, Bristow relies on the legal protection afforded to them by the IAA to operate in a commercially profitable way. This is done at the expense of our members’ welfare. Technical crew are happy to work overtime when it is by mutual consent. They are also flexible and happy to adhere to all of Bristow’s other operational rules and procedures. However, given the dangerous and kinetic nature of their work, being able to spend their personal time away from duty is of paramount importance for them. This is a matter of fairness and workers’ rights to have existing law applied fairly to them.

In short, factoring crew hours allows the operator to roster staff for additional time beyond 2,000 hours. The employer seeks to justify this by relying on having a fatigue risk management system, FRMS, in place. An FRMS is required to allow operators to deviate from the standard 12-hour shift and instead operate 24-hour shifts. It should have nothing to do with justifying the recording of reduced hours. Our members have expressed serious concerns that FRMS is being misused and misapplied. In summary, the solution to this issue is potentially a simple one. If the IAA is directed by the Minister to mandate all operators to adhere to the spirit and intent of the EASA regulations, mindful of compliance with several relevant case law examples, and to properly record all worked hours as elapsed hours, the issue would be immediately resolved.

As I did at the outset of the first session, I acknowledge the extraordinary work carried out by our search and rescue crews. Nobody in this room, at this committee or in Leinster House doubts their professionalism and their dedication, particularly with regard to the pressures involved. These are people who leave their families at short notice, fly in the worst weather conditions and ultimately, save lives. They save lives. We will move on with four to five minutes for questions and we will have a second round as well. I will move straight to the members because we have to finish at noon.

I have a number of questions. It is a split meeting and the points transcend both meetings. There are a few quick things I would like to say at the outset. When Deputy McGuinness asked his questions, he was told unequivocally and categorically there is no change to working hours, everything is the same and nothing has changed here at all. For me, I got the grain of truth at the end because we heard from Bristow that its crewing levels are determined by factoring. If factoring determines crew levels, if you removed factoring, you would require more crew. There is more cost for the company. There is a commercial decision central to all of this. I can tell you one thing: when any of us here phone 999 or see something out at sea, or someone has fallen down a ravine, I do not want a yellow-pack search and rescue service. I want one that is properly paid, looked after when they are at base and one whose stress levels are not through the roof when they are at home. That is the search and rescue service I want. What I heard at the end was if you join the dots, you make a circle. There is a commercial decision at the heart of this here.

I have a specific ask. On foot of what Deputy McGuinness suggested earlier, and I second it, I have an ask of the committee. Aeronautical notice O.58 is what governs a lot of this here. Something has changed that has allowed those hours to be exceeded. Something has changed and things like this do not just get dreamed up. There is some correspondence trail. I want the committee to formally seek, and hopefully it will be seconded, that before the IAA comes in, this trail of correspondence is furnished to us. Something has happened here that has utterly transformed how our search and rescue bases work and how their hours are factored. I ask that correspondence be sought and furnished to us in its entirety beforehand.

Finally, I note this went before the WRC before but it was bounced asked as an aviation regulatory issue. It is not. It is a workplace. I am only one member of this committee but in my opinion, there are breaches of EU and Irish work law. That belongs in the WRC. Maybe Kieran Mulvey or someone could come in here and mediate. Maybe it needs to go directly to the WRC but I also suggest that be a formal suggestion from this committee, as in its current kicking over and back, it is not going any place fast. Those are two suggestions I formally make.

Mr. Everitt is a trained paramedic, hanging on a rope with a helmet out at sea. It is crazy what they do. The value of what he does and our pilots cannot be underestimated. Could Mr. Everitt go back and talk about when he worked under CHC, what was his working time like and how has that changed with factoring? I have one last question and I encourage Mr. Everitt to use all the time he has, at the Cathaoirleach's discretion. Fórsa circulated correspondence. Attachment No. 3 was an old email that said everything had to be brought within this 2,000 hour work limit. What has changed? Could Mr. Everitt talk us through that attachment that was in our briefing pack, please?

Good morning and I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here today. I have been in search and rescue for 28 years. My first five years were in the Defence Forces. I joined CHC in 2002. In 2002, my contract stated my working hours would be arranged when I arrived on base. At that time, my 24-hour working shift was calculated at 18 hours and 45 minutes. In that, from 9 o'clock at night until half 7 in the morning, those hours were counted as 50% time. That lasted until about 2010 when some of our search and rescue aircrew actually breached the 2,000 hour limit. You can imagine the amount of work you have to do to breach the 2,000 hour limit, even though your hours are being factored. The Irish Aviation Authority actually closed the base for a period of time because of it.

To rectify this, the Irish Aviation Authority gave CHC permission to use a new flight time limitations, FTL, scheme. That FTL scheme quartered our time for the first six hours, from 9 o'clock at night to 3 a.m., so every hour you worked was only counted as 15 minutes, and halved it again. I went from 18 hours and 45 minutes to 17 hours and 30 minutes. They also gave a further permission to backdate that for an entire year. I was at 1,920 hours. Overnight, I went to 1,710 hours. That was across all four bases immediately.

From 2010 onwards, we were on quarter time, half time, while on immediate readiness. That is another thing I would like to talk about; the stand-by method terminology. We are on immediate readiness. When the phone goes, you get an immediate response - 15 minutes by day to airborne and 45 minutes by night. You then travel forward to the new contract where the contractor has to comply with the request for tender from the Government through the Department of Transport. It deems we must stay on base at night.

We must stay on the base at night. With that in mind, through our union we said that if we are staying on base, we are physically at work. Conversations were had with Bristow during our negotiations and it was 24 for 24 all the way through to June 2025. Then, almost overnight, it was a case of no, we are factoring. Now my working day has gone from 17 hours and 30 minutes to 16 hours and 30 minutes and I am on the base for 24 hours. That is the small history lesson as to how we have descended and it has been eroded from-----

I would like to go back to a point Mr. Everitt made. He referenced at one point exceeding the 2,000 hours was deemed so unsafe and wrong that the base was temporarily closed. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Now, exceeding the 2,000 hours has become standard. Someone has signed off on that.

The best way to explain how they succeeded is this. At a personal level, last week I did three duties in a row. I did Monday into Tuesday, Wednesday into Thursday and Friday into Saturday. That is 72 hours based on good leaving cert maths. However, on my FTL scheme it is calculated as 49 hours and 30 minutes. I did not get a night call-out on any of those three duties and, as the Cathaoirleach said, people sleep better when they are left at home. I was on duty the night before Storm Bram.

Does it affect performance when out at sea?

We are on call. It does not matter whether we are on the base, in a bed or wherever; we are on call. We have done a scientific study into this. People sleep better when they are not on call; it is as simple as-----

Has the unsafe practice now become the allowable practice?

The allowable practice of factoring and the continued erosion, which is documented here today, means there are changes in the contract. I have gone from 17 hours and 30 minutes down to 16 hours and 30 minutes overnight. Over my entire 23-year career on call, EU law has caught up with us and we have never looked at that. In 2015, firefighters in Belgium on an eight-minute call-out pointed out that they had no social value when at home. When the phone rings they have to be there in eight minutes. That was deemed to be full working time by the European Court of Justice. The same happened in 2021 where emergency workers in Germany have to get from A to B in 20 minutes in a uniform very similar to ours. We get a call at night-----

Mr. Everitt talked about ongoing engagement. Everything was fine and it was 24 for 24 in terms of the move on base. Then he suggested there was an overnight change. What does he suspect led to that overnight change? Mr. Gargan might wish to come in on that as well.

What I suspect is what was outlined earlier. The Deputy called it lobbying and engagement with the Irish Aviation Authority. As a company, it is a commercial operation. There are ten of me per base. There are ten of Mark per base. There are ten engineers per base. There is a six-person crew on base. Something happened in summertime whereby we were 24 hours for 24 hours on duty and then it became 16 hours and 30 minutes with factored quarter time - every hour after 10 o'clock only counts for 15 minutes.

In the last session one of my concluding questions was whether this decision was shaped by cost savings or staffing constraints and they said absolutely not. Does Mr. Everitt agree with that?

Absolutely, I do not.

On both cost savings and staffing constraints.

Absolutely. If the Minister decided to say there is no more factoring, the solution is already in country. This solution is here with training personnel.

I know the witnesses were here in the room earlier, but I will say it again while they are sitting at the table. I thank and commend all those who work in the search and rescue service, and the members of IALPA and Fórsa for the service they give. As Chair of the Oireachtas Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs and as a lifelong trade unionist, I feel this in both senses. It is a workers' rights issue and it is also about safety. It is about the safety of the crew and it is about the safety and well-being of the people they are tasked to respond to. My colleague David Cullinane and I, both Waterford TDs, have raised the matter. We have brought a Topical issue in the Dáil. Last week with our Sinn Féin colleagues, we brought in a Private Members' motion on this issue.

We understand the difference between stand-by and immediate readiness. A commercial airline pilot in the airport or close to the airport on standby in case a pilot is ill and cannot turn up for work to take over a scheduled flight is different from waiting there in immediate readiness to go and respond to an incident on the sea or on land. We understand that difference. I do not know that the Government necessarily appreciates it but it should.

The response from the Government to our raising of this issue has been that the Minister has no regulatory responsibility. We know that. The Irish Aviation Authority is the regulator, but the Minister and the Government have political responsibility and they must act on it. That is a clear message I wanted to give today. I think it is very clear and I think Mr. Everitt hit the nail on the head. This is a commercial contract. This is about cost. The operator here is doing what a commercial operator will always do; it will prioritise a margin for itself as otherwise it would not be entering into contracts of this nature. However, it is for the Government and the regulator to balance the natural and legitimate demand of a private operator to seek more profit for its shareholders with the public good and I do not think that is happening here.

We are seeing far in excess of 2,000 hours being worked. It is accounted as 2,000 hours to provide more coverage for less money to increase the margin of a private operator. I believe that the FRMS is being used as a fig leaf. It has value and merit in its own right, I do not discount that, but it is being used as a fig leaf to cover up that very basic fact.

I will put my questions to Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. Everitt in turn. What is the key message to Government coming out of this meeting? The Minister has not appeared before this committee apart from very briefly to present Estimates. What would be the witnesses' message to the Minister for Transport from today's meeting?

The key message would just be that the European working time directive be fully recognised with regard to our working hours. That would be the main takeaway for me for this committee. The factoring of these hours under-records the amount of time that the search and rescue crews spend on the base.

This is a purely legislative case. This is about the application of Irish law. We are at the disposal of our customer, which is the State ultimately, for 24 hours. That has to count as full time under Irish law, EU law and EU case law. It all points in the one direction. I thank the committee. I urge the Minister to look at what I have just outlined as a brief history lesson, which is a problem lasting more than 25 years with the under-recording of search and rescue air crews' time.

I formally second the proposal made by Deputy Crowe earlier in terms of that document. I had meant to do that at the outset.

We heard testimony here that search and rescue aircrew have been threatened with disciplinary action if they refuse to work more than 2,000 hours irrespective of how Bristow and the IAA count those 2,000 hours. Workers who work know how many hours they work. What is the response from Fórsa, as a trade union, and from IALPA, as an association, to that threat of disciplinary action? Is there a potential for industrial action should it come to that?

That is a good observation and I thank the Deputy for the question. This matter was brought up during the negotiations for the agreement we currently have with Bristow which was necessary because there was no framework which would have made sure that all those terms and conditions would have transferred from the previous operator directly to Bristow. That was something we had to engage in. There was a disagreement between me and a member of management in Bristow in that we are counting hours as elapsed hours, clock hours if you like. Bristow was saying that there is a different number for our members of technical crew. I asked what happens when we get close to that flight time limit, FTL, of 2,000 hours. I was told in no uncertain language that they would be subject to the full rigours of disciplinary process, which one can only imagine would be up to and including dismissal. That had a chilling effect on the conversation at that point and was most unwelcome.

We got past that and there is a scheme with a trial of an amended roster which will start in June of next year.

However, it remains to be seen how successful or not that is going to be. Ultimately, the problem is that there are simply not enough technical crews to operate the roster to the proper way by accounting for 2,000 hours as proper elapsed hours. My concern is that we are going to enter into a phase of potential industrial action or certainly conflict in the coming months. It will not be immediate, but it is down to this.

Bristow is relying, as we can expect it to do, on a commercial advantage that has been provided to them by the interpretation of the law and aeronautical notice O.58 as it is. Again, I note that at the debate on 2 December in the Dáil it was stated by two Ministers of State that the Minister for Transport has no hand, act or part in any of this. If that were the case, though, then surely the Department of Transport would not have been invited to make observations and become involved in the review of aeronautical notice O.58, such as it is. My understanding is that this is a very limited review. That is potentially the opportunity we would say should be taken by the Government to address this issue and head off this very serious industrial relations matter coming down the tracks towards us.

I thank Mr. Gargan. I call Senator Cosgrove.

I thank everyone for coming and for their briefing documents as well. As a lifelong trade unionist and someone who lives in County Sligo, between the sea and Ben Bulben, we are really very lucky to have a search-and-rescue helicopter based in the county. The helicopter is a regular feature, particularly where we live. For the public, here and watching at home, would Mr. Everitt describe how his day works as a technical crew person and what it looks like?

I thank the Senator for the question. I have been flying up around her house for probably around 28 years now, all told, so apologies for the noise. The best way to explain my day is probably to look at yesterday when I handed over to the duty crew at 12.45 p.m. They have now been on duty for on or about 23.5 hours. They have another hour and a half to go and they are hoping they do not get a call out, and that is in every base across the country automatically right now. In Weston, Waterford, Shannon and Sligo, they have all been on duty for 23.5 hours. Once crew members go on duty, they take the aircraft and the responsibility over, and it is a responsibility. Their day is determined by various things, including checks and a flying programme. We all need to fly and to stay proficient. We fly by day and by night. At the same time, we always live under the tasking agency, which can at any moment, day or night, call us for anything, for absolutely anything. In my 28 years, I thought I had seen everything, but I actually have not seen everything. As we go through our 24-hour day, like the Cathaoirleach said in the earlier session, it is 24 hours and you do feel it. Yes, we go and rest. Yes, we go to sleep. It is not your sleep, though. We are on a phone provided by the company. We are in accommodation provided by the company. We are on a radio provided by the company. The moment that radio goes off, we are up and moving to whatever. We are an unscheduled service; we do not know what we are going to. The reason it is 45 minutes at night, for example, is that we have to wake up. There is sleep inertia.

In the current contract, we stay on base. There are two bases that go home. I think the contractor, the Irish Coast Guard and the Department of Transport changed that. It was changed based on a recommendation or review following the Rescue 116 crash. That is why that was changed. That is why we stay on base now. Once we are up and moving when a call comes in, we are planning immediately. There is an immediate response, so we do not own our day. We do not own any minute of the day. We are always on call. It does not matter whether we are in the aircraft, at the base or at the accommodation. We can be doing checks or whatever. Once we go in, that is us for 24 hours. As the principal response agency in the country, we are the only emergency service that does 24-hour duties. The 24-hour model of duty is a good model of duty considering that FRMS has been brought in to justify 24 hours, and not to justify factoring. So, that is a 24-hour shift. When we go in, that is it. Where we end up is not up to us. When we go is not up to us. We have some control over when we fly. We plan to fly. We plan to fly by day or by night or to do it in the morning. We may have stakeholder engagements, with members of the Coast Guard, for example. We work with all the other principal response agencies in the country, including the fire service, An Garda Síochána, the ambulance service, north and south of the Border. We can plan those, but sometimes we plan them and they go out the window because we are going out on a call. That is the 24-hour duty.

I thank Mr. Everitt. It is shocking that it was originally negotiated to say there will be disciplinary action if the figure of 2,000 hours is exceeded, which crew members are inevitably going to do.

As the Senator has seen here this morning, it is like asking ten people to dinner and only buying enough food for eight people. It is like just adding water to dilute it down. That is what has happened to my working hours over 23 years. They have been diluted down; just add more water and dilute them down. We have ten people doing what is probably the work of 12.

It is shocking that the response would be to take a disciplinary matter. Has Bristow engaged positively with Fórsa? I pose that question to Mr. Gargan.

Yes, there has been engagement, and it would be unfair to say otherwise, but the engagement has taken a very long time. It has been complicated from the outset by the fact that when we originally engaged with the company, the Department and the Coast Guard, Fórsa's position was that TUPE ought to apply, and it should apply, but there was a refusal to engage with it. What we were offered instead was something like TUPE. We were told there would be an agreement. Bristow would broker an agreement with us that would cover all the other features proved by TUPE, but not TUPE itself, which is a strange and bizarre approach to take from our point of view but we had to work with it. That delayed matters quite significantly. As I said, through a tremendous amount of work with Mr. Everitt and the other representatives, we have resolved nearly all the issues, save for this particular matter. From the very outset, literally from day one when we met Bristow initially, we were clear that factoring was not something we were going to accept and nor could we accept it. The company was silent on it until it had the confirmation from, I am assuming, the IAA that it would be able to utilise this particular scheme. In one sense, who can blame Bristow? There is a commercial decision. It is not a charity. It is a significant contract to have with the State for a long period of time, so of course the company is going to try to maximise the benefit to its own shareholders, as was mentioned here earlier.

The representatives of the IAA have a huge number of answers to give when they come in before us.

Yes, absolutely.

I thank Mr. Gargan and Mr. Everitt.

I thank Mr. Gargan. I apologise to Mr. Langan and Mr. Tighe because all the questions have been for Mr. Everitt and Mr. Gargan, except perhaps for one or two for Mr. O'Callaghan. I am glad Senator Cosgrove asked about Mr. Everitt's day-to-day work. I think he mentioned having been 28 years in search and rescue. Is that correct?

Yes.

This might perhaps be an unfair question, but how many lives has Mr. Everitt saved in those 28 years? I ask this question because it is very difficult to reconcile that with where we find ourselves at the moment and the reason we are here today. What impact is this having on Mr. Everitt in terms of how he applies himself and his morale as he goes into work every single day?

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the question. Honestly, I do not know how many lives I have saved. I know I have saved my own a couple of times. It is a very challenging job and I work with exceptionally talented people who are extremely dedicated and focused.

I do not think we can probably comprehend how challenging it is.

As the Cathaoirleach is aware, it is a six-person crew. That is it. Whatever happens on the day, it is up to those six people. There are two pilots - I have flown with Mr. O'Callaghan many times - two technical air crew and two engineers. Once we come on shift, as I said to the Senator, what we face is what we face. We do a lot of training. When we select people, we select them on the basis of certain criteria we are looking for, particularly in a search-and-rescue environment, and we work together in a very cohesive team. We do not work with the same crew all the time and we do not work at the same base all the time. I predominantly work in Dublin, but I have done search-and-rescue on all four bases over my career.

What impact is this current dispute having on the morale of crews? I am going to ask the same question of the other witnesses.

It is having an absolutely detrimental effect.

We are looking at ourselves and thinking whatever about there being a possibility of factoring in somebody when they are at home, we are not at home any more. We are on duty and on site for the 24 hours. Somebody telling us this is only 16 and a half hours, when the Cathaoirleach said-----

The issue is not with being on site. There is no issue with the requirement to be on site.

We do not have an issue, absolutely.

It is about being recognised for the hours spent on site. As I said earlier, I worked in the private sector for 35 years. When I was supposed to be on site, irrespective of my workload, I was on site. I was away from home, and I should have been rewarded for the hours that I was in my workplace.

That is correct.

The issue for the witnesses, as pilots and as technical staff, is not about being on site; it is about being rewarded for the number of hours they are on site.

It is about the accurate recording of the hours that I am on site under all of the legislation we have just highlighted. As Mr. Gargan said, I do not blame Bristow. It is my employer and it is doing exactly what it is being allowed to do. However, it is being allowed to do it by the Irish Aviation Authority. My previous employer was also allowed to do it by the Irish Aviation Authority. It is almost telling us that black is white. This is the morale problem. This is the circle that must be squared. We are there for 24 hours. In my entire career, it has never been counted as 24 hours unless I get night call out. If someone is in danger, then it will be stated that we worked 24 hours. If not, we are told that we only worked 16 and a half hours.

Is it fair to say that among the technical staff - and I will ask the pilots also - morale is very low.

That is absolutely the case in respect of this matter, and it always has been. This is not a new subject. As our summary describes, we engaged with the WRC, which stated that our case has merit but that it can do nothing because it is up to the Irish Aviation Authority.

It was 18 hours between 1993 and 2009.

Correct.

It then went to 17 hours being recorded when people moved on site. I want to come back to the on-site conditions in terms of the morale of the pilots and the impact this is having.

Pilots are highly trained and highly skilled. They fly multibillion euro aircraft. They rescue people around the coast and provide the ambulance service. It is a skilled job. Regulations matter to pilots. We comply with them in all forms in what we do when we fly. What is really important to highlight is that morale is quite low on this particular point. A change took place, and that was a change in the contract. It is also important to highlight how factorisation comes in and how it came about. Factorisation is a long-standing norm in civil aviation and special flight operations whereby pilots are on standby at home. It recognises that people are at home where they get better sleep and can go about their business. When the change took place, and the Government and the Irish Coast Guard mandated that pilots be on base for 24 hours, we welcomed it with the full understanding that the operator would follow the regulation, which is O.58. This specifically states that if someone is on heliport or airport standby, which they are, it counts in full for duty hours. It is just like airline pilots. If they are sitting at the airport, they are on full duty hours. We had this change in the contract with the introduction of the requirement to stay on base for 24 hours. It was then somehow it was realised that there was a problem with the hours and that the number of crew would need to be increased. How this issue was fixed was to call standby at the airport standby at home, which it is not. It is this fudging of the changing from home to airport.

In terms of the agreement to move on base, I presume it had to be agreed between the unions representing the pilots and the technical staff, or was it compulsory?

It is a compulsory requirement.

Was there no choice?

There was no choice. It is a compulsory requirement.

I apologise if this has been already said, but I just want to properly understand what is involved. I want to ask about the conditions of the on-site accommodation Weston was transitioning and Sligo and Waterford were in February. Will Mr. Everitt explain the shift?

It is from 1 p.m. to 1 p.m.

At what stage do people go to their on-site accommodation with their own beds? There is some suggestion of a gym. I do not know. It was described this morning. What it is like?

At the moment, neither of the bases has accommodation on site. My Shannon colleagues go to a hotel that is very close by, and we go to a house at the boundary fence of Weston Airport. We drive there in two vehicles provided by the company. When we go in, we are allocated a room. This is at 10 p.m., and we are on immediate readiness in the house until 8 a.m.. Then we return to 15 minutes readiness.

To put it in a nutshell, AN O.58 is very clear in the context of the legislation. The IAA appears to be using the existence of an FRMS to negate AN O.58. FRMS as a concept is relatively recent in the aviation industry, but it does not override legislation. That is something Deputy Crowe identified earlier. I want to reiterate it clearly for the committee.

I thank Mr. Tighe. We will have a quick second round of three minutes each. I will bring in Deputies Crowe and McGuinness and Senator Cosgrove in that order.

I apologise for running off, but there was a Dáil debate I had to attend. I have a few quick questions. I am looking at the pack the witnesses sent in with their submission. There is an email that is referenced as attachment No. 3. It relates to CHC reduced working hours and was sent on 22 March 2010. It states explicitly that with immediate effect, all CHC Ireland aircrew shall adhere to a maximum duty time of 2,000 hours per annum. That was deemed to be safe and best practice at the time. Something has changed radically since then. I would say that was when a new contract came in. The move from CHC to the new contract provider, Bristow, allowed people to do a bit of a reset. There was a contract negotiation and there was over-and-back. Subsequent to that, there was engagement or lobbying - I call it lobbying, and they will call it engagement - and basically the FRMS, which Captain Tighe referred to, is now being used as a way to override Irish and EU law. Will the witnesses expand on that? Will the be more specific as to how this breaches domestic and European law. During their presentation, they referenced a European Court of Justice case involving a Dutch or German fire service where there was an attempt to bring this in. Will they elaborate on that?

Perhaps if we have time, IALPA can answer my next question. It seems that some of this change belongs in the sphere of commercial civil aviation, with airlines and pilots having to go out in the morning and factoring hours for them. Has a solution for this sphere been applied it to the unpredictable world of search and rescue? When I hear of fatigue, low morale and staff not being treated right, it worries me. It worries me at a human level and because these helicopters take off at speed and at night to get to the most precarious and dangerous situations. We want the pilots and people like Mr. Everitt to be at their very best when they take off. I am sure they are at their best, but it is a strain. That is obvious.

The Irish Air Line Pilots Association has correspondence from the IAA dating back to 2010, when it informed us that the Minister would not give any derogation on the European directive and that it had to be complied with in full. At that time, the IAA wrote to CHC to tell it that. The latter is the email Deputy Crowe is referring to. The legislation on mobile workers clearly states the 2,000 hours have to be spread evenly throughout the year. People cannot do 200 hours one month and 100 hours the next. It has to be spread evenly. What we see now is that if someone does nine shifts in month, which is 216 hours, it is clearly over the limit of 190. It also does not apply the 2,000 hours equally throughout the year. Deputy Crowe asked what can we do about it. We are very clear that this is European law. We are already in the early stages of the transfer. If the 2,000 hours is breached for our members, however, we will go to the WRC and the Labour Court on points of law. It will be disappointing if we have to do this because this is a function of the State. Although the IAA is a regulating the service, the Department of Transport has oversight of the IAA.

Deputy Crowe asked about case law, Irish law, morale and the use of the FRMS. The FRMS is an excellent tool to ensure that I am capable of doing my job.

That has nothing to do with the fact that I am at work doing my job. I am at work doing my job. SI 507/2006 states:

"working time" means any period during which a crew member is working, at the employer's disposal and carrying out the activities or duties of his or her work, including on-call duty performed by a crew member where he or she is required to be physically present at his or her place of work...

That is Irish law. This is a legislative matter and it is an EU matter, underscored by Council directive No. 2000/79. The European case law that has been brought is in relation to Belgian firefighters who are on an eight-minute call-out response time from home. For my colleagues who are still on the old contract sitting at home, that should be counted as full working time. They are at home but they can do nothing other than to sit and wait for that call. This is clear under European Union law in three cases. One was a decision of a Belgian court which was brought to the European Court of Justice. The second case was in Germany, where an on-call fire service had to be somewhere within 20 minutes. They all say the same thing: if the on-call period is so restrictive that the person can do nothing else but be on call, then it does not matter where they are, that is full working time.

I thank Mr. Everitt. I will now let in two other speakers, Deputy McGuinness and Senator Cosgrove.

I just want to reiterate that I absolutely reject any attempt by Bristow Group as an employer or by the Government, the IAA, or the Minister, as people with responsibility who would oversee this, that any member be it pilot or technical personnel would be subject to any disciplinary action for making a stand and saying they will not work a minute over the 2,000 hours annual limit. This is about safety. It is about safety of the personnel. It is about ensuring that we do not have tragedies like we have seen in the past, including in counties Mayo and Waterford. It is about ensuring that the people of Ireland, those of us who live along the coastline but also the whole people of Ireland, can avail of an adequate, safe and responsive search and rescue service. I just want to make it extremely clear that I will have absolutely no truck with, and completely reject, any attempt by Bristow Group as an employer or anybody else to stand over anything like the threat that is held over IALPA or Fórsa members. It is absolutely repugnant and should not be tolerated. In one way I wish that the witnesses had been in before the committee ahead of the Bristow witnesses so I could put that to them as forcefully as I am saying it now.

I am extremely worried about a set of professionals, highly trained and highly skilled with years of experience, and obviously very dedicated to their work, being threatened. Not only that, there is an impact on the culture of service and on the culture of safety in ensuring that everything is right, checking and checking again, and working out the details before taking to the skies. That culture is being undermined. The crews are being asked to undermine their own culture and they are being asked to do things that are unsafe. I do not think that is good and it does not bode well for the service. It is obviously having an impact on the well-being and morale of the personnel. I also fear it will have a knock-on impact on recruitment and retention, the availability of the service and its capacity to be sustainable and to survive. This is all because a commercial operator, effectively, does not want to recruit sufficient staff. I would be interested in knowing and hearing from both IALPA and Fórsa how many additional personnel in both sections they think it would take for Bristow to be able to provide the full level of service within the 2,000 hour limit-----

The Deputy needs to give the witnesses time to answer.

Yes. Finally, I think it is important to point out for people listening and watching to understand that 2,000 hours is not unreasonable. If one was to work eight hours a day, five days a week, for 50 weeks of the year, that is 2,000 hours. That would be with the absolute minimum two weeks of statutory leave. This is what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who are flying platforms into the air to conduct rescues at sea. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence.

At the moment, crewing is approximately nine pilots per base. The problem is they ran with nine pilots per base on the previous contract as well but those pilots could go home and sleep in their own beds, and then that was factorised under the legislation. Now those nine pilots are in the workplace so it cannot be factorised as per aeronautical notice O.58, which means that the head count needs to increase. We are probably looking at another two to three pilots per base should they not factorise as they would have done previously.

From the technical group perspective we estimate approximately two per base, which would be sufficient. I note also that AN O.58 actually provides for the provision of factoring, but it does not mandate it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the operator from bringing in a regime of recording the hours properly and crewing the bases properly for pilots and technical crew. It appears to be just a straightforward commercial decision to do so. This is notwithstanding the fact that we do have agreements with them. We do. But this still remains an issue and it is something which is absolutely solveable, in our view. It is something that the Minister can intervene on, and on which the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, can provide the clarity required.

I call Senator Cosgrove but we are getting tight on time. Apologies.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I agree that if it is not mandated, it can be changed. It is the responsibility of the IAA to ensure this is looked at. It is shocking that the working conditions are like this. It is a basic workers' rights issue in the service the witnesses provide. When I questioned Bristow witnesses earlier they said to me that factoring happens in other jurisdictions. Is that true? I asked that question but I got a kind of a fudgy answer saying that this happens in other jurisdictions. Does it?

Yes, it does. Civil search and rescue is a young aviation operation in the sense that it is probably in existence since the early 1980s in the UK and the early 1990s in Ireland. To catch up with that in terms of legislation, they have just used fixed-wing legislation. Basically it is a mirroring of fixed-wing legislation over search and rescue. It got some improvement after the Rescue 116 crash but nobody foresaw another reduction in our working time calculation, and in particular nobody foresaw that we were going to be staying on site. Does that answer the Senator's question?

Yes, that is great. Thank you.

I thank the members. Thank you to all our witnesses today - the three captains, Mr. Tighe, Mr. Langan and Mr. O'Callaghan, and Mr. Gargan and Mr. Everitt. Reflecting on my notes, obviously the committee will further engage, including with the Minister. The Minister will be before the committee before the end of January. The IAA will be here in early January. Today's session has really prepared us well for that engagement. There are a number of key follow-ups from today for additional information that we will request from Bristow. We will write to it on the legal advice underpinning some of its decisions. Clearly there is real disagreement in how crews feel that their hours, rest and well-being are being respected. The extent to which crews are being overstretched is really concerning. They personally feel that they are being undervalued. The public must have confidence that the people flying these crucial and important missions, which often result in the saving of lives, are crews that are rested, alert and, most important, supported.

I do not have a date yet for our meeting with the IAA but it will probably be in the first couple of weeks of January and we are hoping the Minister will be in on 21 January or 29 January. This issue will be central, as well as a number of other matters, in our engagement with the Minister. The key today is preparing us, as members, for those engagements. I thank everybody, and I thank members of the public in the Gallery for their attendance.